Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
)
_____________________________________ )
)
24
25
Plaintiff George Sharp (Sharp or Plaintiff) hereby respectfully submits this Separate
26
Statement of Items in Dispute pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 in support of its
27
Motion to Compel Further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, to
28
3
4
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
10
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
11
12
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
13
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
14
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
15
unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of responding to such
16
requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
17
18
19
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
20
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
21
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
22
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
23
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
24
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
25
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
26
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason
27
for not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
28
-2Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
case could not be used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly
Documents obtained from the internet may not be admissible as they are not certified and
receiving certified copies would be an undue burden and expense on the Plaintiff. Instead of
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.). A corporation is bound to keep corporate documents and should have
10
As for the assertion that the requests is burdensome, the true test of burdensome and
11
harassing is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so great, and the
12
utility of the information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of justice to require
13
responses. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21
14
(1968) (As the court said in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a
15
trial court In the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the
16
information sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery
17
imposes some burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is
18
demonstrated to result in injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance
19
Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the
20
quantum of work required to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417.
21
The Responding Party does not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the
22
response may be expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery.
23
See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
24
Further, an objection on the grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in
25
injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 272 Cal App 2d 499.
26
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
27
this case in that it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the spam email pump and
28
dump scheme, as well as those in control of the company when it willingly participated in the
-3Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
scheme, including potential alter-egos. The discovery will also aid in establishing potential
witnesses.
All documents relating to the assignments and resignations of any officers and directors
of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. or its predecessor company(s) since May 2, 2009.
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
10
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
11
12
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
13
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
14
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
15
unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of responding to such
16
requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
17
18
19
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
20
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
21
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
22
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
23
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
24
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
25
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
26
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason
27
for not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
28
-4Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
case could not be used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly
Documents obtained from the internet may not be admissible as they are not certified and
receiving certified copies would be an undue burden and expense on the Plaintiff. Instead of
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.). A corporation is bound to keep corporate documents and should have
10
As for the assertion that certain requests are burdensome, the true test of burdensome and
11
harassing is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so great, and the
12
utility of the information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of justice to require
13
responses. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21
14
(1968) (As the court said in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a
15
trial court In the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the
16
information sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery
17
imposes some burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is
18
demonstrated to result in injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance
19
Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the
20
quantum of work required to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417.
21
The Responding Party does not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the
22
response may be expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery.
23
See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
24
Further, an objection on the grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in
25
injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 272 Cal App 2d 499.
26
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
27
this case in that it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the spam email pump and
28
dump scheme, as well as those in control of the company when it willingly participated in the
-5Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
scheme, including potential alter-egos. The discovery will also aid in establishing potential
witnesses.
Services, Inc. and its predecessors, including minutes of those meetings, since May 2, 2009.
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
10
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
11
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
12
request.
13
14
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
15
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
16
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
17
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
18
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
19
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
20
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
21
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason
22
for not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
23
case could not be used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly
24
25
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
26
this case in that it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the spam email pump and
27
dump scheme, as well as those in control of the company when it willingly participated in the
28
scheme, including potential alter-egos. The discovery will also aid in establishing potential
-6Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
witnesses. Furthermore, the minutes of the meetings would establish whether the purported
officers and directors had the actual right to execute the contracts, corporate actions and other
All minutes of meetings of the directors of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. and its
8
9
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
10
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
11
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
12
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
13
request.
14
15
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
16
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
17
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
18
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
19
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
20
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
21
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
22
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason
23
for not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
24
case could not be used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly
25
26
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
27
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
28
scheme, it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the spam email pump and dump
-7Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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.
Furthermore, the minutes of these meetings could establish whether the contracts, corporate
actions and other events which lead to the alleged Cause of Action were properly approved by
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
13
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
14
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
15
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
16
request.
17
18
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
19
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
20
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
21
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
22
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
23
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
24
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
25
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason
26
for not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
27
case could not be used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly
28
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, 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.
Furthermore, the documents will establish whether stock was properly issued, what value (if any)
was received, timing of divestiture and which shareholders benefited from the spam email pump
9
10
11
12
13
14
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
15
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
16
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
17
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
18
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
19
request.
20
21
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
22
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
23
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
24
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
25
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
26
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
27
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
28
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason
-9Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, 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.
Furthermore, the documents will establish whether stock was properly issued, what value (if any)
10
was received and which significant shareholders divested their stock during the spam email
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
18
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
19
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
20
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
21
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
22
request.
23
24
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
25
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
26
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
27
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
28
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
-10Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the spam email pump and dump
10
scheme, as well as those in control of the company when it willingly participated in the scheme,
11
including potential alter-egos. The discovery will also aid in establishing potential witnesses.
12
Furthermore, the documents will establish whether stock was properly issued, what value (if any)
13
was received, and which shareholders benefited from the spam email pump and dump campaign.
14
15
16
17
between Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., or its predecessors and any other entity.
18
19
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
20
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
21
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
22
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
23
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
24
request.
25
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad
26
27
///
28
///
-11Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
1
2
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
10
for not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
11
case could not be used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly
12
13
As for the assertion that request is burdensome, the true test of burdensome and harassing
14
is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so great, and the utility of the
15
information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of justice to require responses. See
16
Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21 (1968) (As
17
the court said in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a trial court In
18
the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the information
19
sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery imposes some
20
burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in
21
injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407,
22
418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the quantum of work required
23
to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417. The Responding Party does
24
not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the response may be expensive and
25
burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery. See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v.
26
Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45. Further, an objection on the
27
grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior
28
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, 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 or those who received stock in exchange for Letters of Intent or
other business agreements. The discovery will also aid in establishing potential witnesses.
Furthermore, the documents will establish whether stock was properly issued, what value (if any)
was received, and which shareholders benefited from the spam email pump and dump campaign.
9
10
11
12
predecessors.
13
14
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
15
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
16
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
17
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
18
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
19
request.
20
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad
21
22
23
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
24
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
25
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
26
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
27
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
28
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
-13Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
Documents obtained from the internet may not be admissible as they are not certified and
receiving certified copies would be an undue burden and expense on the Plaintiff. Instead of
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 2030.220; See also Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784
10
(1978) (it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See
11
the financial statement.). A corporation is bound to keep corporate documents and should have
12
13
As for the assertion that certain requests are burdensome, the true test of burdensome and
14
harassing is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so great, and the
15
utility of the information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of justice to require
16
responses. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21
17
(1968) (As the court said in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a
18
trial court In the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the
19
information sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery
20
imposes some burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is
21
demonstrated to result in injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance
22
Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the
23
quantum of work required to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417.
24
The Responding Party does not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the
25
response may be expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery.
26
See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
27
Further, an objection on the grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in
28
injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 272 Cal App 2d 499.
-14Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, as press releases were issued concurrently with the scheme. The discovery will also aid
5
6
7
8
9
10
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
11
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
12
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
13
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
14
request.
15
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
16
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
17
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
18
unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of responding to such
19
requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
20
21
22
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
23
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
24
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
25
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
26
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
27
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
28
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
-15Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
Documents obtained from the internet may not be admissible as they are not certified and
receiving certified copies would be an undue burden and expense on the Plaintiff. Instead of
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
10
the financial statement.). A corporation is bound to keep corporate documents and should have
11
12
As for the assertion that certain requests are burdensome, the true test of burdensome and
13
harassing is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so great, and the
14
utility of the information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of justice to require
15
responses. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21
16
(1968) (As the court said in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a
17
trial court In the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the
18
information sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery
19
imposes some burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is
20
demonstrated to result in injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance
21
Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the
22
quantum of work required to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417.
23
The Responding Party does not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the
24
response may be expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery.
25
See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
26
Further, an objection on the grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in
27
injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 272 Cal App 2d 499.
28
-16Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, as SEC documents were filed concurrently with the scheme. The discovery will also aid
5
6
7
10
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
11
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
12
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
13
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
14
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
15
request.
16
To the extent that this request requires production of Responding Partys filings with
17
OTC Markets or the Securities and Exchange Commission, Responding Party further objects to
18
this request on the basis that this request for production of documents is unduly burdensome to
19
the extent that it seeks documents that are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this
20
request would be oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden
21
of responding to such requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the
22
23
24
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
25
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
26
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
27
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
28
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
-17Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
Documents obtained from the internet may not be admissible as they are not certified and
receiving certified copies would be an undue burden and expense on the Plaintiff. Instead of
10
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 2030.220; See also Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784
11
(1978) (it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See
12
the financial statement.). A corporation is bound to keep corporate documents and should have
13
14
As for the assertion that certain requests are burdensome, the true test of burdensome and
15
harassing is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so great, and the
16
utility of the information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of justice to require
17
responses. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21
18
(1968) (As the court said in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a
19
trial court In the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the
20
information sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery
21
imposes some burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is
22
demonstrated to result in injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance
23
Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the
24
quantum of work required to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417.
25
The Responding Party does not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the
26
response may be expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery.
27
See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
28
-18Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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.
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
scheme, by discovering what disclosures were made concurrent with the scheme. The discovery
7
8
10
predecessors, including but not limited to equity financing, notes and debentures (convertible or
11
not).
12
13
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
14
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
15
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
16
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
17
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
18
request.
19
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad
20
21
22
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
23
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
24
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
25
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.
26
Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of
27
permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.
28
Further, this is never a proper objection for the refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy
-19Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
As for the assertion that request is 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
10
the exercise of its discretion the court should weigh the relative importance of the information
11
sought against the hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery imposes some
12
burden, but [t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in
13
injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance Loans), 56 Cal. 2d 407,
14
418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the quantum of work required
15
to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417. The Responding Party does
16
not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the response may be expensive and
17
burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery. See Alpine Mut. Water Co. v.
18
Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45. Further, an objection on the
19
grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior
20
21
Good cause exists to order the production of these documents as they are necessary to
22
this case in that it establishes the role the Defendant played in the spam email pump and dump
23
scheme, it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the spam email pump and dump
24
scheme, as well as those in control of the company when it willingly participated in the scheme,
25
including potential alter-egos or those who received stock in exchange for Letters of Intent or
26
other business agreements. The discovery will also aid in establishing potential witnesses.
27
Furthermore, the documents will establish whether stock was properly issued, what value (if any)
28
-20Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
was received, and which significant shareholders divested their stock during the spam email
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
By.
10
______________________________
George Sharp
In Propria Persona
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two
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
10
11
12
13
Kenneth Stone
14
15
Karl@KRInternetLaw.com
16
17
Robert Huston
18
Bob_Huston@Yahoo.com
19
20
BY EMAIL: The documents were scanned and uploaded to the One Legal internet
21
website with the instruction to forward the documents to the interested parties. I am "readily
22
familiar" with the practice of uploading to One Legal for email forwarding.
23
24
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed May 24, 2016.
25
26
____________________
27
George Sharp
28
-22Separate Statement of Items in Dispute Re Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two