05.31.12 Motion To Compel RFD (Set Two)

\
1
2
3
4
5
6
RANDALLA.MILLER (BarNo. 116036)

AUSTA W AKILY
(Bar No. 257424)
MILLERLLP
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
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
17
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO; an individual;

PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT, INC., a
Corporation; GINGERBREAD COURT LP, a'
Limited Partnership; 511 OFW, LP a Limited
Partnership; MALIBU BROAD BEACH LP, a
Limited Partnership; MARINA GLENCOE
LP, a Limited Partnership; BLU HOUSE LLC,
a Limited Liability Company; BOARDWALK
SUNSET LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
TRUSTEE of GIGANIN TRUST, JOSEPH
PRASKE;
TRUSTEE
of ARENZANO
TRUST, JOSEPH PRASKE; and TRUSTEE of
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION, JOSEPH
PRASKE,
18
Plaintiffs and Judgment Debtors,
19
v.
11
a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
12
13
14
W
.....J
.....J
15
16
20
21
22
CASE NO.:
BC286925
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 AVSTA W AKILY
-.
[SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED
CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS MOTION]
Date:
Time:.
Dept.:
July 20, 2012

1:30 P.M.
lA
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEPHEN

RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS and
ANDRE JARDINI,
Defendants and Judgment Creditors.
23
24
25
26
27
I8--1-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
'i
1
2
Please take notice that on July 20, 2012 at 1:30 a.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 compel Judgment Debtor, Stephen Gaggero to produce
documents in response to KPC's Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). This motion is
made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010 and 2031.010, et seq. on the
following grounds:
a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
W
.....J
.....J
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
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
documents and has failed to substantial his claims of privilege or objections.
13
2.
Mr. Gaggero, aided by his attorney, David Chatfield, has abused the discovery
14
process by making, without substantial justification, unmeritorious objection and evasive
15
responses to discovery. Mr. Gaggero and Mr. Chatfield's objections were solely to delay and
16
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 of the hearing.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
2
3
Dated: May 31, 2012
MILLERLLP
BY:~fMaW~
AUSTA W AKILY, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
8
9
10
11
a..
-l
-l
0::::
12
13
14
ill
-l
-l
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUJ:v1ENTS
0..
....J
....J
a::::
w
....J
....J
I.
INTRODUCTION
Judgment Debtor, Stephen Gaggero, a wealthy real estate developer, implemented a
complex estate plan in 1997, as part of an asset protection scheme to cheat his creditors. The
estate plan involved transferring all of his personal wealth to multiple corporations and
partnerships that were in turn owned by one of his trusts and/or foundation. Immediately after
implementing the estate plan, Mr. Gaggero's estate planning attorney, and trustee of his trusts,
Joseph Praske, appointed him as the "asset manager" of the trusts and foundation. As the asset
manager Mr. Gaggero retained complete control of all his property, including decisions relating to
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
one penny towards the judgment.
13
14
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:
15
16
17
18
19
20
"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
behalf of his corporations, trusts, and partnerships. Mr. Gaggefo has refused to 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 of judgment 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 of the estate plan he
--
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL POST
JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
'\/
a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
is now destitute. KPC has made substantial efforts in attempting to resolve the present discovery
dispute without the Court's intervention, including substantially limiting and clarifying the
requested documents. Mr. Gaggero simply refuses to cooperate.
Remarkably, while claiming that is he is destitute in response to KPC's post-judgment
discovery, Mr. Gaggero, in his personal capacity, is presently litigating a third legal malpractice
lawsuit against KPC. In this pending lawsuit Mr. Gaggero claims that he lost the ability to
purchase three ocean front properties in Santa Monica exceeding $2,000,000.00. 1
respectfully requests that this Court compel Mr. Gaggero to produce documents requested in the
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 .
KPC,
13
14
n.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
W
.....J
.....J
15
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
16
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
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
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
3, Exh. B). Mr.
4, Exh. C). As a matter of
~-
24
25
26
27
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
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
ND. BC286924) and Bunge v. 511 OF. W L.P., et aI, Los Angeles County Superior Court, (Case
No. SC100361).
28
-5MOTION TO COMPEL POST TIJDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
0....
...J
...J
0:::
March 20, 2012. (Id., at
5, Exh. D ). The responses included general boilerplate objections
stating in part "[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'
among numerous other boilerplate and frivolous responses. (Id). Mr. Gaggero did not produce a
privilege log or any documents. (Id). KPC, through counsel, responded to Mr. Gaggero's
responses on April 2, 2012. (Id. ~ 6, Exh. E). After delays by Mr. Chatfield, the parties met and
conferred on April 19, 2012.
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
(Id. ~~ 7-9, Exh. F). Mr. Chatfield agreed to (1) provide
10
documents that are responsive to the requests that are not privileged. (Id.
11
deadline to provide supplemental responses was April 30, 2012. (Id). Mr. Chatfield did not
12
produce any documents or a privilege log, serving only supplemental responses with baseless
13
objections. (Id.
14
produce a privilege log or documents as he agreed during the meet and confer. (Id.
9, Exh. G).The
10, Exh. H). Mr. Chatfield did not respond to inquiries relating to his intention to
~
11, Exh. 1).
ill
...J
...J
15
KPC on May 11, 2012 afforded Mr. Gaggero another opportunity to resolve the discovery
~
11, Exh. J). Specifically, KPC, through counsel, sent Mr. Chatfield a 22
16
disputes informally. (Id.
17
page letter stating the relevance of each documents requested, clarifying the scope of each request,
18
and providing case law and authority supporting each request. (Id). After two extensions Mr.
19
Gaggero was required to produce responsive documents and a privilege log no later than May 24,
20
2012.
21
Mr. Chatfield notified KPC that a motion for protective order was filed relating to the requests.
22
(Id.
23
from using evidence obtained in the present post-judgment collection efforts in their defense of the
24
pending legal lllaipractice lawsuit asserted against thc:In by Mr .. Gaggero. (lcl). In sum, Mr.
25
Gaggero is seeking the Court's aid to allow him to testify about his vast wealth in pursuing a
26
lawsuit while asserting that he is penniless in response to post-judgment discovery. (Id). KPC after
27
further delay tactics was forced to bring this motion. (Id.
(Id.~.
14-15, Exh. K). Mr. Gaggero again refused. Rather, on May 24,2012 at 9:59 p.m.,
16, Exh. L). The proposed protective order sought, among other things, to preclude KPC
~~
17-18, Exh. M).
28
-6MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
a..
.....J
.....J
a:::
ill
.....J
.....J
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Gaggero created an estate plan in or about 1997. (Id.
20, Exh. N). As part of the
estate plan Mr. Gaggero transferred approximately $35,000,000 into various entities, including
limited partnerships and limited liability companies. (Id). At the time of the transfer Mr. Gaggero
was sole the owner of all the entities into which he transferred his assets. (Id). He subsequently
transferred his ownership interests in the entities into one of two trusts or a foundation. (Id). Mr.
Gaggero continued to retain control over all assets that he transferred as an "asset manager" for the
properties and the trusts and foundation.
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 .
(Id). Based on Mr. Gaggero's and Mr. Praske's
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 of the 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 thejudgment 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
I
18--, ..
~_
_ __
,_
Here, the critical timeframe in ascertaining Mr. Gaggero's assets is approximately 15 years
ago when he implemented the estate plan. (Id.
the scope of discovery to assets in his personal name after the entry of judgment and in some cases
to his current assets. (rd.
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.
0..
0::
~~
13, 20, Exh. J, N). Mr. Gaggero seeks to curtail
9-10, G, H). This is plainly wrong and contrary to case law. Troy v.
Mr. Gaggero has also objected to documents relating to his business entities and his
....I
....I
~~
employment asserting a myriad of boilerplate and improper objections. (DecL A W
10, Exh. H).
10
Case law is clear that KPC is entitled to information relating to Mr. Gaggero'sbusiness affairs.
11
Troy, supra 186 Cal.App.3d at 1114 citing Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas (7th Cir. 1980) 634 F.2d
12
354, 360 Gudgment debtor is obligated to answer questions relating to partners, co-shareholders,
13
co-officers and co-directors, and the contents of a will could reveal the existence and location of
14
assets owned by the judgment debtor). Additionally, documents relating to a judgment debtor's
15
employment records for the preceding five years are relevant and proper inquiry for post-judgment
16
discovery. Id. Mr. Gaggero's continued objections and refusal to provide these documents on
17
grounds of Constitutional right to privacy, third party privacy, or irrelevance are clearly be in bad
18
faith.
W
....I
.....1
19
20
B. KPC'S REQUESTS SEEK DOCUMENTS THAT WILL AID IN THE

ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR JUDGMENT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
manager of the trusts,foundation, and assets within the estate plan. (Decl. A W ~13, Exh. J).
Trusts and Foundations Generally: Requests 7-10 seek documents relating to all trusts
+-----------..____1- or foundations in which
28
Mr Gaggero may have assets, hut which he may....assert is not part of the
-8MOTION TO CO:tv1PEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
a..
--I
--I
~
W
--I
--I
"estate plan." An example is the Terra Mar trust associated with Mr. Gaggero which has been
identified in the Bunge v. 511 G.F. W L.P., et aI, (2008) Los Angeles County Superior Court,(Case
No. SCI00361). (Decl. AW ~ 13, Exh. J).
General Finances: Requests 11-13, 25, 37 seek documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's
ability to live a lavish lifestyle, including vacationing overseas, living on a 1,500 acre ranch, and
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing lawsuits, while claiming he is destitute. These
requests seek information concerning Mr. Gaggero' s sources of income, financial benefits, right or
access to payments of any kind. (Id.
13, Exh. J).
Assets: Requests 14, 20, 28, 30, and 36 seeks documents designed to elicit information
10
about Mr. Gaggero's current assets, millions of dollars he transferred to third parties, and
11
information about his ownership interest in the Canada Larga ranch. These documents will aid
12
KPC in identifying the present legal title of the properties as well as ascertaining the consideration
13
Mr. Gaggero received as part of the transfer which can be used to satisfy the judgment. (Id.
14
Exh.J).
13,
15
Post-Judgment Discovery: Request 16 seeks documents relating to attempts of other
16
judgment creditors in enforcing their judgment against Mr. Gaggero. KPC is clearly entitled to all
17
documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's involvement in post-judgment discovery. (Id.
13, Exh. J).
18
Business Entities: Requests 18, 33-34 seek documents relating to any entity, broadly
19
defined as a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, general
20
partnership, trusts, foundation, or other partnership or association in which Mr. Gaggero is an
21
officer or member in his personal capacity. The requests also seek information relating to any
22
partr1ership in which Pacific Coast Management or Avalon Corporation is the general partner. (Id.
23
13, Exh. J).
24
25
C. MR. GAGGERO HAS IGNORED IDS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH

POST-DISCOVERY
26
Mr. Gaggero in response to requests, 1-5, 7-10, 15, asserts that responsive documents are
'17
"helieved to be" in:MI. Praske's possession or control. (Id.
~,
10-11, Exh. H). First, Mr. Gaggero,
28
~l
;
/'
0:::
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.230, must "affirm that a diligent search and
a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand." (Decl. A W
9,13, Exh. E, G, J). 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 of the responding party. (ld). The statement shall set forth the name
and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have
possession, custody or control of that item or category of item." (Id). Second, Mr. Gaggero must at
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.
~~
6,
W
.....I
.....I
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
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. AT&T Info.
Sys. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976,991 n 5.
0..
aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document
In
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 sufficiently specific to permit the trial court to
determine whether each withheld document is or is not privileged.
10
.....J
.....J
The purpose of a "privilege log" is to provide a specific factual description of documents
Kaiser Found. Hosp. v.
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).
W
.....J
.....J
20
21
E. MR. GAGGERO CANNOT ASSERT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR

ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE TO COMMITT A FRAUD
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
enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit crime or fraud. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625. Here, Mr. Gaggero, while he was a judgment
debtor, retained Mr. Praske to implement an asset protection scheme to conceal his assets from
creditors. (Decl. AW ~ 20, Exh. N). Mr. Praske continues his work relating to the estate plan as the
trustee of the trusts or foundation and in his capacity as an officer of the various business entities.
Id.
0:::
Importantly, Mr. Gaggero only asserts this privilege as part of his efforts to defraud
~~16-17,
20, Exh. L, N). Mr. Gaggero in pursuing a breach of contract
judgment creditors. (Id.
lawSl.lit against in Gaggero v. Yura did not assert the attorney client privilege relating to his estate
~
20, N).
In fact both he and Mr. Praske testified in great lengths about the
10
plan. (Id.
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 of Ins. 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.
W
....J
....J
19
20
F. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOES NOT PERMIT A

JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS
21
22
23
24
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 legal proceedings by
allowing broad discovery. Id. When the right of privacy and the public interest conflict, the court
25
26
27
must balance the inten.~stsfor a fair resolution of the lawsuit. Here, Mr. Gaggero seeks toassertthe .
constitutional right to privacy for each response, without any description as to. what documents he
28
is withholding pursuant to the privacy, and for the sole purpose to defraud his creditors. The
constitutional right to privacy does not support this proposition.
G. KPC'S MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OBVIATES MR.

GAGGERO'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ON GROUNDS OF
PRIVACY
4
5
On May 29, 2012 KPC's Motion to Amend the Judgment to Add Additional Judgment
6
Debtors came on for hearing before Judge Robert L. Hess. Judge Hess granted the motion adding
7
Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP,
8
Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske, trustee, of the
9
Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante Foundation as judgment debtors. Mr.
10
Gaggero, therefore, can no longer assert the privacy rights of the trusts, foundation, and entities in
11
support of his refusal to comply with post-judgment discovery. (Id.
~20,
Exh. N).
12
13
0:::
IV.
CONCLUSION
14
For the foregoing reasons, judgment creditors KPC, respectfully request this Court to
-1
-1
produce documents in response to the Request for Production of
MILLERLLP
By:
rbh- WeC;Q~
1 A
RANDALL A. MILLER,
AUSTA WAKILY,ESQ.
Attorneys for Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray
Garcia,. Stephen M. Harris, and Andre Jardini
25
26
27
28
-13MOTION TO COJvfPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
DECLARATION OF AUSTA W AKILY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I, Austa Wakily, declare:

4
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law by the State Bar of California. I am an
5
associate at the law firm Miller LLP and the attorney of record for the defendants and judgment
6
creditors, Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini
7
(collectively referred to as "KPC") in this action. I first became involved in the handling of the
8
post-judgment enforcement efforts in this action in mid-November 2012. I am also the attorney of
9
record in another lawsuit involving judgment debtor Stephen Gaggero against KPC for purported
10
legal malpractice. Since that time I have become familiar with the pleadings, records and files in
11
0...
.....J
.....J
a::
this action including the appeal and the amended judgment, including numerous transcripts and
12
various lawsuits in which Stephen Gaggero has been a party.
13
2.
$1,327,697,994.50 and amended on December 28, 2010 to include attorney fees and costs after
ill
.....J
.....J
KPC obtained a judgment against Mr. Gaggero on May 19, 2008 in the amount of
14
15
Mr. Gaggero unsuccessfully appealed the underlying judgment. KPC' s judgment as of December
16
28,2012 totaled $1,841,535.80. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the amended
17
judgment.
18
3.
I personally drafted 38 Requests for Pl:oduction of Documents (Set Two) pursuant
19
to Code of Civil Procedure 708.030. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the
20
requests served on January 31, 2012. The requests were specifically drafted to obtain information
21
to aid in the collection of the judgment including information relating to Mr. Gaggero's estate
22
plan, entities and assets within the estate plan, and third parties who have knowledge, possession,
23
or control of Gaggero's assets. Mr. Gaggero's respons_es were due on March6, 2012 ..
24
4.
Mr. Gaggero's counsel of record, David Chatfield, on March 1,2012 sent a letter to
25
our. office requesting a.30 day extension due in part to Gaggero's travel schedule and other
26
litigation. As a professional courtesy Mr. Chatfield, on March 2, 2012 was granted a two week
2'7
28
-14MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUJv.IENTS
extension. Mr. Gaggero's deadline to respond was extended to March 20, 2012. Attached as
Exhibit C are copies of the letters relating to the extension.
4
5
0..
0:::
Mr. Gaggero, through his counsel, served responses on March 20, 2012.
No
documents were produced with the responses. A copy of the 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 of my letter to Mr. Chatfield.
-I
-I
5.
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.
10
Based on Mr. Chatfield's response I proposed to meet and confer on April 12,2012 at 3:00 pm.
11
Mr. Chatfield responded by email on April 6, 2012 agreeing to meet and confer on April 12, 2012
12
and extending our deadline to file a motion to compel to May 11,2012. Attached as Exhibit F is
13
a copy of the email.
14
8.
I received a call from Mr. Chatfield's secretary on April 11, 2012 stating that Mr.
W
-I
-I
15
Chatfield could not make the scheduled meet and confer on April 12, 2012 due to an urgent
16
matter. Mr. Chatfield's secretary further informed me that he would be available to reschedule
17
the meet and confer to April 19,2012 at 3:00 p.m. and that we would also receive a one week
18
extension to file a motion to compel to May 18, 2012.
19
confirming my conversation with his secretary. The email is included as part of Exhibit F.
20
9.
I sent an email to Mr. Chatfield
On April 19, 2012 I called Mr. Chatfield to discuss the responses to the request for
21
production of documents. Mr. Chatfield agreed to (1) provide supplemental responses removing
22
all boilerplate and/or or inapplicable objections, (2) provide a "privilege log" for documents
23
withheld pursuant to a claim of privilege, and (3) produce all documents that are responsive to the
24
requests that are not privileged. The deadline to provide supplemental responses was April 30,
25
2012. A copy of my email to Mr. Chatfield confirming our discussions is attached as Exhibit G.
26
27
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
28
-15MOTION TO COMPEL POST TIJDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
copy of Mr. Gaggero's supplemental responses to the request for production of documents (set
two).
....J
....J
a:
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.
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
10 "
(L
11.
.a.
oJ
Mr. Gaggero's
I sent Mr. Chatfield an email on May 2,2012 inquiring whether he would produce
12.
11
a privilege log. Mr. Chatfield did not respond. Attached as Exhibit I is a copy of this email
12
communication.
13
13.
I sent Mr. Chatfield a twenty one page meet and confer letter on May 11, 2012
14
addressing the deficiencies in the supplemental responses, limiting the scope of certain request,
15
and clarifying the requests. Attached as Exhibit J is a copy of the meet and confer letter sent on
16
May 11,2012.
W
....J
....J
17
In the letter I provide Mr. Gaggero to respond to the Meet and Confer no later than
14.
18
May 15,2012. Mr. Chatfield emailed me on May 14,2012 requesting a two week extension of
19
our respective -deadlines due to a deadline to file an opposition
20
on May 14,2012 agreeing to provide him a one week extension to May 22, 2012. Attached as
21
Exhibit K is a copy of the email correspondence.
22
In a reIated motion. I responded
On May 21,2012, Mr. Chatfield's assistant, Dawn Masters called me to request an
15.
23
additional two day extension for Mr. Chatfield to respond to the meet and confer letter dated May
24
11~2012.(agreedto provide Mr. Chatfield until May 24, 2012 to respond conditioned on a two
25
day extension for filing the motion to compel to May 31, 2012. Attached with Exhibit K is a copy
26
of my email to Mr. Chatfield and Ms. Masters confmning my telephone conversation with Ms.
27
Masters.
--
---
a..
0:::
W
-l
-l
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,
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.
10
-l
-l
16.
17.
I responded to Mr. Chatfield's email on May 25, 2012 to clarify his misstatements
11
that were confirmed in my emails. I also informed him that we would proceed with filing a
12
motion to compel based on his client's failure to cooperate with post-judgment discovery.
13
Attached as Exhibit M is a copy of my email to Mr. Chatfield.
14
18.
Mr. Chatfield responded requesting further meet and confers on the discovery and
15
requesting that I do not file a motion to compel. In response I emailed Mr. Chatfield to confirm
16
that he produced with his May 24, 2012 supplemental responses the privilege log he stated he
17
would produce on April 30, 2012. Mr. Chatfield confirmed that he has not produced a privilege
18
log and intends to comply. I explained in a response that his client's deadline to respond was May
19
24~ 2012 requiring actual -compliance and not another assertion of an intent to comply. Attached -
20
with ~~itit-M
is a copy of the email.
....
21
,~',,:;',.,.';; :.~,\,,~./
19.
;.'
'.
KPC subsequently received 15 pages of documents produced in response to
22
Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). The documents are considerably insufficient in
23
responding to KPC's requests.
24
20.
On May 29, -2012 KPC'sMotion to Amend the Judgment to Add AdditionaI"
25
Judgment Debtors came on for hearing before Judge Robert L. Hess. Judge Hess granted the
26
motion adding Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad
27
Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske,
Z8--17MOTION TO COJ:v1PEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
.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.
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.
a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
Mr. Chatfield notified me immediately after the Court granted KPC's Motion to
Based on Mr. Chatfield's and Mr. Gaggero's tactics in abusing the discovery
22.
process I believe that any request for further meet and confers is solely as a delay tactic and will
10
not result in the production of any documents. As a result, it has been necessary to bring this
11
motion.
12
I personally drafted and reviewed each request in the Request for Production of
23.
13
Documents (Set Two). Each of the requests is likely to lead to information that will aid KPC in
14
enforcing their judgment.
W
.....J
.....J
2:
15
In order to bring this, I expended no less 20 hours preparing the motion and
24.
Additionally, I spent 20 hours
16
accompanying separate statement, declaration, and exhibits.
17
reviewing Mr. Gaggero's responses and supplemental responses to the request for production of
18
document, preparing the meet and correspondences to Mr. Chatfield, and meeting and conferring
19
with Mr. Chatfield. I expect to spend additIonal five (5) hours preparing -any reply briefs and
20
attending the hearing on this matter.
21
22
23
My hourly rate is $240. I seek an award of attorney's fees for $10,800 for 45 hours
25.
of work at $240 per hour, plus the $40.00 filing fee for a total of $1 0,840.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
IS
24
foregoing
25
Angeles, California.
true and correct and that this declaration was executed
on May g /,2012 at Los
26
27
2-8--18MOTION TO COJv.lPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Exhibit "A"
(t ./~.;.
... )
.. ....
~
'
:~
1
2
3
4
RANDALL A. :MILLER (State Bar No .. 116036)

LORI S. BLITSTIEN (State Bar No. 149004)
. VIKRAM SOHAL (State Bar No. 240251)
l\fiLLER LLP
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: 213.493.6400
Facsimile: 888.749.5812
6
7
Attorneys for Defendants

KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
8
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
~I\
lV
11
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual,

Plaintiff,
12
13
(P.D:QP~~l AMENDED JUDGMENT IN

FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
v.
15

HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI,
16
Defendants.
14
CASE NO. BC 286925
17
18
19
20
21
22
The California Court of Appeal having affirmed this Court's findings that Plaintiff
23
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO ("Plaintiff") failed to
:24
his cla.irD.s, and a judgment having been-enteted in favor of Defendants KNAPP, PETERSEN & .
25
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
C81TY
his burden of proof with respect to any of '
26 . . (collecTIvely., "Defendants''rancfa.gamst :f>Iallitiff on each cause of action of the Second AIllended

27
Complaint and awarding Defendants $1,202,994.50 inattorneys' fees and $124,702.90 in costs,
2-8
MILLERLLP
Los ANGELES
[pROPOSED] ANIENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
<
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 of Defendants and against
Plaintiff,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1.
Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of his Second Amended Complaint and
judgment shall be entered as to all causes of action of the 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
1A
IV
figure includes the award of $192,723.90 in attomeys' fees on appeal) and costs in the sum of
11
$125,224.90 (which figure includes the award of $522.00 in costs on appeal), plus post-judgment
12
interest at the legal rate; and
13
14
3.
judgment as of November 18, 2010 at the rate of $3.54.24 per day for 905 days.
15
16
Defendants shall be awarded $320,591.78 in interest accrued on the previous
Dated:
~"-=a~b.",,,.,-.!~~*,
___
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~8MILLERLLP
Los ANGELES
-2[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
_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, California 90071. On December 13,2010) served the within documents:
4
5
6
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.
9
10
11
bv causing to be nersonallv served to the nerson(s) at the address(es) set forth

below. ~
~
By causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office of the

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.
12
13
14
.L
. L '
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Gary L. Bostwick, Esq.

Jean-Paul Jassy, Esq.
Bostwick & J assy LLP
12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
I am readily familiar with the fum's practice of collection 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 of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
David Blake Chatfield
Westlake Law Group
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
_I declare under penalty of p.erjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
23
24
Executed 011 December 13, 2010,at Los Angeles, California.
25
--
26
27
Susy Koshkak '
~-----------2~1I-----------------------------------------------------------------------1--
MILLERLLP
Lt'lS
ANl~E1.F-"
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Exhibit "B"
i
1
2
3
5
6
Randall A. Miller (BarNo. 116036)

Scott Newman
(Bar No. 238788)
Austa Wakily
(Bar No. 257424)
MILLERLLP
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
Attorneys for KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS
and ANDRE JARDINI
7
8
SUPERlOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
a..
.....l
.....l
0::::
llJ
.....l
.....l
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
12
13
14
CASE NO.:
Plaintiff,
BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Honorable

Judge Robert L. Hess, Department 24]
v.
15

16
Defendants.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN
M.GAGGERO
~URSUANTTOCODEOFCnnL
PROCEDURE 708.030]
17
18
19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
DEFENDANT, KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
21
RESPONDING PARTY:
PLANTIFF STEPf.fEN M. GAGGERO
22
SET NUMBER:
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 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUlv.1EN:rS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
DEFINITIONS
1
2
3
4
c....
--l
--l
c=:
1.
"YOU" and "YOUR" means Responding Party and his agents, employee,
employer, attorney, accountant, investigator, or anyone else acting on Responding Party's behalf.
2.
"COMMUNICATIONS" should be construed ill the broadest possible sense and
includes, but is not limited to, any transmittal and/or receipt of information, whether such was by
chance, prearranged, formaJ. or informal, and specifically includes conversations, telegrams, audio
or media visual letters .or memoranda, formal statements, press releases, and newspaper and
magazine articles.
3.
"DOCUMENT" means any writings or recordings as defined by California
10
Evidence Code section 250, including recorded or graphic material of any kind, whether prepared
11
by YOU or another PERSON that is in YOUR possession, custody, or control. The term includes
12
agreements; .contracts; letters; telegrams; inter-office COIV.IMUNICATIONS; memoranda; reports;
13
records; instructions; specifications; notes; notebooks; scrapbooks; diaries; plans; drawings;
14
sketches; blueprints; diagrams; photographs; photocopies; charts; graphs; descriptions; drafts,
15
whether they resulted in a final DOCUMENT; minutes of meetings, conferences, and telephone or
16
other conversations or COMMUNICATIONS; invoices; purchase orders; bills of lading;
17
recordings; published or unpublished speeches or articles; publications; transcripts of telephone
18
conversations; phone mail; electronic-mail; ledgers; financial statements; microfilm; microfiche;
19
tape or disc recordIDgs; and computer print-outs. The term "DOCUJv.lENT" also includes
20
electronically stored data from which information can be obtained either directly or by translation
21
through detection devices or readers; any such DOCUMENT is to be produced in a reasonably
22
legible and usable form. The term "DOCUMENT"includes all drafts of a DOCUMENT and all
23
copies that differ in any respect from the original, including an)T no!a.tion, un4erlinirlg, marking,_ or _
24
information not on the original. The term- also includes infonnationstored in, or accessible
25
throug1J., computer or
26
back-up systems), together with instructions and all other materials necessary to use or illterpret
27
such data compilations.
W
--l
--l
()t11er}'nf'orm~[tioD.
r(;:trieval systems(ine.ludiognany .computeLarchives or
28
-2-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
limited liability partnership, general partnership, trusts, foundation, .or other partnership or
association.
ESTATE PLAN includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
administration and disposition of YOUR property, owned 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 owned by
you at any time to any PERSON or ENTITY.
11
12
13
0:::
14
......J
......J
15
5.
10
0..
ENTITY includes but is not limited to corporation, limited liability company,
......J
......J
4.
16
6.
"GAGGERO V. YURA" refers to the Los Angeles Superior Court case, Gaggero v.
Yura, etal, Case No. BC239810.

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
" Road, Santa Monica, California; 940 Palisades Beach Road, Santa Monica, California; and
Beach
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 of any word in.clu~esthe plural and the:plural includes the singular.
24
12.
The terms "or"
25
wherever theyappear,
26
request for information.
and~
andne~tller
"and" shall be read in the conjunctive and in the disjunctive

5>f the,S~ words E;hall
beiut~r:pretedto
limit:the scope oLa
27
28
-3REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
INSTRUCTIONS
furnish all information and items within YOUR possession, custody or control, including
information in the possession, custody or control of YOUR employees, agents, attorney, or
investigators, and all persons acting in YOUR behalf.
c..
.IY:
If YOU object to any request because YOU contend that YOU have previously
2.
-I
-I
In responding to the following Requests for Production, YOU are required to
1.
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
10
particularity all DOCUMENTS that YOU contend relieve YOU ofllie obligation to respond to the
11
requests.
12
3.
If any requested DOC1JJ\.1ENT was, but no longer is in YOUR possession or
13
subject to YOUR control, or has been misplaced, destroyed, discarded, or otherwise disposed of,
14
please state so, and for each DOCUMENT provide: (a) Its date; (b) The identity of all
15
PERSON(S) who prepared or participated in preparing the DOCUMENT; (c) The identity of all
16
PERSON(S) who received the DOCUMENT; (d) The number of pages of the DOCUMENT; (e)
17
The subject matter of the DOCUMENT; (f) If misplaced, the last time or place it was in YOUR
18
possession and a description of the efforts made to locate the DOCUMENT; (g) If disposed of,
19
the date and reason for disposal, the manner of disposition, the identity of PERSON(S) who
20
authorized disposal.
W
-I
-I
21
4.
For each DOCUMENT withheld under a claim of privilege state the specific
22
privilege asserted and: (a) The type of the DOCUMENT, e.g., a letter, memorandum, etc.; (b) The
23
title of the DOCUMENT, if any; (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~UI\1El'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
the DOCillv1ENT and the identity of the PERSON(S) who presently have custody of it anc1!orwho
have in the past had custody of the DOCUMENT; (i) A sufficient description of the DOCUMENT
to identify it in its subject matter without revealing information for which a privilege is claimed;
G) All other facts that support YOUR claim for privilege.
5.
5
6
trust instrument to direct or restrain the trustee in relation to the administration of the trust. The
TRUST PROTECTOR holds a power to direct the trustee in matters relating to the trust.
0..
....J
....J
~
TRUST PROTECTOR refers to any PERSON or ENTITY appointed under the
6.
In responding to the following-Requests for Production (Set One), YOU must make
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
14
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1.
W
....J
....J
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Arenzano Trust.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Giganin Trust.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Aquasante Foundation.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust or foundation that is part of YOUR ESTATE
22
PLAN.
23
-24
25
26
27
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to YOUR ESTATE PLAN.

All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any CO:MMIJNICATION REFERENCING YOUR
ESTATE PLAN.
r-----------I-
28
-5-
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the trustor regardless of
YOUR present income or financial interest.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a TRUST PROTECTOR,
regardless of YOUR present income or financial interest.
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
0:::
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class of beneficiaries,
12
regardless of YOUR present income or financial interest.
13
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..
W
.....J
.....J
18
All DOC1Th1ENTS that RELATE to travel expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
19
ENTITY on your behalf since 2001.
20,
21
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
22
23

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU in
24
25
any capacity.
26
/11
27
/11
-
28
-6-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCU1v.IENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
1
2
All DOCUJv.[ENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU as
part of YOUR ESTATE PLANNING.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any post judgment discovery in any matter to which YOU
responded.
8
9
10
11
12
c:::
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any judgment debtor exam of YOU since 2001.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY of which YOU are an officer or member.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any property at which YOU have resided since January
13
201l.
14
W
.....J
....J
15
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to real property located at 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura
16
California, 9300l.
17
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 of any ENTITY.
23

All DOCUMENTS that RELATEto any income tax returns including, but-not limited to,W-
24
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
-7REQUEST FORPRODUCTIQN OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
1
2
3
4
5
6
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any money given to YOU for any purpose since 2010.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any income earned by YOUR since 2010

All banks statements for any personal or business account in which YOU have legal or
equitable interest.
All savings accounts in institutions that represent accounts in which YOU have an equitable
10
interest.
11
12
0:::
REQUEST F.OR PRODUCTION NO. 24.
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
15
All DOCUMENTS evidencing any
W
..J
..J
inter~st
or ownership, including equitable interest or
16
ownership, by YOU in any asset at any time since 1997.
17
18
All stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS evidencing ownership of stocks and bonds held
19
by YOU in any capacity.
20
21
22
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Pacific Coast Management Corporation.
23
24
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Avalon Corporation.

All DOCUMENTSlillLATING tOatlY ENTITY ill. which Pacific Cost Management
25
26
Corporation is a general partner.
27
III
28
-8REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHENM. GAGGERO
--\
i
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Avalon Corporation is a general
partner.
c..
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any lawsuit in which YOU are involved as a representative
for any PERSON or ENTITY.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to insurance policies that insure loss to any property, real or
personal, which YOU own, including equitable ownership, individually or jointly with any other
10
PERSON.
11
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any debt incurred by YOU since 2005 .
12
..J
..J
13
14
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to payment of any debt incurred by YOU.
15
16
Dated: January 31,2012
MILLERLLP
17
By:
18
19
20
~ WAL"~ t
RANDALL A. MILDrR'~Q .
. SCOTTNEWMAN,-ESQ;
AUSTA W AKI:LY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray
Garcia,. Stephen M. Harris, and Andre Jardini
21
22
23
-
.. -
..
24
25
26
27
28
-9REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF S1EPHEN M. GAGGERO
-j
. PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
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
Ange~es, CA 90071.,.2201. On January 31. 2012, I served the within documents:
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

5
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.
7
8
9
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 of the

addressees as set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.

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.
10
11
a..
...J
...J
0::
W
...J
...J
12
13
14
,15
16
17
18
19
20
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection 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 of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is'presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date of deposit for ma.ili:hgin affidavit:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
SERVICE LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.

WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEPHEN M.

GAGGERO
Stephen M. Gaggero
3501 Canada Larga
Ventura, CA 93001
Plaintiff
Ph. (805) 267-1220

Fax: (805) 267-1211
Email:
Ph.
Fax:
Email:
8
9
10
11
a..
....J
....J
a::
12
13
14
W
....J
....J
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"\
--
---------------
-----------
Exhibit "C"
IVIt:l1 V I
I C. I 1 ..,,",1-'
V l l V V I " I Y ' ........... _.,,.
.......
-.~
'WESTLAKE
LAW GROUP
2625 TOWNSGATE ROAD' SUITE 3S0
WESTLAKE VILLAGe;, CALIFORNIA 9136'1
(80S) 267-12.20
PAX (805) .267-121 1
DAVID
EH.AKJ;; CHATF'II':I.D
I'!:MAI1..: DAVlbBL,.AKEC@HOTMAfL,COM
'March 1,2012
Scott Newman
MillerLLP
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 of state 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 of Gaggero v.
Knapp, Petersen & Clarke relating to their bandling of the 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 you provide 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
MILLER
LOS ANGELES
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA

515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
213.493.6400
I LLP
Reply To:
scott@mlllerllp.com
TEL: 800.720.2126 I FAX: 888.749.5812

www.rnillerllp.com
arch 2, 2012
VIA MAIL AND FASCIMILE

Westlake Law Group
Westlake Village, California 91361
Facsimile: (805) 267-1220
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.
.
Scott Newman
:MILLER I LLP
Exhibit "D"
-_._--.. _. --. -----..-.. -.__ .. -_. -_.__.- .... _- _... - . j._. __ ._----_._-_ ... _._-_. - ._ . - -_ . __ .__._---_._----------) ._--- -_ .. - -- ._. _._... _- _... -_. ---- --_._1
2
3
4
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP

David Blake Chatfield (State Bar No. 88991)
Telephone: (805) 267-1220
Facsimile: (805) 267-1211
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Stephen M. Gaggero
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10

Plaintiff, .
11
VS.
12
13
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
.)
KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE, a

.)
California corporation; STEVEN RAY
)
)
GARCIA, an individual; STEPHEN M.
HARRIS, an individual; ANDRE JARDINI, )
an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
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]
. .
Defendants.
16
17
18
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
19
RESPONDING PARTY:
. DEFENDANT KNAPP, PETERSEN & CL.A1tKB

PLAINTIFF STEPBBN M. GAGGERO
-
20
SET NuMBER:
_. _ _
___ . _
ONE--
._._
. . . . . . . . . . . . -:
___
. _ __ _
M"
___
__
.,_.
21
22
23
24
25
.26.
-- ------- ----'-2T- :- -.----- ---. --.-.-- .. -- -.

..........._ ... 2.b
----~.-.~-.-
- -:--
.--~----.:.
-- .-. .. -: ---.- -- -.---~
~--
-.---:-:-.-
.~------.--.--
---- ------ ------ - - ---- -..--- ---. -------
......._ ...
_- ..-
-- . __ ._ .... _,
.'\ ..... _.....
-.-
-- ... -
.. _........... _. _ ..
-_ ...._.... _-/')-
.... - .- ... - .. _........-:
"-'-_ ..
_-'-
_..
PlaintiffStephenM. Gaggero (''Plaintiff') hereby responds and objects to Defendant
Knapp, Petersen & Clarke's (''Defendant'') Request for Production ofDocUlP.ents. The response
contains both general and specific objections, which are incorporated .into each individual
response.
PRELThfiNARYSTATEMENT
5
6
Nothing in this response shall be construed as waiving any rights or objections that might
otherwise be available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff makes this response subject to and without waiver of:
(1) the right to make additional objections or seek protective orders in the event additional
review of files results in further information;
10
(2) the right to obj ect to other discovery directed to the subject matter of the Requests; and
11
(3) the right to revlse, correct, supplement, or clarify the response.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
12
13
Plaintiff objects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Request, on the
1.
14
grounds that they are. overly broad and unduly burdensome and harassing in that they are clearly
15
not li:r.i:rited to
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 by plaintiff.
18
19
2.
docUment~ necessary to
aid in the enforcement of the judgment for fees and costs in
Plaintiff objects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Request, to the
extent that they call for information protected from discovery or disclosure by any privilege 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
24
does notwaiveanypriyilege or protection that is or maybe applicable to such information.
25
3.
of Plaintiffs attorneys. By providing certain information requested herein, Plaintiff

Plaintiffobjects gel?-erally to the Requests, and to each individual Request; to the
-26 - -extentoiliattb.gycallforIDiorrnatien-proteoted fromdiscovry:oLdi.sclosurebythe Iights Qf IJriyl3.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
...
-_._.--
... _..
_ ...
_......
-_
... _.-._._ .. -.-._.
/--,) .... __ .. __ ...... -
applicable to such information.
4.
extent tha{theypmport to impose upon Plaintiff obligations beyond those imposed under the Code
of Civil Procedure or Court Rules.
5.
5
6
extent that they request information that is in the possession, custody or control of :Defendants.
6.
Plaintiff objects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Reqll:est, to the
extent that they seek information that is not in the custody or control of Plaintiff. Plaintiff further
objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is publicly available,
10
or to which Plaintiff has aCcess equal to as Plaintiff, or which Plaintiff Or Plaintiffs counsel could
.11
obtain with equal effort.
12
13
7.
Plaintiff objects generally to the Requests, and to each individual request, to the
extent that they seek disclosure of information 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 witlr b1'ditrary, -common;-orestablished-meanings:--Aecordingly,iti.-mterpreting-and- .-----._.18
construing the requests, Plaintiff will 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, plaintiff will presume that defendants are referring to the present
21
time. When the request uses the word "since" plaintiff understands the word to have the meaning
22
set forth in Webster's dictionary "after a time in the past.;'
9.
23
Plaintiff objects to the definition of the terms "you" and "your" set forth in
24 _Paragraph 1 of Defendant's pe: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,at isr~9....uJ:tfig,"by
---. --.-.- .- ---2T~ llie-:-Ca1If6rmaRUles o: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 of evidence relevant to the
.'
.- .
- .. - .. - . . -
....
-_ ...... -.
. .... ...
_... _/~.-\ ... _.. _..

J
claims or defenses of the parties. Plaintiffwill respond to the requests o:iJly on behalf ofbimsel
Because the definition includes Plaintiffs attorneys, Plaintiff also objects to the extent that the
.3
4
requests seek information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege; the attorney
work product doctrine, and any other applicable privileges.
10_
seeks information outside the relevant time period.
-~.
Plaintiff objects to each and every request oli the grounds, and to the extent, that it
11.
Plaintiff objects to the definition of the definition of ESTATB PLAN set forth in
Defendant's Definitions in that it includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
administration and disposition of Plaintiff property, owned by Plaintiff at any time in any
10
capacity, before or after death including will, trust, gifts, or power of atton;iey, ot any other method
11
of estate 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 discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry into Plaintiffs Current assets, which is
16
the sole subject of this discovery_
-----.. ---17- . ----- -.
18
19
_u _ _ ___ _
-:-RESP{)NSE8-T(j-D(jeUMENT.RE0l:ffiS!{,S_- -.- ------.- -- .---------. -. ---___._.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.1:

All DOCillv1ENTS that RELATE to the Aremano Trust.
-": -:--
20
21
"-
--
.:~-:-
- "."."-
.. _. - .
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUEST NO.1:

Plaintiff incorporates 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
unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects 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~ntsc thatare__pI.Qtect{';)9-ir9111~Q.loill~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
_ _
/---\ .
1
---- - ... - ----- --
- - --- -
priVilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
5
6
7
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2:

though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further 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. Plaintiff further objects to thi$ request on the grounds that it
12
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected fromdisc1osure by plaintiff's
13
and.third parties' Constitutionally protected rights of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this
14
request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attotney-
15
client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
-,
16
-- -'-------1/--- -ag-folloWs:-Ptamttffliaffno-dbcuments-resp'OTIsive-to-tbis-reqnest-irr-bis-possession-or--col1tml~ -- --.------ - .--.---18
19
20
21

All_~.O~~~S tha~;RELATE to theAquasante Foundation.
.. .0_. .. ",":", _". :
.~" ~

22
though :fully set forth herein_ Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
23
24
seeks. documents that are neitherreleV'ant nor reasonably 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- --" -- .
privilege and/or the attomeywork-product doctrine.

2
3
as follows: Plailltiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust or foundation that is part of YODR ESTATE
5
6
PLAN.
RESPONSE TO DOCUl.\ffiNT REQUEST NO.4:

10
undulyburdensome and harassing. 'Plaintiff further 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. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
13
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from .disclosure by plaintiff's
14
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further obj ects 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-vrng the-forego:ing-obj ecticns-and Jimitations;--Plaintiff-respl:mds-------- .

18
19
DOClJMENT REQUEST NO.5:
20
21
22
23
.... :
-.--
.. - -- - ... :_.. ,
"7'~:-:'.:'~.':. '.~
-." . __ ..

though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
24 .un9-uly burdensome and harassirlg. Plaintiff :furtIJ.er objects to this request on the grounds that it
i
I
25
seeks documents that are neither-relevant riorreasonably calculated tb leadto the discovery of
... -26 ,admissible evidence m-tbisaGtiQn._PlaintifIfurthercobj e.ctsjQ, tbiSIe'lu.~st()lJ.J:l:le_gr,plIDq1hatjt ...

------. ---:-- -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 oprivacy. Plaintiff further obi ects to this re uest
5
I
... _ .... __ ._.. _ .....
-- . . . __
.-.
__ ._- .. __ ._--_ ...
/).__
--_._.
privilege and!or the attorney work-product doctrine.
Subject to and without waivrng the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
All DOCillv1ENTS RELATING to any COM1v.[uNICATION REFERENCING YOUR
ESTATE PLAN.
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQDEST NO.6:
9
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 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects that
12
the req1l:-est on the grounds is vague and ambiguous such that plaintiff cannot fOrin a meaningful
13
response. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
14
neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this
15
action. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request On the grounds that it calls for the prodUction of
16
irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties'
----------rr- --C6;iistltutionallyprotected-rlght-ofprivacy.-Plaintifffurther-obj-ects-to--tbis--request-on-the--grounds----------18
19
20
21
that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and!or
the attorney work-product doctrine .
.....:.
_---
::'..~. ,-:- -::_,"'.:' ....
~-.--
...
-~:-.
'_."-'"
:":'.-
.'.'
....

All DOCillv1ENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the trustor regardless of
22
YOUR present income or financial illterest.
23
24
25
tliough fully set forth herein. Plamtlff 0bj ecls fotliis request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
.. 26 unduly burdensome. and harassing,~PlaintifffurtheLQbjec.tstQ_tbis;re_q.u.estQn the gr~:n.U1.dsJ:b.at it.

- -._.-. ---. ---2T -seaG3--documerits11iatare.Iiettlier.r.eIevantn<5I re.-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
- ..
_ ..
..
. .. - ..
( . --')..
...
_. ..... _.
"
_.
...
- _.... - _._-
--->
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protect~dfrom disclOSUre by plaintiff's
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to tbis request
privilege and/or the attomey work-product doctrine.

5
6
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request in bis possession or control.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in wbich YOU are a TRUST :PROTECTOR.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference 'each and 'every General Objection set forth above as
10
11
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds .that it is overly broad,
12 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
13
14
15
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
16
and third parties'. Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request
.. ---- ._-- -'--'17-'- -on tD1l"grouna.s tna: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 waiving the foregoing objections and lii:nitations, Plaintiff responds
-.-.-, ...
-.~--.-----:-' .. ~ ~ ... ~
- ~:.
"-'
:'"-.':
--- ....
_....
.--.:.-.::.... -
..
":-
::-,:
-"
.- . .
','
. ~ ....... .. ',:'~ ~-.:

,
.... -
-'
'.
- . - - .-:."
20
21
22
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in wbich YoU are a beneficiary; regardless
23
of regardless of YOUR present income or financial interest.
24
25
- Plaintiffiricorponites by reference each and every General Objection set forth above. as
.--26 .,thQugh fully set forth. herein. ..Plainti:ff.obje_cts.tQ~tbkr.e_que8t.onthe_gcolJ.l:l,ds that. it is,.()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----=====":'
')1,0
Q-~==I"P"~"iO>~d,ftc.JJm.ents..:that.are..neitb.er...r.ele.Y~t.n.o.I..Ie.as.anabl)U<.aiculated to
lead to the discovery of _
-~--
\
j
....................._...... ......
'). _....
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff' s
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request
on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attomey-client
5 .privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

6
7
Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
8 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:

9
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class ofbeneficiaries,
10
regardless of YOUR present income ot financial interest.
11
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO .. 10:
12
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every General Obj ection 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. Plaintiff further objects to tbis request on the grounds that it
15
16
.-.-. -..... -.- -17----ca.1tf6r-tne- production of:irretevant-dacuments-that-are-protected-from-disclelstITe-by-plainti:ff.s-_---.- .-.
18
19
on t11~ .W?~ds t~~t _its.ee~ _ ~ocuments that are protected fro:rn disclosure by the attorney-client
20
21
_ _. :
._
_ _ _ .0
_.__
.~
:'::'~' _~~_~'"
_.
"."
.'.:
_.
_.,,_

-Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
22
as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
23
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
24
25
_.. 26
... --....-.---."--2"'7. .,
----,========<7Jb
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills,
f~es;
irlvoices, or charges paid on YOUR behalf
hy any PERSON-or ENTITY ili.bluding, but notl.itnited to, PacmcCoast Managementand A'Valon
(Jmporation smce 2001.
-o-UcrD10>1\.'SE-To-nO-C'i"-'m~T.cp-n'E'-O'F'FE'-Qq:>.N()-11~--------------------.--.-.---------.-.~~-"J;.}-~.l-~"
_~ . ",
-. .Ul.UEil.~~ .. ~. _UJ,!J.O:_~~_ .... ,- . . ~.
.....
_
RlaiJJti.;f;Ej;gco:kpO-Iates.b_ r..r.eferenc.e each..and eye
..----------..
.
Gen.e.raLOb .ection set forth above as
... -._..... J) ..... ... :
'. _1
1 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this
request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this
request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected
6 from disclosure by plaintilf s and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
7
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctr:iile.
,.
10
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to travel expenses paid byYOU or anY-PERSON or
11
12
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
13
14
15
16
. -_. --........ -'-'17' to lea:dtQ-tne-msc-overy-ofac1rnssible-eviderrcein tbis-actron:-Plainti-ff-furtherebj ects-te-this---- --.------ "- -.

18
request on the grounds that it cG\-lls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected
19
fro~ cl?-sc~?.sut~_bYI'.~~~ffs ~~ ~~~~~S'C?l1S~!U~?~~ll)T}')rot~c~edright of privacy. Plaitltir:, .
20
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents' that are protected from
21
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attotneywork-product doctrine.
22
23
c.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
24
ENTITY onyour behalf since 2001.
25
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQtJESTNO. 13:
- 26
-Plaintiffineorporates byreferenG_eacaaIld eyery 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-iti-s~-over}y-bre>ad-:-. -:-".... -- .~====~").~Q-=H::a~Y,nd3.k.Q -e-as to-b.e-undub w.urdens.ome..andltar.a.ssin . .J:laintiff further ob ects to this
"
......
_....
-'"
.. _....
. . ._....
/
)
. . . ..1
-'.
- ..... .
4 from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
5 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
6
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.

8
All DO~NTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU in
9 any capacity.
10
11
RE~PONSE
TO DOCUMENT'REQUESTNO. 14: .
Plaintiff incorporates byrefetence each and every General Objection set forth above as
12
13
as to time and scope so as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects 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
--------------li--fromilisclosu:re-by-plaffitiff''s"andtbird-parties2-Constitutionall-y-pi'0teetea-rightofpri-v-ae-y-;-P-laintiff .----.18
19 .. ~sc1o~~e.by th.e attorney-c~~~t p.r:i~lege andlor :the_ ~ttomey workwptoduct doctrine.

.
20
21
-- ':. .-
.'
. . ... _.

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU as
22
part of YOUR ESTATE PLANNlNG.
23
24
.. ... l?laintiff incorpora!es byreference each and every General Obj ection set forth above as
25thougli fully set Iorfuherem: Plaintiff objects to this request on the 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 0 bj ects to this
10
~..
_.... _..
--
. _.................. ~
,~
l- ... '" ... .
..
"
- .... - ....- _..
(/
request on the grounds that it calls for the production of :irrelevant documents that are protected
from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protect~d from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and!or the attorney work-product doctrine.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any post judgment discoveryin.anymatterto which YOU
responded.
10
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff obj ects 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
13
14
15
from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
16
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks docuinents that are protected from
----- . .----...17-- j dlsclosure15y the-a'ttonrey:.-c1ient"privile-ge-andlorib:e-attomey-work-=-prod:uet -doetrine;--- ..........-- _. .... .... --..... .

18
19 ..__ . . ._A.1:~ DO~~N!~ i?:at RE~!?-!E.:~o:.aIl~J~dgment d~b~~r~xam.ofYOU since

200l.
.....
::.......... .
.'
20
21
-.~
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO .. 17:

22
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
23
24
request on the 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
request on 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
11
that are rotected from
. __ . --
-"'-
.. .
__ .
-',
--} ...
. ...
..
_._----)-
._-
.. -.,.-
--.
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and!or the attorney work-product doctrine.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY of which YOU are an officer or member.
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. J8:
6 .though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff obj ects 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
this request on the grounds that it seeks dOCu:r:i1ents that are neither relevant nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to
10
this reauest on the QIounds that it calls for the production of-irrelevant documents that are
11
protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of
12
privacy. Plaintiff further 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.
.J.
15
16
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request.
-.--- ---- --YT-nO-CUMENTREOUESTNO.-19:------- --.----------.. -- ... --------- '__

18
______._. _____
---"---"-
-.-.-
2011.
20

22
23
unduly burdensome and harassing_ Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
_ 24
seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead JO the discovery of
25
admissible evidence in this action.. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the gtotinds that it
--- .. 26
-0aB~~foFthe-preduGtion,of irreleovantdooumentsib.at.areprotected.rom.disclo.sureob_plaintiff s
-. -. -.. -:-.~. -----~Z7
--.-.----
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any property at which YOU have resided since January
19
21
'_'_H ____ .__,.__ u
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
-:- - -:----
- _._ .. -_.
/) ... - - - .. _.
"'-
.. -
..... _...
- ._ ... _- -.- .__ ..-
_)
.. ...
-----
...
. /
_.....
_. . . _..
_.. __.
1 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

Subject to andwithout waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
2
3
as follows: Plaintiff does not own any real property.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to real property located at 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura
California, 93001.
8
9
10
unduly burdensome and harassing'. Plaintiff further 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 of irrelevant documents that are protected from. disclosure by plaintiff's
14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further 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"-' -.... -.-. --.. :Suojecttcyand wit116iIt-waiviIrgilie-'fore-gomgnbj-e-cnons -and-limitatiorts,-Plaintiff-responds-----.---- ..

18
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request.
20
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any tax DOCUMENTs filed by YOU Or on YOUR
21
behalf.
22
23
.
.....- ...
-,
. _..... -- .. -_.. ..
--
I"~
-',
24 _thQugh fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
25
unduly burdensome- arid harassing... Plaintiff further objects to 'iliis request on the grounds that it
26 -seeks, Q.ocuments lliat are neitherrelev..ant.nor_Ieasonably ccalculated to~ lead.t~Lth~LdisQ.QYt2.ryQ.f _
--.-.--- '-IT radillissThle eViaencemws-action. -Plainttfffurtli:erQ:bj-eJrts""tQ-:tbn~-qg~s:f;o.D,-tb:e-gro1Jllds-tb.cttjt---:-- .-----~====h6ig~==Ga]J&f-0=thkpmd11G.ti.Ql4Jin:-e.le..v:aJ1t..dO'CllDlents..fb.at..aJ::e ;rn;;01e.c1e_ditanLdis_closure by plaintiff's
13
"
.......... '---
_.-
....-
.- .... . .. --- ..-- .. )

'
.I
_.....
_.. _...
"'-
_... -.. - .. -..
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further 0bj ects to this request
on the grounds that it seeks documents that ate protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any taxes paid on YOUR behalf, including but not limited
to, in YOUR capacity as the equitable owner of any ENTITY.
8
9
_.
10
unduly burdensome arid harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
11
12
13
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
14
and third parties' Constitutionally protected righ~ of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request
15
on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosuteby the attorney-client
16
-.-----.---- --17- -- ---.- ---SuDjecno~ifilll-wifuoutwaivirrgtb:eToregoing-objections-and-lirtritati:ons,-Plaip:tiifTespends- .-..-----18
as follows: Plaintiff is not the owner of any Entity. and therefore, has n~ responsive documents in
19 .hJ.s _pos~~~~i0I?-.. ()r..9?~tr?I:.....
20
21
DOCUlVJ:ENT REQUEST NO. 23:

All DOCUMENTS that RELAtE to any income tax returns including, but not limited to, W
22
21s, 10991s, K-l 's, whether prepared for federal, state, or municipal that RELATE to YOU since
23
January 1, 2005.
24
25
Plairitiff incorporates by reference eacb and every General Obj ection set forth above as
. --26 -thQugh fullyset.forthherein.-BlaintiffobjeGt.s- tG.this.IequestQn.the~gr.ounds_that iUs. o:verly broad,...
-:: ------ -.-- '7,7 .UJldUlY0Uraensorneancniarassmg.._}>laintlftfcirtlTer::qbje-gts"1~rtbQ1"eq.st-Qn~e-grounds-:thctt-it-.--- - ~--:---~

f-======k!~
ik&dQJ,;;um.~~at..e"neij:hek-reley-antnOIJ:easonab]
14
_alclliat~_d_to~e_a.dio
the discove. of
-\
-
__ A
__
__
_. _______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
___ . _ .
_ __
___
) _ . _ ._ _ _ _
________
._
.-\
_.
)- -----_._--
----- - -- .. ----- ------- -
-_. - --- - -.- ----- ---..-
admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff s
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any money given to YOU for any purpose since 2010.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24:

10
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and
11
ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome' and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects to this
12 request on the grounds that it seeks doctlments that are neither relevant not reasonably calculated
13
14
request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant docUinents that are protected
15
from cUsc10sure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
16
:furt1iet objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks docUIhehts that are protected from
-'-----'---- -- ---1/- - -dtsclosure-bytlre-atrorrrey-=clrent privilege--and!orthe-att-omey-work~pre>duct-doc-trine;----- -. -----------.. ---- --------
18
':'
19-- .. -:'
..
-~
20
21
'
All DOCUMENTS
that RELATE to any income earned by YOUR since 2010.
'--'-. - _ . ---_._-_.-_ .. _._--_ ... - ... _.
.- -.--- : ....-:--_ .. :.
- ._- -
'-'.' - . . -,' -=
. - ....... :-:-.- .... ".-'-- ..... -
.. .

22
23
24
seekf] dOCuments that are neither relevan! nor rea.sonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
25 admissible evidence in tills action. -Plaintiff further objects to this Tequest on thegrblifids that it
2(5- "Galls-for the preduG-tion -of.m.elevant dQQ]:U:ll.e:I1ts=that~are ;PJ:QteclEldJi:9ll1. cliclQsl.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 by the attorney-client
15
.0
\
,/'"
._- -
.-
-...--.-.---.-.---.-.---.---.-.--~.---) ... _---_
........
_-_ ...._ .. __ ...... _--
..
privilege and/or the attomeywork-product doctrine.
Subject to~d without waiving the forego:ing objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff will produce any documents responsive to this :in his possession and control if
the propounding party agrees to limit the document request to the relevant time period.

6
7
equitable interest.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:

9
10
11
unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it
12
13
admissible evidence :in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
. 14
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected fr6m disclosure by plaintiff s
15
16
on the grounds that it seeks documents that ate protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
--..- ----TT-
pfiVilege-andIOf1li{ntttomey work..:ptoductdo-ctrIne-:--------- ---.----_. -.- _..-- -.----.-- ---- -- -.----. -.. - ..---._--.. _-.._-
18
19
-"'-' . . __ .
20
21
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
Plaintiff...has no documents __responsive
to this request.
as follows:
-.-.--. -:-:: . _..
... _:: . ___ "_
____ '_".-:' ..__ ___ . __
::-.7-:~
_'~~-.
_~._:._-
:.-_--.~_:--
.:":'::"'::'.'_'~'_":.'::-
.-:_:.~
.~._.
":._~'-:-.'
.. --_ ......... --
.. '.'.'-.' .. :-
-~~'
~-
.. --_':--:-_-

All savings accounts in institutions that represent accounts in which YOU have an
22
equitable interest.
23
24Plaintiffirlcorporates 1:>yreferenceeach and every General Objectionset forth above as
25
though fully set f()rth herem. Plaintiff objects to this request 011 thegrolifids that it is oveilybroad;
-26 undulycgurdllSOme and harassing:." Rlaintiff furtb.~r,ol>j~GtsjQthis,Iequest on the .g(Quud~Lthati1..
.----:--._. ~~2T -.sKB 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=aElmissihll=&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
.'--7'"~--._-
"\'"-
-,
._,--. __ ._- ... _----
-----
.__.. _.... _.- .. __ ._-_._-"'-'"--

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and furritations, Plaintiffresponds
5
6
All deeds, leases, mortgages, ot any other DOCUMENT evidencing any interest or
8
9
. 10
11
ownership, including equitable interest or ownerShip, by YOU in real property at any time since
1997.
12
13
14
as to scope and time that it is unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff :further objects to this
15
16
to lead to the discovery of acLrnissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this
-------- ----'11"-- --re'qttes"t"on-tlie-grotiITd"s-tIrattt-c-alts-forthe-pruductioIT-ofmelevant-documents-thatare-pmteeted----- -. ----.-- .

18
19
-
.. _-
20
21
from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
further objects to this request on.the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
-_.
. . -- . . . _. __....... __ ._-__",",_
-:----,'... '-:::-- .-:-:-:- .7-: -.
~-_'.'
_-_~~":7.-_:-
.--",""
','_":'_--;
_~.-_.
_--":'_. __ -_~:_'-_.-_~
: "':",' ._ "_-:-_ ... ':"._ .... "_'.'
.''':'''",'M''
__
disclosure by the attomey-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

22
23
2 4 A 1 l DOCUMENTS evidencing?D-yinten~st or o:vvn:ership, includiJJ.g eguitable interest or
25
oWnership, by YOU in any asset at any time since 1997.
~- :--- -- .~7~ :~-.~-:::P.lamttf[inCDrp.orates
by IefeIe.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
,~- ::-. ~
unduly burdensome and harassing in both time and scope. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request
on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admi_ssible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the
grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further Objects
to this request on the grounds that it seeks dOCIiments that are protected from disclosure by the
attorney-,-client priVilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine_

9
All stock certificates or other DOCU1v.ffiNTS evidencing ownership of stocks and bonds
10
held by YOU in any capacity.
11
12
13
though fully set forth herem. Plamtiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
14
15
16
------- ------"17-- --calls- f6Y"tlie-pr5o.uctlon of irr-elevant-dnc-uments-that ate-protected-from-disclosure--by-plaintiff'-s------- ------ 18
1~ ____ <E.1 ~~~9.l!D:~~ !1?:~~_it_~e~~s_~?.9~~E:t~ !~~t are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
. :._.......-.-::-~_:
20
21
-'-:.-:':~':-
.. --.:.~-._- ".=-".:.- ".:-'-.-"
.... '' __
.M.
_._ ..............
23
__ All DOGUMENTS REr.,ATING to Pacific Coast Management Corporation.
25
RESPONSE TO DOCUMEN1' REQlJES"TNO;31:
26
. ,- - --E:lainti-ff moorporates~byreferenGeeaG~and_eyery. .QeIl~ralQ.bjection s.~t JO:rth ab()v~, ~s_
l-----======k- ~
_.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plamtiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request in his possession or conn-ol.
~-~-:---~ -.~--:~Z7-
"'M
privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
22
24
_.,.
1liougEt-ftilly set: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-:- ~_ -~. ~~.

-1J.T-1Q;g,l1=-"1:.mdensQIDe..aJlcLhar.assing.----:ela:inti:ff.furtheLubie_cJs tn tbis-r.eguest on the grounds that it
18
....
--.-~
--
..
.,_ .... - .. -- ...
_.-
~--
.. . --
_... - ..
_-
1 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
2
calls for the production of :irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff s
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff :further obj ects to this
request ou the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-
client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
10
11
12
.All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Avalon Corporation.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32: .
:Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
13
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
14
15
16
admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the groU1J,.ds that it
------ .--. --'--11- -calHrfort1:i:e.produ-ctran-af-irretevant-ao-cumentstb:atare-protected-from-disc1ostrre-by-plainti-f.P-s--------.-..

18
19
on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from ,disclosure by the attorney-client
.,-.-_ -.c' .---._-:.. -"--.-- .... -c ..--,,----c--------""---
20
21
'-c.-
--:~
----- ....
-c~
.......:-- ---- ... -. --.- ...
_:---::~
..::- ........ ,,- -....::.. - -- ..
-.-.-~"

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections arid limitations, Plaintiffrespo:iJ.ds
22
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request:in. his possession or control.
23
24
25
.. ---- ------ ....
All DOC~NT~ RELATING toany E~TITY in which Pacific Cost Management
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
_..
.-
- --
_ .. - _._ ..--_.. -_...-
-- ... _-_._. _. __ .. __ . --. _/~: _._- -_.. _.... _--_.._.. _.- ----_.- .__ ......- -_ ..
_.. _.. .....
j.
unduly burdensome and harassing_ Plaintiff further objects to tbis request on the grounds that it
admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to tbis request on the grounds that it

8
9
10
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request in bis possession or control.
11
12
partner.
13
14
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every General Obj ection set fo$ above as
15
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad.
16
Plaintiff further objects to tbis request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither
.- --.- -. --.------.. -17- .relevantnorreasonablycalculated-to-lead-to-tb.e-discovery-ofadmissible-e-videnee--m-this-actieR;---- -------18
Plaintiff further objects to 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 of privacy. Plaintiff further 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, Plaintiff responds
24
~sfollows: Plaintiff has 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
J--- .. ___
. _
--
- - , - -
_ . - . - __ __ .. __
-..
_..-._-
.~\.-........... _.._-- ......._ .... _-_ ... __ ._._.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth. above as
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff obj ects to this requ.est on the grounds that it is overly broad,
burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grottnds that it calls for the
production ofitrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs and third
parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
10
and!or th~ attorney work-product doctrine.
11
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
..._. --. _.- - --1'1-- tlrouglrfu11y-setibrtlr"h"eniin:J>lainti:f:f-objectsto-ihis-request-ohthe'grounds-that-it-is-ovetl-y-btoad;- -.-. -..- ...
__
___
18
19
calls for the production ofitrelevant documents that are protected from disclosme by plaintiffs
. : _ _ _ __
' _ , " : , _ _ -::'
_____
'_,'
__
_-::
" . _ _ _ _ _ __
__ _
. _ _. ___
_ _ _ A.
_ _ _ _
.._~:~:_
_ _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
____
. _ : . _ _A
______
_.
__
~:.._
__ _ _ _
__
20
and 1:hird parties' ConstitutibnallYprotected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this
21
22
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further 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 cibj ections and limitations; Plaintiff responds
.. -..-..-.--..-.-...-..-..-.--_-.-..-.-.--.. -.--:::-:
--:---:-.---_-'l1~ :-nnC11MEN.'i."..REQTI:ES.T:.Nfi~'::-...:--:--~ ~.-. -~--:~-=-=:-_-=-~-=~~~-=-.-:::~-
?g
____
Jill DO.cUMENXSJ:hatRELA TE. i:o..,an.y.Aeht,incJ.lII:e_cL~XOJ:1 sjn.ce2.0c05.
21
~.--=--:-~.
...
. .. - .- ........ '-"'1-- -- ... -.- .. -.
... - .- ..
__ ..... --
._.
- ....... - ._.- -
.- -....
"-'
__ :/'-).
- . ..
---- --_ ......-.
_..
_ _.-
_. -'_.,_.
. --_._-_.- .__ ..... .. _..
1
2

though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that by its failure to
limit the scope of the request it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further
objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the -production of irrelevant documents that
ate protected from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Cbnstitution~llyprotected right of
privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this-request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
action. Plaintiff further 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
13
14
15
16
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to payment of any debt incurred by YOu.

.'.-. -...---_---1'r .-----. _. -. -Pla'nJ:tiff-mc-orporatesbyreference-each-arrd-every-6erreral-0bj-ection'set-fort1i-above-as------ --_.. 18
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects 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
Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant
21
documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally
22
protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further obj ects 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 in tbisacti0ll' _P1a.in!iff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
25q.ocumentsthat are protected from. dIsclosure by the attorney-client privilt:~ge a:iJ.d1or the attorney
.26 work-product-doctrine,
-.~-- .~. -.-~~7:?R
...... -
_.
..
-
---
--
---
_.-:- :.- --'~S-:d15j e.ctlo .anTIwit1i::mi.t waivllrg~t1refoIj;fg.Qing:-:abje-c.1iDnK:andirni.tf!.ti:911S;::::?tqjq.ti:ff.:t~~g;g:d~' _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
-j.... --.......----...-.-..--..-- ---'---""--" -......-.... --.. .--',..)-...... --- ... -...-.. --....-............-........ -- . -.... -..
Daten:
5 ,. 20
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
,2012
1
J
1f
~
i
1
i
,
l
~
~
1
'.,
;:.
?i'
iij.
f
i
10
11
12
13
II
14
15
16
'''''-'-'''' ......-..17--.-- .---. -...-.-.......-.. --....:. -.. --- .-- .-- .-. -....... - ........ -.. - ........-......-.. -.-.. -.... ---- - ......... - . . --. -.....-.. - ........,-.- --........--.....-...-.....--..-..~. -........-... -..-.--..--1~
18
19
. _. -_._- - _. ... _... "-" :-:-- ..: ._.-....... _...- ...... - -_ .... _... _._ .... - .- - ---- - - _.. J
t-
20
21
1
,
22
f,
23
:r
'f,
24
. '---1
25
! -
i
;~
- -l---
--..--..
--~c
. . -_---..----- . .-..-.--.. . -.-::.

~.-
..
-:::-:.-:=-~ _::~-.:-:.:---:-:-:--:.~~-.~_:_::_:_-.-.-
. -.-..
--::~ ~-:::-.~:_-
. :_::. --.-:::-:-:~-:-:---::.~.-. --:--:-:.. . .j

f
28
23
----------- -------- --- - ----- --- -- ----- ----- - - ---
------(-"'\--------- --- --- --------- - --- -- - ---- - ---- --- --- -- -- --- --J
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, C01JNTY OF VENTURA
Jhave read thf;"! :!:bIego~g document described as:

PLAINTIFF STIi:I,l"HEN MA GAG~ERO'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT KNAPP,
PETgRSEN & CLARJ{~S REQUt):ST FOR PROI)UCTION OF DOCUMENTS
lPURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 708.030]
3
4
5
and know its contents.
2L,...[ !iID a pgty to this. action. The -mf:l,~ smted in it ~ true of -my own knowl.edge except as
7
8
10
to ThO@. ma1ietS tlJaj, are sl.a.le.d on informati9fi @.d belief awi, as to diose ma.tters, I beljeve th.~ to
I be truel1
fj
11 ~
12
I $l1 officer; directQt~ partner, andlorman~g ageiJ.1 of a party to this aption,. and am
autho_rt7.m to ~e this verification fOT and (m i1;5 be.nalf~.and J make thjs verifiC$lo.n for tha..t
~n. I ar:n infOlmed and_ believe. ~ Q.o. that basis allege that the matters sta,l in it m;e 1roe ~d
13
co~t.
14\
I
15
-----------------I6-1----~-.,..-J-~~-9~~-~Lth.~~1@l~Y.~J~~J~.!tis_acE~~_: __~!_!.~_:p~__~_~~~nt_~~_~~!:~_~!Y. _________ 1______ .. _____ _

where_-such atto~s have th~ir offices, and I make this vc-riticatio.Q. for ~ on bc~ of t;bat party
17
- - -- - -::--- - ---:-,
for that tea$On. I am informed and believe~ and on that bac;is alloE;ge that tbe ma~ stated in it .are
18
--- - --- -.- --c: ---ffUc'aiia COii:-Ct::-- ----c--- ------- --------- --- ------ --, --- - --- -- -- - -- --- -- -: --: --- -------- --- - --- --:--,,---,- ---: - -- - --- ------- --- - --- - - --19
--- - - - 2{)
I ~lm-e under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia that$e fOJ:~gQU1g.
21
I
22
II
-
23 -Ii
24
is that the- foregoing; is tru,c-a;nd <:orrect

-- ---- -
&.e_cuted O:t;l
%"'f;..1:-;- . _~ __- 2012. at We(fl;lake.. C;ilifqrpja. .>
. .- _.- .,- - ._._.- -----_. _..__ ._--- ...... --- .. --_. -
")
_..
_- --- ..- ... ---- ...-.....:.. .. ---. --- --_._. -_..._- ....-..- . -_.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(C.C.P. 1913.3; 2015.5)
~ i;~.";. ~:<tL:';'~)?"~~~::: ~.~~, ~.~ .~~~~ ~J'~~' :;~:~::
/;\
':.,:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNtY OF vE:NTuRA~
4
";,.::,,:
I am employed in the COUntiofVeii~'S'tafe'o(California I ~ over the age of eighteen and not a .
5' . :party to the Within action. My business address is 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village,
.California 91361.
..
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 .BY MAIL I placed the above docmnent(s) in sealed envelopes thatI placed for deposit with the tJ.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
.
-_...- ..-.. ------. ---.. -
:~ -'-~-.~:-----
17
....
monon -of'the'party-
serv~-sefViceTs-presumed-irivatia-if
postafCariceI1a:tiOliClate or-postage mefe'" _. ----
date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
.'
18 _
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I placed theabovedocmnent(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 ..
'-'
22' .'. X'

.. 23 . .
-BY PERSONAL SERVICE' .

State: I declare under penalty' of perjury urider the laws of the 'State of California that the' above is true and correct.
.
24
Federal: I declarethatI am employed in the office of a member of thebarof i:biscourtat who~e

directioh the servic.e was. made..
25..
Executed on March 20, 2012 at Westlake Village, California
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
----hebet "E"
-- X--I--}
--E
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
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
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,
A _40"", \.,_1,;1",
I"'\U~La
"van.uy
Miller I LLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@millerllp.com
www.millerllp.com

Suite 2150
1-
MILLER
LOS ANGELES
I LLP
Reply To:
austa@millerllp.com
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA

Suite 2150
TEL: 800.720.2126
I FAX:
888.749.5812
www.millerllp.com
213.493.6400
April. 2,2012
VIA U.S MAIL & EMAIL
Westlake Law Group
davidblakec(cUhotmail.com
Re:
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al

Los Angeles Superior Court (BC286925)
Mr. Chatfield:
I write to address your responses to Defendants Request for Production of Documents (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).
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) of the document;
3) Recipients;
4) Date of preparation; 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 of names 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.
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
of his assets and money tovarious 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.----------------------------------~-------------------------
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
of the 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 a technical 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 undulyburdensome; The scope of discovery is broad
and the judgment creditors, as discussed below, are entitled to all the documents sought in the
. . .. Request for ProductionofDocuments,SetIwo).
Overly Broad; This is not a valid objGtion to any ofoth rqusts. As diSGussd below, the
judgment creditors are entitled to discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is likely to aid in
I
r------ilie enforcemenfOf judgment.
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 of their 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 of his 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._and Jris_ 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.
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 of the 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 _or through 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 of judgment..
,~
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 of his 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. If we 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
I~
.')
:", .J
II
I
I[
- -.
--
--
--------------------
--------------~--------------
---
----- -
--
Exhibit "F"
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
david chatfield
Friday, April 06, 2012 12:37 PM
Austa Wakily
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-a nd-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 of your deadline to file a motion tocompel j let me know. I will await your confirmation of
the meet and confer date.
1-------8aviE~Aa1fieIEl~--~~------------~------------------
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 I LLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@milierllp.com
www.millerlip.com
<image001.jpg>
Suite 2150
Austa Wakily
david chatfield
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:53 PM
austa@millerllp.com
RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (BC286925)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Austa,
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
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:13:01 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (BC286925)
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):j\ustaWakily
_ ...... ___
..._ ___
Subject: Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (BC286925)
r agree.
Sent from my iPhone
1
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]

To: 'david chatfield'
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

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 ttiiliRtnat you 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 by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U;S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally
. responsible for .delivering .th is_electron icmessageto.tbeintendedxeci pient,_youare. notified.tbatanY'
dissemination, distribution or copying of th i?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.2625TowFlsgate-Roacl-Suite338-WestlakeVillage,GA
1-------FFGmi.-ol:lstil@mj.!J@rU!hCoGRl
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:18:14 -0700

2
(:)
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (8C286925)
CC: scott@millerllp.com
('\
.,J
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 I LLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@millerllp.com
www.millerllp.com
<image001.jpg>
Suite 2150
()
C)
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Exhibit "G"
---
()
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Austa Wakily
Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:33 PM
davidblakec@hotmail.com
Meet and Confer re Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)
Dear Mr. Chatfield,

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 I LLP
0: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
uausta@millerllp.com -www.millerllo.com

~ .~ Su ite 2150
Exhibit "II"
'!To
11
3
4
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP

David Blake Chatfield (State Bar No. 88991)
Telephone: (805) 267-1220
Facsimile: (805) 267-1211
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Stephen M. Gaggero
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10

Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
16
vs ..
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE, a

California corporation; STEVEN RAY
GARCIA, an individual; STEPBEN M
)
HARRIS, an individual; ANDRE JARDIN!, )
an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
)
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]
17
18
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
DEFENDANT KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
19
RESPONDING PARTY:
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M GAGGERO
20
SET NUMBER:
ONE
21
22
23
.24.
25
-----2-0- --.--- .--.~. ~'-""'.' .- .., -.--~ ...-...-.-=-..---- ---.'-~...--_.0.- ... -~---.. - .. -" -.. -. '--.--.. '- .- -=----. - . -- -- '.-.. -"._-.. -'. - .."-. - - .'''.' ... - ...... _. --.~....,.
1
2
Plaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero (''Plaintiff'') hereby responds and objects to Defendant

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke's ("Defendant") Request for Production ofDocuments.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Nothing in this supplemental response shall be construed as waiving any rights or
objections that might otherwise be available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff makes this response subject to
and without waiver of:
7
8
(1) the right to make additional objections or seek protective orders in the event additional
review of files results in further information;
(2) the right to object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of the Requests; and
10
(3) the right to revise, correct;, supplement, or clarify the response.
11
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
12
13
14
15
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Arenzano Trust.
16
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
17
and harassing and unlimited as to scope and time. Because plaintiff does 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. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the
21
22
by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further 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~ att0 I1!ey WOJ."~-p:rociu.c;tciQ(;t:riJ}~~'f!1Qs~clO~.DJ11~!lt~ iD.c!ll<i~ ...
25
-
.. ".C .,,-
communications between plaintiff and hls counsel, the trust cindtheir colifise1; and the beneficiaries
.~.,.,.2p. :::3Ild..-fueir-,eeUE:sel.:~
- _.. - .- ... -::- -,-- ,,,.- -,..--_.,.-._.- -:---C.-: --_ ...-.~.-:_=--::: ,-"'_.. ~-::-::.-.-,,::,-:-:c - ~.,-:: =-~.-.-:.-.:C,. =.~ ..:::-.:c.,. ___ ......
t-~\,
!'
The trust is irrevocable and Plaintifthas no control or financial interest in it. The trust was set up
over 14 years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiff to
be in the possession and control of the attorney and Trustee, Joseph 1. Praske, however, the
requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are
otherwise subj ect to the privileges and privacy rights set forth above.
6 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2:
7
8

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2: '
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 plaintiff does not control the trust, and
11
is not entitled to any distribution from the trust, plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
12
grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
13
14
15
by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further obj ects
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
21
as follows: Plaintiff has no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
22
23
The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiff has no control or interest in it. The trust was set up over 13
..
"
~.
years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiff to be in
24 .th~poss.e.ssiQn_and contrQI of tbeattprneyand Tmste.e, JQseph I..Praske ,_howeyer,th~reql.lested_

. 25
. '.' ..".' ,. ,-0,,- 26-
documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' juagment collection efforts and are otherwise
_ :ahj-eet-t-ootb.e-"p:civileges,antlp:r=iva6y,right-s-,set,-f-oIth-ab@veic,~ .... _. ~ ---
.same.JWum1. .
-c . -- -- - - . ,
-- - -
~. - - - - ,.,--~,_--,-,
--"'-' . . .
. __
~I
;
;---)
".
~~

3 - and harassing and unlimited as to scope and time. Because plaintiff does not control the trust, and
4
is not entitled to any distribution from the trust, plaintiff further objects to this request on the
grounds that it seeks documents that are-neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects
10
attorney-client privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
11
12
and their counsel.
13
-14
15
The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiff has no control lor interest in it. The trust was set up over 14
16
years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiff to be in
17
the possession and control of the 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~j e~~ to _~e l?~y.il~~~s .an~ p~vacy' right~ ~et fb~_~o.,:~...
20
21
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust orfounda1ion that is part of YOUR ESTA1E
22
PLA-~.
23
24
25
- -- --. ----.,-2-6-
__ PlaiJ1tiff()bjeg~ to th~ d~fu:t!ti6~ _()tE~'I'AIE:rL.t\N~_~t foIi:b.i!J: 1?~fe~Cla.Il,r~_ ])~firri1ions ip. '...
that ifincludes but is not limited t6the preparation afmy plan 6fadrtiiniStratloiiaJid disposition of
d!l:-aintifEs-,pr-epeFty:.;:eW:tled,-by:P-lain13:E:-at~y-::1imemaay:apaci1y~,bef0Ee=-0LafteEdeath-inell.i.rung .
, -,- _ _
u
\,
on the ground that such an expansive group of definitions imposes a burden greater than what is
required by the California Rules of CiviLProcedure' and makes the requests overly broad, unduly
burdensome, oppressive, harassing andlor not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry into Plain1:i.:ff s current assets, which is the sole
subj ect of this discovery.

Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
scope and time period. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the
10
production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third
11
parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the
12
grounds that it seeks documents that are prote'cted from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
13
andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
14
15
as follows: Plaintiff has no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or controL
16
Trust documents are believed to be in the possession and control of the attorney and Trustee,
17
Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties'
18
judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subj ect to the privileges and privacy rights set forth
19
above.
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff obj ects to the definition of ESTATE PLAN set forth in Defendant's Definitions in
.. .2!Lthat it includes.butis not limited to the .prepaJ'atiQILQfany'plalLQfJ1Qmilli.s1I"atioll. aIlcl di~pm;i1:i9Il.QL .

25
.. -. -'.~ .-'.,--- .',-.c2;6~
Plaintiff s property, owned by Plamtiffafariy time ill any capacitY, before or after deatliinc1uiliIig
~wi1:4Ws15-,gi.ftS5-o:ri"C}wer",C}f-attomey:j=OI'-an.y.=other~method=C}estate=planning"anEb:finfI1ef"mfersto-
...
'" --: -:.. '.::'. --.-~ -::-: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~~gG~finjtioDs.-impQS~~~ak:;~=I==-_
1 required by the California Ru1es of Civil Procedure and makes the requests overly broad, undu1y
2
burdensome, oppressive, harassing andlor not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry into Plaintiff s current assets, which is the sole
subj ect of this discovery.

Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
scope and time period. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calcu1ated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the
10
parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
11
12
andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
13
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 plaintiff interprets 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 client
M
---,-----
.M.
._
,'_'
."
20
privil~ges
21
22
1----
_..
OM
_M
,_
__
and the other privileges and privacy rights set forth above.
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any COMMUNICATION REFERENCING YOUR
23
ESTATE PLAN.
24
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6: ___________ _
25
plaintiff obj ects to the dennitiolJ.otESTATE PLAN 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:andmspesmeu-aL-c
- __.___..,_::: -..:. _-2'i:: .PJaintlfP.s prQP.eDy.,..owned-hy::Plaintlffat.an.y_ Dmein..an.jLcapacl1y.;,JJ.efore.:m:-:-.afteLdeatn includIng.. ~ ..:. ,-~.

,....or: power of attorney, or any other metbocLo
1 the transfer of any assets owned by Plaintiff at any time to any PERSON or ENTITY collectively
2
on the ground that such an expansive group of definitions imposes a burden greater than what is
required by the California Rules of Civil Procedure and makes the requests overly broad, unduly
burdensome, oppressive, harassing and/or not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry into Plaintiff's current assets, which is the sole
subject of this discovery.
Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
scope and time period. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
10
evidence in this action. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the
11
12
parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
13
14
and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. The documents requested relate to and include
15
comml,lnications between plaintiff and his counsel over 14 years ago.
16
17
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the trustor regardless of
18. YOUR present income or financial interest.

19
20
21
and harassing and unlimited to scope and time. Because plaintiff, does not control any trust and is
22
not entitled to any distribution from any trust, plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
23
24 _di~Qovery Q:f a.dJTJj ssible~vidence iJ:ltllisJtQti.Qn.__Plam.1:iffftui:h~I" Qbj e_g~to i:bi~Ie<ll1~! gJ1J1J.<:l..
25
grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant aocume:nfstliat areprbteci:edfiomrusc1osure

-,bY--f>1ai-ntiff-s-,-andthIT4f>arties-',oGoB:Stiru:1i0na11~pr-et-e6ted.ght-':0pFiaG'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
and their counsel.
Trust documents are believed by plaintiff to be in the possession and control of the attorney and
Trustee, Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding
parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights
set forth above.
10
11
All DOCUMENTS that RHIA1E to any trust in which YOU are a lRUST PROTECTOR.
12
Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
13
and harassing and unlimited to scope and time. Because plaintiff does not control any trust and is
14
not entitled to any distribution from any trust, plaintiff further objects to this request on the
15
16
17
18
by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff further 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
22
and their counsel.
23
24
ctS~oll~V\T_:Plainiiff llas l1_o docU1IleIlts respo~iv:eto 1: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 plaintiff to be in the possession and conttoldf the attorney and Trustee,
_... --.... :~.: :-2.6-~I-0.seph J..~f:as-k-e;h0wever~-the:-FeEJ.uestea-4e0Wn-eRtsafe-..melevanH0~the:f>r-epounem-gparties:? ~=."""
1
2
/~.
")
,:;~

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a beneficiary, regardless
of YOUR present income or financial interest.
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
and harassing and unlimited to scope and time. Because plaintiff does not control any trust and is
not entitled to my distribution from any trust, plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
10
11
by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects
12
13
attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
14
15
and their counseL
16
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obj ectionsand limitations, Plaintiff responds
17
18
..... 19__ .. ,:!-,~~t~~? !().s~ph!:.I>r~!<:~,}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
23
. 25
--
- -..
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class ofbeneficiaries,
RESPONSE TO DOCUM:ENT REQUEST NO. 10:
~-.O ,"-~,~5-~~-,-,--~P.lainiiE-,ebjeet-s-t0-=this-FeEtHe~1h.e~-elill<il-s,;j;hat,it--i~everl-bF0aa,~undB1y-bUFdellseme~,~-.~ ~~ ..
.'.. -':'- ~~_~'-=::~2:l' -ctI1arassing.imcIJulU-miledwscope au<Uime.:=Recause.plaiDfiffflnes noLconftol any-;:-ttU~IDlctJ:K;,~ :.'=_~'=.

J---c====~=IIdl..Qi;,m:t;i;t;kdJ;G-anJiist.tihuti~~bObj~bJ.,Ljli:ls,:d,T.P.&i!:qIy,w;]e;iilru:k4)u,u".1.1.1&"--===-!==_
C)
)
I
discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the
by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further obj ects
attorney-client privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
and their counsel.
10
11
12
Trustee, Joseph J. Praske but that said documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties'
13
judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subj ect to the privileges and privacy rights set forth
14
above.
15
16
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid on YOUR behalf
17
by any PERSON or ENTITY including, but not limited to, Pacific Coast Management and Avalon
18
Corporation since 200 L
20
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that the term "on YOUR behalf' is overly
21 \broad and compound. Plaintiff further 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. Plaintiff further obj ects to this
23
24
to leadto then diSC9'Lerynof aClIlli ssibl~ ~YidYllc~igj:l:Ij~Jl.nctioIl__ ~PIMIltiff :furtl!e~Qbj~ftl)1:Q1:bil)u_nn __ ._n
25
request on the grourids that it calls 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
--
.- -
-.
-- ... _-
...
"
. . . - ..... _._.
-- ...
_.-
,",
-_ ...
--, ..
"'-"
--"-'-:--~""":"'.
-:--._ .......... _.. -'.'
... -
.... -
_. .
--- .. - -- .... - .. _- -
-'- -:~ --...
'-'."
as follows: The specified time period is overlybroad and unrelated to any reasonable attempt to
collect this judgment. If the propounding party agrees to limit this request to a relevant and
reasonable time period, Plaintiffwill produce documents reasonably responsive to this request in
plaintiff's possession and control that are not privileged. As to fees paid by plaintiff that are not
privileged, those documents have already been produced in discovery in this action and the
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke action currently pending before the Los Angeles Superior
Court in which the propounding parties' legal firm is the firm that prepared these discovery
requests.
10
DOCUMENT REQUEST .NO. 12:
All DOCUMENTS thatRELA1E to travel expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
11
12
13
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that the term "on YOUR behalf' is overly
14
15
broad and compound. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
16
17
18
19!~qu.~s~
9n tht: gr~~4s_!!J.~t}t_ c~~.for.~e~ro~l!.ct.i~~
_~f irr.~l~~~~_
~~~~~I?:~st!I~~_ar_e .:e~0!~~te4
.
".
-"
20
from disclosure by plaintiff s and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
21
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andJorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
23
24 . a~ :fQUQws~The time_p~riQ4is ovel"lyhroa.d andJ.lIlJela.t~(Lto.agy I~ag)!lJLhleatteIIlI>t 10_CQll~~ti:1li.s._
2'5 judginent. Should the propounding party agree to liinit this Request toa relevant and 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
~,
All DOCLThffiNTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or

Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the term '~on YOUR behalf' is overly
5
6
broad and compound. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
request on the grounds tliat it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurtherobjects to this
10
11
from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff
12
further obj ects 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
15
as follows: The specified time period is overlybroad and unrelated to any reasonable attempt to
16
collect this 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 plaintiff that 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 prepared these discovery
22
requests.
23
24hllDQ~:o:MEmS_1hatREL.ATBto:the transfer of any: asset Qwued_atanyj:im_Etb_y YOU in __
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
'~_"'."_'
._
,"
.~.
_ _ _
, _ _ _ _ _ _
".
" . _ . _ . __,
_-:
_ _ _
__
_. _____
-:
__
_._
,,'
"_.,,.
.~
._-,,~.
"",~._.,
it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds thatit
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is not aware of any assets he has transferred since the entry of judgment in
this matter.
10
DOCUMENT REOUEST NO. 15:
11
All DOCillv:1ENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU as
12
part of YOUR ESTATE PLANNING.
13
14
Plaintiff objects to the definition of the definition of ESTATE PLAN set forth in
15' Defendant's Definitions in that it includes but is not limited. to the preparation of any plan of
16
administration and disposition of Plaintiff's property, owned by Plaintiff at any time in any
17
capacity, before or after death including will, trust, gifts, or power of attorney, or any other method
18
of estate planning and further refers to the transfer of any assets owned by Plaintiff at 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 of Civil Procedure and
21
makes the requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and!or not otherwise
22
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of yvidence relevant to the inquiry into Plaintiff s
23
current assets, which is the sole subject of this discovery.
24
25
scope and
tlme period.Plruntifffurther obj ects 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:t<ilfiiS-r'.eqUest:On-the gf.6:ilnijS::ttfa,'riI,.cal1S:fOT-::the=::.= .~-=.:..~

~===",,:;,)~RFJ:_::;JBJl.
...r.rwhIJcCti~1;J.lmeDi.sAha;tcll;t:~~L-Qte~~4l:!iI:d===I==~
---
...-
-:--
-- --."----:--
---
.......
- ......_-
.--.
-.~---
...... - ... _ ... _- ..-. ---
:~)
1 parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plain1iEf further objects to this request on the
2
andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.

Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections and limitations, Plain1iEf responds
as follows: Plaintiffs estate plan was set up .over 14 years ago. Plaintiffhas no documents
responsive to this request in his possession or control that are within any reasonable time period of
the judgment Plaintiffs estate plan is irrevocable and was established over 14 years ago. Estate
Plan documents, as plaintiff interprets the Request, are believed to be in the possession and control
of attorney Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding
10
parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to attorney client privileges and the
11
other privileges and privacy rights set forth above_
12
All DOCUMENTS that RELAID to any post judgment discovery in any' matter to which
13
14
YOU responded.
15
16
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
17
to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that
18 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
-
19
a~s~~~!_~.~~~!?-~~ ~~th.i:s_.a<?~~m...~!~.ntif:f.~~~,?~j~~~ .~o. ~i~ ~~9cl!.~~~.~E: th.:~~?un.~ ~~~ i~.,
20
21
22
23
c------
__
__
..
.~'..
...
_...
.. .
_..
. ._.-
_ .....
-_.
. ....
2.4 ____ Sll.bject toatldwitllOut-waivi1.1g t1:t~foregQillg_o"bj~G1ioll_S illl!lJimit~tLo~_ Plaill.ti:fIr~sp_Qllfts_

n
25 -as follows: Plaintiff has no documents after entry ofjuCI.gDienf ill tliis casetliat are responsive to
- -~.c~~--~-.~_-,,26---thi-s-r-eElues:f;.e*-eept-f0E4he-El.iseev-eryA0ne-m-this"G-a-se;,--whiehA0euments:Me=-akeady=ifr:p0SSe-ssi0n~."c--c:-=---
__ __-~:~_::__n..
~. ._-~
?R
.::.ofIlfereq1]esting-paff}L=~--:::-:-=_~~. =.-~:~-::
___ ':'=-__ ,_~=:_._-':'::":~_''':'~:='':'~=~~ __~-=__ . _-=:: __~~~:~.:.-:~~==...:.='-::=-::-. =::-~:::''::''::::'--:-=:''
2
3
All DOCillvlENTS that RELATE to any judgment debtor exam of YOU since 2001.
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds thatit is overly broad as to time and scope as
to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that
admissibl~
evidence in this action. Plaintifffurtherobjects to this request on the grounds that it
10
11
12
13
as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents after entry of judgment in this case that are responsive to
14
this request except for the discovery done in this case, which documents are already in possession
15
of the requesting party. In addition, the requesting party is in already possession of all judgment
16
debtors exams taken of plaintiff since 2001.

18
'M"_
19
.. _ . _
20
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY of which YOU are an officer or
member.
.-
_. ____
... _.
__ .. ___ ___ .____ _ _
__ . ____ _
_"..
. _ . __ .
. .
___ . __
21
22
to be unduly :burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that
23
. . .
____~4__ a~JJ);sibl~_eviden~eillt4isa~ti9n._ R~aiJJ.1:iffJl.lrtl:l~LQ1:>.i~ct t()tl1i~1~qllest QnJl1e---Er()lll1<isJ:1:J.~tit _._ ..

..
25
..
..
calls for the production ofirrelevanfdocuIiients thaf are protected from disclosUre by phiinliff's .
.. . _._ ..... _- -.--~-f)-:- . anci4hi-rci-:pame?onstitufic.:mally::-pre1eetecl:-rightJ:tf:priwfteJ"-:cPlaintiff--fartb.eF-0bjeeEs-::tfrthi-g"r~EjUesk =-.-
..
~- -~:
_.-:.-:-:rr
........ __.H')~__
--..
-Dn~llie:-gr.GiiD.dS.lliaf.lt=s~cUmentsl1iaurr.e.::pi-Qrectea:.jT,Qm:ru:ScT.(}SUr~t1i.e~tEQmey~lienT:-~---":':~-:--
__ .
_.....r1 .. ,.;lAg&:aR~.Q~rk:'flWduct,dGctr:ine
Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
as follows: Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff
responds as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request.
All DOCUMENTS that RELA'IE to any property at which YOU have resided since
January 201l.
8
9
10
11
12
admissible evidence in this action.. Plain1ifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13
14
15
16
17
18
as follows: Plaintiff does not have any documents responsive to this request that are relevant to the
_..... _)Y..
20
21
P.~,?pq~~?-g.P_~~~'.~ol!~~~~.e.f~'or:t~~ tWs.~a~~r.: __...

All DOCUMENTS that RELA'IE to real property located at 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura
22
California, 93001.
23
25
to be unduly burdensome and harassing.PIaintiff:furtb.er obj ects t6 tliisrequeston the gtotilids that .
.. .- .... -:: ~=-.-:-Z-6::::.:..... ~:~ .~_~~..=2'L

.?R.
jt-:se~e>cumentS::ihatar-e:-Jlei-ther-::-rel-evant-:::ne>r-:-I-ease>nably::eal-eulated::tfrlead-::t-e4b.w-sOOy-efjl".::0:t. -~
..
..:.
..:: .. -_
~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::=--..:~ -:~ '.:...-.~

~'..-th",... ~Gt-&t~-es:kG1Hh~w~t~~d~~
1 that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff s and third parties' Constitutionally protected right
of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product
doctrine.
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any tax DOCUMENTS filed by YOU or on YOUR
behalf
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
10
11
it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead tothe discovery of
12
13
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff:further objects to this request
. 14
15
16 . privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.

17
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
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the term "on YOUR behalf' is overly
21
22
broad and compound. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
_..
"
_.
_..
_.
",
___
_.
_. -
"..
M.
.._
23
24
Ieqll~~ton the grOllll<!s :that ite~ks<iQ_gtlJ:Ilt~Il1:S that _8.[eJ!~il:h~I" Iel~Y~1!t!1()Lr~~~01J.aJ:>!y~a19Q1~t~(L_

.
. . Z5
..-:- ---0
.. __ __
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in tliis action. I>laiiitifffurther obj ects t() this
-~~~-.--~~: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~ onthegrnillld&that-it-seek&-deGtJ:!3:lntsth~~~~===r==~
1
2
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.

as follows: Plaintiff is not the owner of any Entity, equitable or otherwise.
,5
All DOCUMENTS that RELA1E to any income tax returns including, but not limited to,
W2's, 1099's, K -1' s, whether prepared for federal, state, or municipal that RELAIE to YOU since
January 1, 2005.
10
and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that
11
are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in
12
this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
13
14
Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds
15
that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor
16
the attorney work-product doctrine.
17
18
All DOCUMENTS thatRELA1E to any money given to YOU for any purpose since 2010 .
. _, ... ~?..... ~~~.~~~E.~()~9.C~~"T.!ill9~STNg..~.~.:.......... , ....

20
. _.. .
...
,.. _____ . ___ ........._ ,.'...
__ .. .
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad,
21
22
23
_ ... _ .. __ 11 .. c.all..$ mrthe pro9uctiol1(}fir:releyantdg~l.@~nts tbaj:ill"~ prQte..Qt_~cJft91!l4!s~19sureJ2YJ?1~tif:t". _______ ..._

25 and third parties' Consiitutiomilly protected right ofpTIvaey. Plamtlff further 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:bccthec:attemey....elient-::-:::::c:-c:.i-:-=--=.
.', -'.. ~~ ._~,:~._~2i-

?R
r-rfi-vi:leg"e.:a.natrit'lb.'e aItOme)LW6i:K.~ptl5iliiCEdOctruie:",:.=-:'::':':'--~:':"':~=-==:".:-~===~.=.:.:~--=~:'~~~:::..--:..=---=. '=. ~. ~. r-=--.::::...
All DOCUMENTS that RELA'IE to any income earned by YOU since 2010.
to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj e6ts to this request on the grounds that
10
11
privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
12
13
as follows: Plaintiff will produce any documents responsive to this Request in his possession and
14
control if the propounding party agrees to limit the document request to the releyant time period.
15
16
17
equitable interest
18
__
___ _ ____ }~_________ }~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_ Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that
21
22
23
24~cl !1rird p~es' G9~stituti(}na!ly_pl"o!~~t~4!ig!lt~fJlrtV"a~y_~1a!n1:iftJl.l.rtheI"52~j e.~_t()_~~!~C!l:l~st __ ._
--25
()n the grounds that it seeks doCuments that are profected from disclosutebytneattomey;.ciient
------ ----=_-26-c-, :f>ri:vilege:-ancll-er-th.e-:att-emey-wer-k-pr-eciuet-:d0emn~ _
::-:.:. ~-_~_-~ ~~_- -- 2,- ---?R
--~ubJec-Cto.1iDd:w.il1i(5UfwaiV1ngI1ie.fOr.egolTIg~ai.onslm(t]Jmita1i.oiiS;ElaihliIDesPo:ffit--
'" <' *,.Q.ll.ows;...P...lain:ti.fllas.J1.o.Aocumen~.si:v;eA
_ - _. - -.est-.heGaus_eJl:e:,do_~:tlQt.~ __
OJ
1
account in which he has a legal or equitable interest.
All savings accounts in institutions that represent accounts in which YOU have an
equitable interest.
Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
6
7
action_ Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
10
Constitutionally protected right of privacy_ Plaintiff further objects to this request on the 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
14
15
because he does not have a bank ~ccount in ~hich he has an equitable interest_
16
DOCUMENT-REQUEST NO. 28:
All deeds, leases, mortgages, or any other DOCUMENT evidencing any interest or
17
ownership, including equitable interest or ownership, by YOU in real property at any time since
18
19':' .._.- 1997.
...
'--:'~'
20
- - .
'::-.--
.. ..
--:-'
.:
""",---,
"'--.:-'- ':-':.- :-.-
-_._- -:-,-
,",-"'.-
':.:--
.-
::~".-
-':.. " . '
."~.
_.. -
. . . . ,_.:-- ...... _.- ......
_.... _.
21
22
23
I~____ . _______ ?4
I-
-:~'.-:--
__~_d:g!!~site~videnQ~.mtllisa.ction..
:t>l~n.i:ifffurt:b.~r Qpje_C1s t9j:1Ji~_reqll.~s_:tQIl,:t:b..~PlJ!l.Qstha.tjL _ ._
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are profeCted
--25
from'disClosure by phiirltiff's .
.---''-' ,,-,~,,--=~2~ -ancl4bir-a-pa.ffies~-eB:s1itati.-ena1lY--f>r-eteGtea.-:r:ight-,ep:ci'V.aeyd:~I-aintii&:fiu=th.er=0bj:eet1)-t-e"tbis-"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=:~- . ..~.~-=:-_
_ _._._ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _
'.
_ _ _ _ _
_ .. _
_.'0
__ 0'
_ .,. _. _ _ .:-_: _ _ . _
__
'
i-=====,,?~R1=I_~~tt~-k=PIDdud;..d.QMTinp.
_ _ . __
__
_ _ _ _ _ .,,_,
_._
(
1
as follows: Plaintiff has 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.
All DOCUMENTS evidencing any interest or ownership, including equitable interest or
ownership, by YOU in any asset at any iime since 1997.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
privilege and!or theattorney work-product doctrine.
17
18
as follows: Plaintiff will 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
--- -
~..
...
~.
"
21
All stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS evidencing ownership of stocks and bonds
.
. .
22
held by YOU in any capacity.
23
'
.. ______2Ll- ___ . ___ __Plaintiffobjects.to tbisreque.st_.on_the.grouudsthatitis _o\l"erly'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.:eidence..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. _...... ',' ,___ ___ ._, __ ... __ ... __ .._. " _-__ .____ ... ___ . _ ._ .. -, ... -- .
privilege andforthe attorney work-product doctrine.
DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 31:
7
8
.All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Pacific Coast Management Corporation.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 31:
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds thadt is overly broad as to time and scope as
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
as follows: Plaintiff has 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
23
.All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Avalon Corporation.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 32:
.. ___ u_ ~4 _. ____ _.J?lain!iffgpj e.ftsJ9_ t!ri~regu~s.t on _th~_grQt:m.dsJ1:@tit j~_9Y~l"ly _b.I()a.Q.a.S!Qti.TI1~ a,rLd_s.~op~_ a.s.u _...
25
c--.".-=-
-,,:-=44-:-
tobe unduly bUrdensome and harassing. Plru.n't:ifr'furtIier objectsfo This iequesforii:he grounds that
::-it-::seeks-cl.eeument-s-:-that-ar-e:-neither..,-r-elev-ant-nef-f'-easenably::ealeulatecl:::tedead-:=t-e"theili-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 .
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
unaware of anyone who would be in possession of such documents.
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Pacific Coast Management

Corporation is a general partner.
10 - RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REOUEST NO. 33:

11
Plaintiff obj eels to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
12 - to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that
13
14
15
calls for the production.of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff> s
16
17
18
_ 1~~~t:i<?!l.s~_~l~g~r.e..~9_n4~
__
19 ___. . _. __ .__ ~~~It?_C.t._!9 _~~ ~~~l!t._~~Yin~~_ ~<?~eg<?~~g_<?~j~~~1!~.~4
..
20
21
Unaware of anyone who would be in possession of such documents.
22
23
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{)@r"r..f"
____ .
unaware of anyone who would be in possession of such documents.
10
._ _.... _"
All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any lawsuit in which YOU are involved as a
11
representative for any PERSON or ENTITY.
12
13
14
to be unduly burdensome and harassiog. Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that
15
16
admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds 'that it
17
18
~? ... ~~ .1J.1~.S!:~~4s !h~t. ~!. ~~_~~s.E.<?~~~t~. !ha!.~!~

p~'?!~~~~. fr..~~ .c1!~?J.o_~e. ?I ~t?~~<?!P-~Y..:-~~.~~t
.......... ..
--"
20
21

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
22
as follows: There are none.
23
24
. 2501:- personai, which YOU oWn, including equitableoWnersbip, ilidividillilly or jointly-with: any other
-.. ---.=----..."...,....20-PE.&S8"N:--c -:-.. =--.-::--.-:--_- - ' - -...-.. _- -----__-.---.-.- --. .-. -. ------:::-_.:-'_~.. ----:-_.~"::-'.~ -:.::::::-... --. . . . . . . -"'"'Y?.-.-----:_-.~
-n"'E'.sn-nil\.Tc:rIi<.........fl-nY1l(;UMEl\..,.rr:RE01"Tli'"C<rpl\.Tr.; ..
-.tU..t!-:I;...\J:l~-~J1t---L--Y-..I:.J-V
" . .- ... .........

-.J.u.:---.-.
.-.--------.
-----._._____.~._.A_ .. ___ -.--
- .':l~--I:-~!-~J.:lli~..y..
-'2-r~
........-
........-
.--
- -
...
-.
. . . . h
1 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that
2
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff:" s
on the grounds that it seeks documents th~t are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
8
9
as follows: Plaintiff has 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
13
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any deb~ incurred by YOU since 2005.
14
15
16
17
18
calls for the production of irrelevant 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
21
privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
22
23
__ .. __.
___ . ._ ___ ~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~~tmd&tha~lybroad~4-s~~=~
to be unduly burdensome and harassing_ Plaintiff further obj ects to this request on the grounds that
admissible evidence in this action_ Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plainti:ff s
and third parties? Constitutionally protected right of privacy _Plaintiff further obj ects to this request
8
9
Subj ect to and without waiving the foregoing obj ecti.ons and limitations, Plaintiff responds
10
relating to any debt incurred after the judgment in this case became final.,
11
Dated: Apri130, 2012
WESlLAKE LAW GROUP
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--------- ______ 0_-__ - _ - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _____.______. _ _-_ _ _
.--':', --~:--,c=~~-='_'
_-.-.
._ _A",
~:2.I
_ _ -
-- -----
-.-,--
-.,
_ _ _ _ _ .. _
_.
- - ----
-----
- -- ---
------
-----
- - - - -- - - - - -
-----
-- --
- --
---
---
---- ---:----,--:-:-:-------:--,
-~-,
_ _ ._.
----------:-~.-----:-.--.---:.------
--
__ _ _ _
___ ... _ _ _ _
__
_ _________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
--
._ -
_ . _ . _ .
_.
__ ._
__
----
---
---
--,----------
0 ' , _ _ _____ A
_._.
___
._.
___
__ _. _ _ _ _
_._. . .'-._-_ .... --.. - -._--'--._-- ._--- --------_... _...
'\
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen 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 served the foregoing document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPo.NSES TO DEFENDANT KNAPP,
5 PETERSEN & CLARK'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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 set forth below. I
8 am readily familiar with the finn's practice for collection and processing of documents for :m.ail.i1ig.
9 Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. lam aware that on motion of the party
10 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than
one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
11
_ _ BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I placed the above document(s) in a sealed envelope and placed
it for deposit with Federal 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 indicating that the doClIl:Q.~p..t(~were :siiccesSfully transmitted_
.
BY PERSONAL DEL$Y'jj'pla6ed iliir"kbove::document(s) in a sealed envelope and
caused them to be personally de~vered by 4~4 to't1!-~J?yr.son(s) set forth below.
15
_:....
\.:::.:..:=--:::.:~:.:.::-..:.~~~!~::.~~-;.:..::.::. :. :......~ "::~':.'
16 Randall A. Miller
:MillerLLP
17 515 South Flower Street, Suite#2150
18 Los Angeles, CA 90071
19
. I declare under penalty of peJjury under ~t? J~~_9f t1;l~ Stg,t~_of.California that. the-4hov-e.is-.....--..- .
... -.-~.-.--- .. -- ...-.:-........ -:.--. - - . -~
-... -. - ------. --------'--;.,-."'e
. 20 U U.antt"'co"..,-e-c:t----
-J..L
Executed on April 30, 2012, at Westlake Village, California.
21
22 .
- .- -- .--. ..' --23-- . . .--
--~
.... - -.----
24
25
26
------------~~-
- -
..- -21"
- - _.......-"'--'-- .
28
-=-'-"=~
.... .
- - - .. - - - - - - _ . _ _
'--'-'
_..
.. -
- .- -
..
-----~:;;:-.;;;.-<----.---.-.---.-
._-_._--=--.- __________..____ - ___ .-----------.-----_ ......--_._------ -----_._._---------------
-----.- - - .. -.-.
-_.
---" -
- ---_.--
---:} --"1--:
E kebet
1
- - - ----- --= -XiII
-r---------------------~~
77- - --- - - - - - - -
r------------- ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- ---------------------i
Austa Wakily
Austa Wakily
Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:22 PM
'david chatfield'
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al (BC286925)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
( 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 I LLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@millerlip.com
www.millerlip.com

Suite 2150
r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/~
I
r
.--
...... - - .
1- - ---- ---- ---- ------Exbibir~~~----
--------------
:
I
T--------------~-----------------------------------------.------.-------.--------.-----.-.--
-.-------
MILLER
LOS ANGELES
i LLP
Reply To:
austa@millerllp.com
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA

Suite 2150
TEL: 800.720.2126 I FAX: 888.749.5812

www.millerllp.com
213.493.6400
May 10,2012
VIA U.S MAIL & EMAIL
Westlake Law Group
Re:
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al

Los Angeles Superior Court (BC286925)
Mr. Chatfield:
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
th
documents and a privilege log by April 30, 2012, which was a condition of the April 30
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.
\
/
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
of the 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 owned"by 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,oroirecftiUe fotlie-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 of the 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)mf 1lnclerstand- 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
c..llaJlll!~.s....suc.h...as...Sj:~enBlanchar.d)
l-------...llL...lll"
in his pe.rsonaLc.apac'-"iity1----_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
May 10,2012
Page 3
RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
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 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:iequestsl :"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 of a third party.
Trusts and Foundations Generally: requests 7-10 seek documents relating to all trusts or
. foundations that Mr:Gaggero mayhaveassets,-but Willen Mt.Gaggeto ma)nlsseftare notparU>f

- _ . --~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 a lavish Jifestyle, including vac.ationingoyerseas, living on.al,500 acre ranch, and spending
.- ._ .. u___
-.-hundreds-QthQusands-QdQllar-s-p:ur-suing-law-suit.s,.whi1~Glajmjng-h~is-destitut.e.-+hes~request-s.- .... --
seekinfotrnationconceming Mr.. Gaggero' s sources 6f income, fiiianciallJenefIts,nght Qraccess

to payments of any kind.
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 of the 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"
-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 of the 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 orcontrol of th:atitem or-categ-ory-ufitem: 11- Second,-we-
-in.-Mr~Praske'spossessioii
----~~~are_aware_that-Ivfr-;-GaggeF0~in-an0ther-lawsuit-has-fileEl-a-m0ti0n-f0r-pf0teGti"v~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.
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 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. 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 of the 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. AT&T Info.
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. Uponthe completion the estate plan Mr. Praske continued to provideservices 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 of providing facts that demonstrate the communication
subject to the attorney client privilege objection was made during the course of an 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-in&lude-independent-fa&ts,su&h-as-Elis&10sUfe-0f-names-0f-witnesses~existenGe-0f
l- -- -
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..
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 of San
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 of the Orient v. Superior Court City and County of San 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 and For 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 specific factual 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 -t<f 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
of their 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 _of the _estate_ plan for Mr. Gaggero,.Mi",
1---
-.. - - -- -----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.
--,,)
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 of his 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 behalf or on behalf of a third party.
r ... ---.. .--.- .----- -.--.

I
/)
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 of all 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 of their judgment.
Additionally, to the extent that the request is expansive- it is directly because of Mr. Gaggero'sdecision 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 of documents relating to the Arenzano Trust since its inception:
e
Arenzano Trust documents or any document establishing the Arenzano Trust;
Documents that are incorporated by reference or referred to in the Arenzano Trust

documents, but which do not constitute the Arenzano Trust documents;
Amendments, revisions, or modifications to the Arenzano Trust;
Arenzano Trust Property, including all documents relating to the disposition, acquisition,
fmancing, sale, transfer, or exchange;
Management of the Arenzano Trust;
----------e-Ownersbip-of-the-Arenzano-Trust;
e
l-
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 of the Arenzano Trust ot ArelizafiO Trust PfOpertySmce
the implementation of the Arenzano Trust;
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.

"S
+0
sco-~
~-d +~~e
1--~~d
1-'urde~so""'e
aI'd
1-.arass;~g
f2\
+he
.....
Cl
L
pc; a.u
L.l.lH, oue-ly
v.l
U.l va. , "~;J,,ly
LU.lUU.l
U
H
H.l
.l
H
.l.l.l ,
\
}
u
U "s+
u- L ;s aI'
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 of the Giganin Trust;
1~----------Management-of-the-6iganin-'Frtlst;
I
r- -
Trustor, Trustee, Beneficiaries, other individuals or entities with rights or obligations

-under the-Giganin Trust;
)
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.

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 of his 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 of this 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;
-F olinaation-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 of Establishment;
1- -- -- - ----------- ------- --. -- - - - - -
~-
-- -
---~
-~-
~-
- - - - - -- ----
---~-
~--
------
------------~~
-~
Amendments, modification, changes, and revisions to the Declaration ofEstablisbment;
May 10,2012
Page 11
Duration, termination, or dissolution of the Aqua Sante Foundation;
Certificate of Registration;
Stephen Gaggero.
Request No.4: All DOCUMENTS thatRELATE to any trust or foundation that is part of YOUR
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 of his 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;
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 and time. 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.;
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
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
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) KPCis 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:tmg to 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.
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 19902005;
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'suse-ofoff;..-snotetrustsand foundations
.c
.
1
_1~
hi
1.....
l'
"
1"...:1'"
1 ...:I"
~-~--~~as~part-01.-an~asset-pF0tGt10n~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 of Mr. Gaggero's estate plan. We will agree to limit the defInition of YOU
in this Jeql.lest to :Mr. GaggerQ.inhis perSQll.al capacity.
\
May 10,2012
Page 15
Request No.8: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a TRUST
PROTECTOR, regardless of YOUR present income or fInancial interest.
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.
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
presentlyin-c1ass-ofbeneficiaries: Agairr, Mr. 6'aggero's use of -
is-clearlyl~ted whetherhe-is
---~-~--0ff-sh0r}-trusts-and-f0undati0ns-as-part-0f-an-ass.t-pr0teGti0n-plan-makes-bis-0f>jeGti0ns-r.lating--~---
l-- - ---
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 th~_de:finition o:(YOLJ in.this_requ~stt().Mr.. Qa..ggeroin.bi$ personalc~pacity,
May 10,2012
Page 16
GENERAL FINANCES
Request No. 11: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid on
YOUR behalf by any PERSON or ENTITY including, but not limited to, Pacific Coast
Management and Avalon Corporation since 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' is limited to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid
for the benefit of Mr. 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 of the 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 paymenf of those-expenses by 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-un1imitea-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
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 after judgment became final.
~----'--~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~:f>I0:f>er.--'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.
-- -_.
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.
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.
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 of the 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% of the 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.
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.
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 of assets.
Request No. 30: All stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS evidencing o.wnership of stocks
and bonds held by YOU in any capacity.
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,-wliicn YOU oWri,iriCludiiig eqmfa1Jleownership;individual1Y ()f -jointly with any other PERSON.
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.--Gaggeroisidentifid-personaUy-as-an-insUfd.--Wg..wil1-agr-tolirnitthisrequest to documents since January 1, 2009.
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.
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 of which YOU are an officer
or member.
This request seeks documents relating to any entity, which is broadly defined in the Request for
-. Production of Documents (Set -'Two), andincludescorporation,lirnited liability company,limited
liability partnership, general partnership, trusts, foundation, or other partnership or association,
of which Mr. Gaggero is an officer or member. The request is clearly limited to the present, thus,
all documents responsive to this request as of January 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 of the specific privilege.
Request No. 33: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Pacific Cost
Management Corporation is a general partner.
. Plaintiff oOjectst(y tills request on-the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as to -be
--~- unaUIY-biira:ensomeanal:i.arassiiig-.~. Gaggero~respona:s-thatlienocro~c1iTI1entsresponsrveiO
this request in ills possession or control and is unaware of anyone who would be in possession of
such documents
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 of privilege are improper.
Request No. 34: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Avalon Corporation
is a general partner.
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
.request the assertion of privilege 'are "improper.
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 of the 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 of the 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:ouId produce 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 if you have any question or concerns related to this letter.
Sincerely,
f---~-"'~~'W~
Austa Wakily
. MILLER I' LLP
- ---Exhi
---
- ._--._-
.. _-
_.-.-
- __
.
..
_---
- ..
_..
bif~K"
--- ---- --
!
f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - . - - . - - - - . - - . - - - - - . - - -... - - - - . - - . - - - - - - -.. - - - . - - . - - - - . - . - - - . - . - . -.... ---.-- ... - - - . - i
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Austa Wakily
Monday, May 21, 2012 4:16 PM
davidblakec@hotmail.com
'dawn.m.masters@gmail.com'
Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)
Dear Mr. Chatfield,

I just 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

Suite 2150
Austa Wakily
david chatfield
MondaYr May 14r 2012 1:56 PM
austa@millerllp.com
RE: Gaggero v. KnaPPr Petersen & Clarker et al (BC286925)
image001jpg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Yes.
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
Q1 ~h1 nhnno' (QOt:)
2h7_122n fay' (snt:) 267-1211 omail. na\liriRlalror@\fahnOrOm
v
1
wlJ...-!V.L
t-'IIVII""""
VI..L
A.
V>J
I..I...L..L
...... ,1
Vl\.." . . . . . ,'-'-'
II .......
.IV-
"\".0
III
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:49:55 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al (BC286925)
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
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:45 PM
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

f-----IFeaaeF-ef..tR1s-fFlessaj&-&AeMRe-iHteAaeEl-reEii3ieAt,eHAe-ernpleyee-ePajeAffeSpSAsi13le-feF-EieliVeRH4i1is-eleet:t'6AiE---message to the intended reCipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
1
--
..
Date: Mon, 14 May 201213:18:08 -0700
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
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 I LLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@milierlip.com
www.millerIiD.com

Suite 2150
I
2
-f-.--. ----.-- -------------._------.------ --------.. -------------.- ----- -- -----------------.----- -------------.- --- ------------ -------------------_.-------. -------._-
\
-----
--
----
- - - ---- --
---
-- --
--
------ --
~--
----
- -----
--
----
---
- - ---
--
--
--
- -
--
------
.~
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
david chatfield
Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:58 PM
austa@millerllp.com
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,

Below is the cover letter for the documents that were mailed to you today.
David Chatfield
May 24,2012
Austa VIakily
MillerLLP
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke

BC286925
Dear Ms. Wakily,

This letter is in short response to your letter of May 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-that will-beprodueedin-the nearfuture;-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 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:gonntry of the :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,

1
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.c. 2510-2521 and is legally
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@vahoo.com
David Bla1ce C4atiield, State Bar No. '88.991

, WESTLAKE LAW 'GROUP
2 ,2625 TownsgateRoad, Suite330 ,

Westlake Village~ 'California 91361
3 ''teLephone:
805",2671220
Facsirnile:805 ..267-1211
4'
Attorneys for Plaintiff
, STEPBEN M~GAGGERO
()
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALlFORt'l1.4
FORTru;'COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9 ',STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
'CA:SENO.::BC2S6925
December i2? 2002
,Filed:
10
Plaintlff.'.".
Ass~gnedTo
Dept lA
'yo
:Pate;, luly2Q,20f2
Time: 1:30'p"m.
Dept:; 1A
15
16
1:7
18
- -t~~--20
,2'1
,22
23
--
-~~~~-'~--~c-j+~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~--~'--~~- ----,~~~~~-~~-~--~--~~--~-~~~-~- -~-~--
'24
25
r-
--,16-- -: ----- ---
- ----
27
28
[pROPOSED] ORDER OFP'B;01'ECTION
IT IS HEREBY 'ORDERED THAT:
1.
Any documents to beproduc.ed hyplaintiffStephen 'M. 'Gaggero that contain
0r
3.compris.eco:0::5dentiril fi.J1ancialinfotqIauoJ;i C"Gotrli4ential :M~terial") shall 1:Je ;gov:~edbyiliis

40rder~andshali he identinedhyaffixmga':Confidential Information Subject'toProtective Order"
5 legend im'a conspicuolls manner on 'each doofurieIit so~ciasslfied.
2.
All Confidential Material wi1lbeentitled to protectionfi'om ,disclosure under
'7 ':Califomia law.

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-m""y motIon ,or ,discovery proceedmg, it shall he filed In.asealed
11 . elwelope:on which shall he affixeda'copy.oftheca,ptionpage.of'the:document, pIllS the;wotiis
.'. . "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
14,
the jud,ge assigriedto thisactlgn, trlaikeJi''JI,1D,GE~ S,GOPY;~~d 'cP11tawing ibe<s:tateme;ntbn'the
15 .' caption:page: "'FIDED fiNbER:8EAl.;,S1JBJ:ECT TOCONFIDENTIAI':I;n:'0RDER," Ac6pyo:f ,

16 .1hedocument filed under :seal ,Shall he serVed :dnall patties 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 'of this proceeding
.and :foihootherptoceedfu.g
....---____ or
__ ..pUtpQse.No.confidentiaLMateria:l m<l,Y be disclosecVtoanypersoll
:t9~'~---
20
~-
._~
~._.
~_c __
._.
--
.--
- ..
--..-
. - - - - -. . . . - .. -.-
...
-.
-.--
.. : . --
--
bilietiliah the fdllowiiIg.:.:

a.
Tbe:Jiamedpart1es.
b~
;CounseLo! recoid~ and theiro.moe.staff.
21
22
c,Gourtreporters who:$hall a,gree 011- the record. orm writing to ,-abide bytheteITIi~
23
i~---~--~-I- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _othis_:Drde<L..of.~__
24
NQtljfug ill the fOregoing provisions shall preclude plaintiff or any affected third
5..
25
. .-~ . -patty -from seek:ing:-such;~addi.tleIiaJ:ptoteGtionwithrgard.trth(;,GoJifidentialit -of~he{);mfUie13.1ia1
-..Qf}.-.,,-.-
27
~.
--.-.-. -.- -- _ ..'~"::'" -----.--~~.--------- -...- - -- .. -- .--.... -.- _ .. -. -. --
-- - ---.. _.- .. - ... ---- - --- - -~ -
-~--,-
.' Jv[menaLas tliatJ?artymay,deem~apprQPiiate>
r-----~-+t_--~.6.,.;..--_--.;lI~~.o.un.ael is
.sewed With a 'Sllhpoetia fcit production of an:
28
1
[pROPOSED] ORDER OF PROTECTION
GonfidentiaIMaterial.thatplaintiffhas produc.ed, the subpoenaed party shall promptly give written
notice to :plaintiffprior to compliance with the sul1poenasoas to allow the plaintiff and any
affected third parties timetoseekprotection bythe.court.
1.
Finaltenninationofthisaction, inqludingexhaustion of appellate remedies
an4
judgment. enfotceme:ritshall not terminate thelimitationsoll use and disclosure imposed1lIlder
this Order, UponfinaI tenninationofthis actioll,all Confidential Material. and .all.copiesthe);eof
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 with the Courtandattomey wdrkproducHhat cont?insor consfitutes Confidential
. :. Material so long. as. such documen.tsaremaintainedinaccordance with the nrovision~.ofthis

10
J;'
nOrder..
Thenamedparlies?a.ndrill third parties:sribjed to discovery lniliis proceeding
13 .'1l!l,d1or wlJ,o ryceiv:e 'a,cop' of this '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 .corm herebyteta,fu~ju:risclicti<jnto.interpretandenforcethls Order under the laws of the
16"
State,otCalifornia.
11
18:
--
.1~
pATED: May~2()12
-
20
2{
'22
'23-
24
25
--~n
28
2
[pROPOSED1 ORDER OF PROTECTION
r-------- --------------------------------------.--.-------------------- ---.----------.---------- ------- -.----.---- -------- ------ ----.------ .----------
PROOF OF SERVICE
'.
. t am.a residentofthe.State ofCalifomia~ .6vertheage~of eighteel1:years,and not:apartyto
the within .action..My business address IS is 2625 TownsgateRoaq, Suite 33Q;Westhike Vi11age~
California9136L
..
.
4.
011 May :23, 2012, Isented the :f(,)tegoil1g doc1JlIlent(~) :desciibeda:$; '[PltOP.()SEIJ]
ORDERQF PROTECI'ION
5
-L
doctllnentsJofmailing~ Undertliatpracticeit would 'be"depositedwitbU$"Post;ll Service on

that same. day with.postage tliereonfully ptp.aidm t11eordfuary'conrse' Of -business. I, am
aware that on motion ofthe party seri'eq,.service :is:presumed invalid ifpostaT cancellation
date otpostage:meter date ismorethan>()ne.dayafterdate~of deposit:formai1i:qgm:affidavit.
:7
8
'BY FEDERAL jj}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.
10
11
BYFAJ';S,IMILE JtraJ.1~nritted :tb,e :a;bove dpcument(~) ,by faosimile 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,
12
1$
;
li4
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
,'-.
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
.Randall A.Miller
16 ; A'U~ta 'Wa:ki1y
. Millet tLP .
17 ;'S7lS'SouthFlow#:r$tteet, $uite4J50
'TIosAngeles~ CA:~0011
18 . Facsirnile: -888'-749.;"5812
IdGlatellIider penalty dfperjury under the laws of the 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] ORDER OF PROTECTION
David Blake.ChatfieJd,StateBarNo. 88991
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2 "~625 Tovmsgate Roac1",Suite330

Westlake Village, California 9:1361
:3 Telephone:805t267..:1220
- Facsimil~:
805-267-1211
4
5 'Attomeys forPlairitiff
STEPHENM; GAGGERO
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATEOF'CALIFORNIA
FORTBE:COUNTYOFLOS ANGELES
STEPHENM~GAGGERO
...
...
..
..
'"
CASE NO.;
BC286925
Filed:
December 12, 2;002
.Assigned To Dept. lA
11
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICEOFMOTIONAND
12 ,JCNAPi;,PETERSEN&CLAR:KB;STEVEN
RAYBARC!A; SIEPBEWM. HA..RRIS;
L3 ,ANDRE JARDOO; :arrdD.GES 1. tm<rqgh'5Q;

jnd~;;iv:e)
14
MOTION,FORPOSTJUDQMENr '. .'

ENFORCEMENT PR()n:CTIVE-ORPE~
{QECLA.RATIONrOFDAVID
CHATFIELD
,. " , BLAKE
,.,
Defendants.
15
16
1'7
Date:. ,July29,2Ql~
"rID1e; J-:3D:tdri.
Dept lA
18
-- 1'920
21
22
23'
24
25
- ---26- 27
28 '
'.
MOTIONFORPDSTJODGMENT ENFORCEME1'l"T PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO ALL PARTIES AND'THEIRAT':fORNEYSiOFBECDRD:

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;above"flrititledcq:ufj:. locatedjitJll 'North Hill

-4
Street, :L08 ..A1lge1es~California.. 90012, plaintiff St~phen,M.Ga,ggerowill move>thisCourt Toran
order of protection, pursuant to Code,ofCiYil ~F.r:ocedur.e "Section 2031.060, -to restriot-the u~ceo:f '
6 ,plaintiff'sconfiderttialinfornlation soughUo be.pr.oduced by defendants"
The . Motion for ,Protecth'e Order will be based on the grounds 'that the
;8defendallts/juqgment creditors ,have 'propo:unded,post judgment ,c1iScQYe.ry in 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.
;this MotidiJ..for :Protective :Orc1erwilltie nased:on fuisNoticeJiJia,:Mofi0!:f.;ionthe attached
14, . '
15, '; Memorandum ':of Ptimts <ai.td .Aritnorifles, on. i:he:attachetLDec1aratloIlofDavid:Bhike Chatfi61a"on
. -'..
the c'oIl1pjetecDur1;tiles,a11<1 ',te'GOr(i8in tb.i$ ,action, '~nd 'pn :any ,Sttch :otb:et .()r~:19.rdObl.lmentary
1'6.
17'
.ev.1deiice;atJ:(l.argumerita.s:m~y bepresentea"atfheJie,aifug.
'1'8
D;A'fED;1YIaY4$.,20t2-
WESTLAKELAWGROUP
.-. '19- ...
20
11
22
23'
~24C
25
I'
I
I
27
28
1
MOTION FORPOSTJUDGMENT .ENFORCEMENTPROTECITVE ORDER
- - - .. - - __... _------- _ _ __... __
..... ....
...
..
...
... _---
---,
_._-_
...
MEMORANDUM 'OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES
I.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

This was an:action fodegaLrnalp:ractice. In December 2002:plalntiffStephenM. Gaggero
4 filed two suits against Knapp~ .P,etersen & Clarke, Steven Ray
Garci~
Stephen M. Hru:ris, 'and
Andre Iardini (collectively, "KPC,,), the lawyers he had .retained to represent ,him, In the first
'action,a c.omt tria:Icommenced in July 2007. In .February 2008 the court entered judgment in .
favor of KPC~and in May 20Q8the judgment waS amended ioaward ;KPCSl;327,697;5 in
8 .attomey fees and costs. Tn .May 2010,. the Court of Appeal 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$1,;520~94330; plus interest.. The :secondactiollbetween
11
GaggeroandKPC is pendinginLos Angeles :Supeno.r:Coult
12
KPChasprqpounded;a delTIand 'for productlqnofdoc;uments 'tq Gaggeto, which seeks
13 . ,dbctimel1tsrelating1lotorilytothecpn:fictetltialfiti.anci~IaffairsoCiaggel;oindividual1yhttt:also
14 .the>confideritialfIDancial ;affaitso'i'numerous :sep;1tatethiidpartie.s,By tfri$l11oiio1J;;Gf:tggerp'seeks
'15 ,a 'protective order' to restrict . the' use of.theconfidential.fuformatibIl thatKPChas 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'fEeTIE:(j-RDER

20
Jnanypost judgment discoveryprocee.ding"a judgmentcreditOI m~y demand the
21ptodnction,andinspectiOIi of documents. and the procedures of the >Civil JDisco:vel'yCodetlJe

22,}pplicable to the ,enforcement of suchdemand,s; (G.C;P.
70 8,03 D(c);j Code 'of CiviL Procedure
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
25
\-
protective order requested here.
- - . ~6 ~. - - .... :It ls--UllQisput-eutllatGag.ger:oc:nasc.;~ollstitutioIlal--rigl.ltc:.Qf-PlivaG-y-'-in--hls-finan~ialcaffai1.:s. ~.
Art.
T,' 1; Moscowiiz v. Sup;Ct; (1982)
137 Cal.App.3d
27
.(CaLConSt.;o
28
undisputed that business entities also have such priva~yrights. (lI & M Associates v; City olEI
313, 315.) It is also
2
MOTION FOR POST JlJDGMENT E\1FORCEJYIBNT PROTECTIVE DRDER
Ir -- ....--...
-.--.-~
~----.-.~.--
..- - - - -..
--~--
..
~-.----
..-
---.~.~.
~----
..-
..
-.~-.-----~------~~--.---
....-. -- ... ....

~
--~
\!
1 .Centro (1980) 109 CaLApp.3d 399,4.09.) This. constitutional right ofprivacy ,includes theri,ght to
~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 of priva;cy 'inone'.sfinancral'affairs,
7 'theaiscovery.stawt~s :h:ave,nu.rnerou$ safeguards,to'in$metha,t litigants ahd third parties will ,get
advance notice of potentially intrusive discovery and \v:jU have anopportumty to protect their
priyacyinterest, For ,example) Code of Ciyll Procedure section '1985.3 mandates that all
10
individuals be ,notified, wneneverfinancial; medical>ernployment,or other confidential
11 . information.!s sOllght This noj:ice: a110ws 'the affected person tb obtain a'voluntaJ:Y a,greemeIitas to
12 the scope Qt-useoftb;eiI,lf.ormation, prseek:an apptopriatec()urt;remea:y~(tC'P'$; 1985.3(b)"
13 : (C), {ej,al'idfgn It.iswelt settled'that tlie cbrtfideIitialftnanciaLaffiirs of:thlrdpersonsare;entitled

14 to priva;~y~, and, th~t this maylitniidiscovewpyonepari;y- 'from,theofhet; {J7a'1~y B.,ank olNe-valla
15
16
v., Bup,Ct,(1})75} 15 Cal;3d652,6S8t )

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
--19--
'''[t]naltIierilispectf()l:r~
in ihe ;dem.and).1eed ,tl,Cithe ,produced or' made 'av.ailaole.atal~~'
'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' Provitlittrt"Ctedi,
~--~-I--~
24
25
.,- -:26
27
Card Cases (2002)96 CalAppAth.292, 29K....99~ :th. $,)
.Arightofpnvacyin one~s financial.affairse:rists even where the information is relevant to

't1ie-1itigation~ feity-ofiliriie.l=Br-Pfi(f''''Si4-1t;YO#n~{970):Z- C-a,l3d'Z59;~z6B~ Harris v:~upfet; -~
(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 carefully balance the right of privacy against the need fot
MOTlONFOR.POST JUDGMENTEl'i'FORCEl'vIEN'J,'PROTECTIVE ORDER
--
,,--\
"
:::
""
:1
disClosure. (Britt v. Sup.Ct. (1978)20 Cal.3d 844, ,i85:5~5:6J"Evenwhen ,an intrusion on therigl:lt
'2
of privacy .isdeeIIled n~cessary _tinder fhe.Circtunstancesdfa parlipulat
'should be the rriiniInuinmtiusion nec.essary to ,achieve its objecfive. H {Rlanned Parenthood
Goliie:n 'Gate v; Sup/Ci. (100'0)-83 .Qal.ApP)fth347, 3~8-59 [citations oIIlitte4J.) Restricting ;the:
cas~,
any ;sllch intrusion
: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.3tl 748,75:5-56.)
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:rder J1i.a:tiliein.fortrlationne,ed.be
10 '. .revealed:oruyto c01llisel forthe ,discovering party or'tocouhsel~s: repiesentatlv:e.:andthat once so

re"'ealed.'the informatiqnmaybe-used:onty forthe'purposes:tof the lawsuit'? (Ricnarii8'1';Sup~Ct'j
11
12:$ifPra., :86Cal.:i\pp:3,dat 272-;).
16,
disoovery se_ekii\g$riaUCiB:tiht()rirlatioi1pl~~es ,asevetehurden :ort:the

"";' :In:addition;thetejis,usual1y thepo:teIltiaLthafunfowai'a;disc1osure of:
the information o1>tainedrnay ;insoIIlew~yor ;other'reacl :adv;ersely against 'the
dis.d.losingpar:t\yclorteasons 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'iness>ar.eila.," (la.,at271.) .
,
17
'rhc:nght 'Qf,pri:v:a~Y'bQ:P:tii1llesafter'en:try ,ofjuq:grnent."Despitefll,1:: brgad syqpe'ofillquitY
18
'peri:hitted a1 :ajudgriient debtor exartlinatioIi; the judgrnent,ct,ebtotis jertt1tled to assert :the same
13.',
14
15
'~Resp'oi1Se:to
l'es.ponder;
_ .. -- - .-r9~ 'pnYl1~ge-s'tliaffl.~tii31:wifu:essmayassertas:abastsforrefuslng-to IIDswer~questionKoTre~pondto

.20 '.requests for :inforb;laiionpt+t.ie him."I{Jiqoser v. 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' detailed fma,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~
27
'G~ggero has offered 10 produce documents ,pursuaht to 'a l1r~tective order that will protect his
28
privac ,rigJits~ and limit the ,use of th~c(mfidential ihformation. KPChas refused to stipulate to
MQTIONfOR.p.oST,TPDGMENT ENFORCEMENT.PROTECTIVE ORDER
-- ~ - -L .~...
any :order ofprotection.
'In this case, Gaggero h~s<l1ever w'.liVt::d his right to privaqY'in his'private flnanciaLaffairs.
3 This'nghtwiIscnotwaived'by the filing of the coinplaint, byfue entry ofjudginent,o:r'byserViceoi'

4.the,deman,d for production 'of documents. There, is :a long history of personaJanimO$itybetween
.5 tliepartiesln:t1iis,action, thes'econdmalpractic,eactiOri iscurren:tly pendillg hetWeentheparfies,

,6 ,and thepoteritialof misllse,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~gifimateffQI:ts eto 'co'l1ect 'oli 'the
8 'judgrilent, .orprejudice::r(FC 1ft
'ahy ,way::
Abserita protective order,however~
Gaggero's
<Jon,stitutional nght,toprivacy 'will beviohlted,. Under these :circumstances, the ,fssua:nceofan
:;J
10, ordet,'ofprotecfiollls"clear1y;manda,ted.
ill.
11
:CONCLUSION
Bas~,d
12
QIXfb:e foregoing, 'pJainfiffs~1\4o:ti()11for ;Protective Qrder 'Sl1oulQ.p'e
gr3!].~e,d.,
'Tms;
1:3 court should 'erltefan,bfderof,'F'ifStectibil &Q pre:serve JhepriyaYJ: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
.
.
,,'
,.
l~ .: ~nv:oLvediiIlthe,:co1iectioIiotthejllagriient.
Xi? .:Q,A'rEP:: 1v1a,y2~, ZPl2
WESTLAKELAWGRODF
t8
19-
20
21
22
'23
24
25
I
I
::2:627
MOTION F0RPOSTJUDGMENTENFORCE:MENT PROTECTIVE ORDER
ar:e directly
~
'\
)
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
'5 . .above-'entitled ation. I

'6
attorneys ofrecord for'Stephen,'M, :Gaggero, the;plaintiffinthe
have personal 'knowledge .of 'the Jacts .set forih in this Declarationan~ if
called as;awitness~could and woUld testify competentlytherelo.
Thi~ Declaratio:p, i~
'8
'During; the 'post juqgrherttdiscQveryin thismattet) KPCs,erVed'plaintiffWith
$1;ihl,11itted ins1:l,ppotj::qf-plaintiffs':NIption:fpr Protective Order:.
9 'docllment ,Prodt!,ciion ,demands that sought confidential '.financialinforrnationof plaintiff and

1.0 ':nUi:i1etdus.t1rird parties. Attached;heteto ,as J3xhibitA isatru ,and ~Co:rrect ',copy' ofKPC\s demand
1:1 forprQduction:.ofdocuments.
12
13 ;' well as theaffededthlrd 'patttes; Attached neretoasExhibit B :ar:e tiUe and correct :copies 'of
14 'plain'tiffs:sllPplemenlaLresponses t(}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 $tipulate to the entry 'Of a protective:oider;to.preservec the:'privac:,Y rig4ts:of
21 :plaintiff and. the: affected 'thirdpart'ies and to liniit :di~selJlmatiQn ofihecnndential .inIbrttla:tlon
22 'provided inre$ponse i:o,KPe~s dociifuelit production demands to 'ontyco:tirisel for 'KPCandsuch
23 'otJiet];5ers:6ns'who :ate-:direct1yinvolv~d in tlrecoUectioRof thejudgment.

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
:MOTION FOR'POST ;rtJDGMBNT ENFORCEMENT PROTECTIVE ORDER
'Executed on, May 23 i 2'012" in,Westlake ViIl~ge,; California,
:2
3'
4
S
,6
7
8
'9,
to
11
12'
:13 .
14"
ItS "
1.6
rt'
,18
, , '-19-
,c "
20
21 '
22
"23"
--,----H-~---,-,
24 :,
25
'26- .
27
28
7
'MOTION FORPOST JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT PR01'ECTIV:E ORDER
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
conrtsofCalifomia, and :before this Court and one of the attorneys.of 'record for StephenM.
Gaggero,. theplaintiffin theabove.. entitled action. I have personal knowledge ofthefactsset forth
in this. Declaration anti, ifcal1edas.a Witness, could and wouldtestifycompetent1.Y thereto.
This Decllrrationis. su.bmittedin SlWPottofplaintiffsMotionfor Protective Order.
3. On May 22, 2012, 1 ~poke'WithA1ista Wakily.counsel forKPC~in anatfemptto.meet
9andconfet:andcome to an agreement on"a:stipulated protecfiveordet forpostjudgment discovery.

1 0 4 . Tasked Ms.Wakilyif she was willing to reconsider her .ear1ierposition that KPC
11 . wouidnoLstiptilate :to.a':protective order.
12
5.MB. 'Wakilystaj(;;d'lhaishewasnotinclin,edtochangeher;p0slllonaildthafKPC 'would
13 . Tecbnsiderits,pr~YiotiSrefu~~tostip1.ilatetoplafutiff's'pr()poseaprotectiveordet.
14 .
l:deelare 11!lder'pemUtyofpeljury tinder the laws of the State cifGalifotniathat the
15, foregQ~g;istrueanacorrec~~
16
ExecntetLon Mat23,20tl~in Westla1ce>ViUage,Ca:lifo'illia.
11
18
-
-1~9---
--- --- -- ----
Dawn.Masters
2,0
~21
22
23
--~--I~---
24
25
-26
27
28
r_ -----._- _.------- - -.----.-.- .
MOTION FORPOSTJ1J"DGMENTENFORCEME1\'T PROTECTIVE ORDER
.,
Ii - .
I
I
~
I
I
1 WESTLAKEL:A:W GROUP
. David Blake Chatfield ~tate BarNo. 88991)
2' 2625 Townsgate,Roaa,Suite330
Westlake Village, 'CA '.9'1361
3" Teiephone:(8Q5;) :267":1220
4 Facsimile: (805) 267-1211
Attorneys forP4intiff
5 . StephenM.Gaggero
6
7
8'
SupERIORCOIJRT OF1?HESTA-TEQF QALIFORNIA

FOR 'J;?HE~OUNTY'UF,LOSANG:ELES
"1:0' ST;EPBEN MGAGGERQ,anindividual.>
')''\ CABENO.:,BP286925
.J
11
'pLAIN'I1F:F S'I'EPHENM.GAGGERO'S
.SUPPLETh1ENTALRESFONSE8:rO ,
:12
) .DEFENDANl''KNAl'P,BETERsEN.8t
13I<NAPP.PETERsENAND CLARKE, ,a
) ,CLARl{':g~QlJEst :)ORPaODUCLION
.
Califorhia\corporano:q; $TEVEN:RA.Y
;> OF DOCUMEN'IS
l4 .G'~G~;anJn~i~~ual;STEJ.>JIENM... ) LPURSUANTTGCODEOF CJ:YIL
:HARRIS:animdiV1dual~'ANDR:EJARDINI ) PR:OCEDl)RE> VOKQ3QJ '.
1,5 "ctrihldivid:uii1; DOES<tfhtough 50,inc1u$ive~ :,~
:)
:Hi
IJefendartts,.
17
IsPROPOtJ;NplNGPARTY:
,DEFEJ5U1ANTKNAPP~PETERSffi\r&:{}LA$KE
1
PLAJ]fI'lFFSTEPHENM.GAGGERO
19 RESl>ONDIN"(lPAl{TY:
20 . -SETNUMBER::-- .. --- ---UNE------------- --21
22
23
24--2;5,
26.
-
---Q{f--
28
t
IPlainfiffStephenMGaggero ("Plaintiff')herebYl'esponasandobjects to Defendant
~
,i>
I,Knapp, Petersen & ,Clarke? s ("Defendant") Requestfor,}>roduction ofDocuments.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
41
Nothing in this supplemental response shall be constmed as waiving. any rights or
objections that might otherwise be-available to :Plaintiff, Plaintiff makes this. response subjecuo
6 and without waiver of:

7
(u ;the Tjghtto:m,ake' additional obj~ctionsot seek protective orders -iniheeVentaddinOIlal
8 ! review offiles.resultsin furtherinfonnatio!l,~

9
TO
(2) the right to 'obj ecttoother.discoverydirected to thestibjectmatieroftheR.equests; and
(3}therighttorevise, correct, sllPplemen~or clarifythe.response.
11 '.
:12
S11PPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO DOeIJ:MENTREQUES'I'S
13;nOCl:IMENT'REQUESl'.NO.l:
14 .
All DOCUMENTSthatiffiLAlE tofueArenzano Trust.
1:S .RESPONSETO:DOCUMEN'fREQIJESTNO. t:
16
l~lciinfiffol:!jects totbisrequest:on<thegrounds th:atitisoverlybroad,iundtllyburdei.isome
17 'andhatassln.g.andllhlimited 'as to.SGOpe and tifue..Bec@se.p4Untiffd6es:n:otconftolthe tn:tst~and
i.8 'jis not entided to any distribufionfrom thetrust,. plaintiff'further;Objectsto this Tequest on the
19:9rollIi~th(ltit.seeksdocumentsthatare.neitherrelevarttnorreasona.blY'~a1cu1atedtoleati to:the
--- --2ir
-djioov~ry:pfadnnsslbie .eVidenC;IhtffisadfiQn,-PlamtifffurtherobjeCts:t{)~thi~Tequeson
tlle
'21 ; grot$dsthafit callsrot'iliepmdu,cti()Il '9firrelevantdocumentsthatare protected.from dis~losure
.22 ~byplmilfifP;s .and fllirdpafties' Constitufiona1ly'il?toteoted:righi:orp:ri'V~c)tP~amtiff further obj'ects .
23 to this request. onthegrQUJidsthatltseeks doc~eIlts 'tnatareptotected frolllrlisclosurepythe

--Z4attomey.:;clientcprlvilegeanOJor-tl;re~ttorney~work-produci~doctrine,TlTcrse document~rmc1ude'
--
25 .communications between p1aintiff a;o.dbisuoUIise1,.fhe trnstan4theirc6unseI~and thebenefidaries

2qand. their.cotmseL
r-
--27- '-.- -- ---:subjeGt..,tQ:andwi-thout wa1v.ing::th~f{)tegQing.:;obj.ections;mid.lirrritaiion~'P-laintnfcresponas _.c_
28 ',asfollows:j;'laintlffhas no trUst documents responsIve to tis request.inhis possession or control.

1
The trust:is irrevocahleandPlaintiffhasno control :or fmancial interest in it. Tbe'trust 'Was ,:Set up
over 14 years ,ago, well priortodefendant'.sjudgment. Trustdocumentsarebe1ieved. by :plaintiifto
,3b,einthepDssessionandcontroloffueattomey,and Trustee, Joseph J. Ptaske,howeve("'the

4
requested documents areirrelevantto thepropounding:parties" judgment collection :effdrts and are
5 'otherwisestibject to,theprivilegesandpri:vacy'ri,ghts set forthabovec
6J)OCUMENTREQIlEST NO.2:
7
All DQCtJ:lMENTS thatlffiLATEto'theGigarun Trust.
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. '2:::
9
]'0
Plaintiff;objects to this request onthegroimds,thafit is overlybxoad, unduly-burdensome
Iand harassing and unlimited asio scope.:and :time. Because plaintiff does ,noLcontrol theirustandl
11 isnot.entitledtoanydistributionfromthei.:rust, .plaintifffi.JIth~rol:>jectstothis,request onille

J'2gtoundsthatitBeks,documents thatare.neitherre1eva.ntnor 'reason'cl:bly calqu:lated tol~d to the
1;3
disco:very ofadmissible evidence in fhisactioIi. Plaintifffurtherobj ects,tothis,requestonthe
14.grolinclstl1afit,calls'for;the.pr:oductiofl"ofitre1evant,documents that are.protecied,ftom disclosure.
'IS ; 'byplruniiff'sElndthlrdparties' :Colls1itutionaIlyprotectedrigb:tofpriyacy.Pchrintiftfu.rther Qbj~cts

16 ' tothis,reque$!on;tilegrouIJ,dsfhat.itseeks doqrimentsthatare~pJ:9tectedfrorn disclosure by ~flle
'17attome.y~{;lienl.prl:vilege.andJo:rth;e,a:ttorne.Mw:()r1c-:.PToduct'doctrine,Those,dQcurn:eIlts~1,lclude
l:8'communicanonshetweenplaintiffaIiCl.:hiscounsel, t1J:etrust;,.and.'theircottriSel, ,andtlIe'i:>eneficiaries.

19
andtheircourrseL
20
SubJectto,andwithoutwaiving the foregoing 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 ,defendant"sjud.gthent. -trusfoocumentsarebeli.evedby plainti:EPtobein
24
~tlieJj.ossesSlonan<lcofirr61
of'tlre .attarney--and-Trustee, JosephJ. Praske,;ho:weyer) 1:h~requested
------~~I-~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~-
25
dgcum:enJSare irrelevant tq the p!-"{}po!1IlciiIlgparties' judgm(:!:!l,tp{Jl1ectiot! effort? ll!ldare otherwise .
26
subj ectto the privileges andpri'Vacy rights set forth above.
28 .
All DOCUMENTS thatRELATEto the Aquasante Foundation.
I
~
II
I
II
,- -')
1
!
1 JnSPONSEl'O DOCUlVIENTREQUESTNO.3:
,
2Plaintiffobj.ects to this 'request on the;groundsthatit is.overly'broad, .unduly burdensome
3andharassing:and unlimited asto scope and time. Bcauseplaintiffdoes notcontroLthetrust, and

4
is.not entitled'to ,any distribution from the trust, plaintifffurlher objects to tbisTeqnestonthe
'5
grounds !hatR seeks documents tllatareneither l"elevant;nor-reasonably calcu1ated:to lead to the
6discoveryof.admissible. evidenceintbisacnotLPlaintifffurther{jbJecrs to tbisrequest'On the
1 grounds. that itcallSfor the production ofitrelevantdocuments that are protected fromdisc1osure
8by pbuntiff'sand th.ird:parties'Constitutionally protectedrlghfof privacy.Plaintifffurfuer objects
9 I to this tequeston the;grounds tba.tit seeks 40cuments that 'are ;protectedfromdisdlosureby the
I
10
attotney-clientpriVilegeand!orthe attorney work"product:'doclrine; Those: documents include
tlcommunications~betWeenplaintiffandhis;counse1. the trust andtheiicounsehandthe benefictaries .
r;g 'and their counseL

;13
;Stipjecftoand witholftw,aiving.tneforegoing :objections .'and)iniitanons; ,Pl~ntiff.,responds
14asfollows:Plaintiffhas'llotruStdoCU!I1ents.::responsi:veto:fl:iis:1.'equestInlns;possessiQnorcontroi.
.15
The'trusHs llIevocable:and,Plaintiffhas flQ confr6Lorin,terest:init The'1::riJ.st'was set,:up'overJ4
16 .. years 'ago, wellpnortgdefendartt':s juqgmenLTnfst'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:and are otherwise
19 ,sllbjectto the :piivilegesand'pliv.acyiighfsset'Iorlh:ab.ove.
-zo-
D~mllEQUESTNQ4:-
____
u n _ _ _ _m
_ _ _m _
AllDOCtJ:tv.tEN'[S fuat;:RELATBto:anytrust ,orfoundati6nthatis part ofYOURBSTAmE .,
21
1Z:2.PLAN'.
23 'RESPONSETODOCUl\4ENTREQuEST-N0~4!'
24 .-Plaintlf:fobj ectsto'fhed.enmtion-cofE-S'I'A1'E.pL~set forth in Defendanf's Definitions in '
-~------I~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~--~~'~'~~-~~~~~-~~~~~~-
25
thatitincIudesblltls'notlimited tothepreparation.of:anyplan ofadniinistrauQnand disposition of
26Plaintiff's property,:ownedby Plaintiff at any time in arty capacity, before or afier death including
_ 21~- -:~Ii,hnsr;@fts,--OLpow~-ofcattOl;.~~,m::atL3Lothermet1ili.dnf.estate~~~er1:efers.t~-:- .
28 . the transrerorany assets .QWlledbyPlatliiiffat-anYfiIne:io.anyP:ERSONorEN'TI'J:'Yc6I1eciivelY
r---~---
--- . -.----..---------..
~---~---
-----~.--~-----~-.
--------------- ----- .
-----~--
-------..----------.-----..
--.------~---
---..------- ----.- ------
on the ground that such an expansive group of definitionsimposesabllrdengreaterthan what is
required by theCalifomia: RuJesofCitdlProcedureandmakes the requests overly broad, .unduly
3 burdensoID.e>QPpressive,harassi~gand1orJl;ototherWise:reasonabl;y calcUlated 'to1ead to the

4
discovery of evidence relevant to theinqUiry lntoPlaint:iff s current assets, wmchis the sole
subject.of thls discovery~
Plaintifffurther objects to tbi:s request on the grounds thatitis notlimitedto,a:ny relevant
scopeandtimeperiod_Plaintifffurth:er ,objects to 'fhisrequest on the grounds thatit seeks
documents thatateneither. reley~ nor teasonablycal.culated to lead toiliediscoveryofadmissible
evidence. in this action. Plairttiff'fur!:herobj'ects-tcythistequeston the grounds that it calls fortne
LOproduction ofirrelevant documentsthat:areprotectedfromdisclosme:byplaintiff's ancHhirdI
11
'Ipames' Constitutionallyprotectedri,ght,ofprivacy. Plairlfiff.further.objects to this requestqn the
12 !grounds.thatit.seeks. documenfsthatare:protected,.from.di~closurepytheattorney..;c1ie11t.priv'il~ge
13 I and/or the .attorneywork~productdQctcine~
Stibjectto'a,ndvJithQutwaivingtneforegoing,objecti.ons and Iimitatibns, Plaintiff,resj:)onds
:14 .
1'5
las foI1~WS:Plaintiffhas~o'trust d~ents.~sPo~ive t~.this.request in:hiSd,ossessiml ;of'control
16 Trust:d0cuments;are'be11evedtobelnthepossesslOnanilcontrolofthe att0.Qleyand T~te~,

17. JosephJ.,Pmske,howevet:, the:reque$fedd()cum:ents~irrel~vanttothepropOl.mdingpa:rties"
18 judgmentcollectioneff'orts'and.areo:tb.erWisesribJect to theprivl1egesandprivacyrlJ$lrtssetforth
1:9.abov.e.
----------~-
~-------
---
--
-----
------~------
------------------
201)OCUMENTREQUES'fNO.5:
21
All DOCUNIENTS thatl{ELATEto YOURESTATEPLAN;
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 ,c<w.aci:ty,pefQreor ~eI d~a,tJ;t illchfwng
,26 'will, trust, gifts, otpower ofattomey, or any othermethod of estate planning and ~er:retersto
~-~!);C7 -- ::1he=tFansreFofcany-assets'-oW1ledbyJ?laintiffat,any-timetoatly.;PIffi.ON-Qr~TY~Gollecliely~ ~ -
"
28 ' on the ground that .such:anexpansivegroupofdefinitions imposes a bUrden greater than whatls
-- -_ ..
I'
I
1
required by fue Calif~a Rul~ ofCivilJ>rocedm:e ~ malres tberequeslS JNerly1nuarl,unduly
11
:2 I burdensome,. oppreSSIve" harassmg and/ornQtotherMse:reasonahly calculated to lead to the

3!disCOVeryOfevidenceTelevanttOtheinquiryjn:J:oPlaintiff' g, cu,rrent' assets1 which is the sole
4 1 subject ofthis discovery.
5
Plaintifffurther objects to tms.requeston the grounds that it:isnotlimitedt0aIly.relevant
6 scope and tim:e'period. Plaintiff further objects-to this:requestonthe:groundsthat it seeks

7 !do.cuments that are neitherreleva:ntnorreasomiblycalcrilatedtoJead to the discovery ofa.dmissible
I
.
....
.
.
'.
8 'evidence in this. action.. Plaintiff.furiherobjectsto this request on the grounds that it calls for the
9 ,production ofirrelevantdocuments:iliat,areprotectedfromdisclosur:e.byplainiiff'sandthlrd
10parties'ConsiitulionalIy pr:otecteq right ofprlvacy. PlaiIl'tiff:fiufher objectsto tl::iis request:On the
11
grounds thatit seeks documentstbat are protected from disclosure by 'thea.ttomeY"'9I1etlt privilege
12 .andJot'theattorneywoik..:ptodp,ct:doytrl.ne.
13
Subj.ect<to.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 .or control :fhat,'arewithinanY teasonabletimeperlod<if' ,

16 thejtl<bamentPlainti:ffsestate"planlsirr~'Vocable:ano,wa,s established.over14 y'earsago. Estat:
17 .'Plati.docurnents.. ;a.splaintIff InteIJ>tets'fuedefi1lit;ioJ:l~.:arebeHeyed10 hem:th~:PQsses'sidn 'and

l:g : .con;troiof attorney Josepb.:J. RraSke,howev,er?theTequeSted.iioeumentS ardrrelevantto the
19' >propoundingparn.es~ judgruentbollection effortsandare 'otherwise subject toattorneydient
--- -- _.. -- 20 , prlvilegesruiatne-ofueii)nvileges-an(rpnvacynghts.$et:Ioit1i~ab<>ve-,-- 21 DOCUMENT REQUESTNO.6:

22:
23
AlIDOCTIMEN'I'S RELAT1NGtoanyCQ~CATIO~RBFERENl;~a-YQTIR
ESTATE:PL:AN~
~4- '.RESPONSE:!fO-DOCIJMEN'F.REQlJES:rNO~6!'
Plainiiff6bj ects to the definition ;ofESTATE:PLANset forth in DefendfWY's D.efuiitions'in
26 Ithat itincludesbutis ntitJimited to the pr~paration of any plan of adrrrlnistratioIi:and disposition of

_.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
'I
')
'"
I
I
",
1 the i:ransferofanyassets owned byPlaintiffat anytime to any PERSON. orENTITYcollectively

-2
on the ground that :such :anexpansivegroup cofdefiniiious imposes a hurdengreaterth~ what is
required1:>ythe,Califomia Rules ofCivilProcedure and;makes' the requests 'ovedy'broad,undUly
4 ',burdensome,oppressive> harassing,andiornototherwisereasonablycruculated'to lead to the

discovery of evidence relevant to thejnquiiyjnto,Plaintiff'scurrent~ssets:~ which is the sole
6 subject of this discovery.
Plaintifffurtber,objectsto this1."eqlJestonth,egroundsthatitis potlirnitedto any relevant
:8 ' scope and time ,period. Plaintiff further dbjectsto tbisrequestortthegf{}tindsthafitsee1ci

,documents that .are;neitherrelevantnor teasomibly calculated toleadtothe iliscovery .of adn:tissible
10 .'eVidenceinthis action.P1aintiff,furtherobjecl~to,this,request,onthe;grounds thaHt ,calls fotthe
:1 1. production ofirrelev.anfdocuments thatarel)rotected from disclosurebyplaintifr sand.'.third

'12parfie$'Con?fi1u1iomillYJ?rotectedrightof priv:;r;cy.Plalntifffurther .objeCtstot1ii~ requestonihe
13 ~ <groundsthatit seeks documeIitsthaf:ate~protected.ftoJ.i1.:disC1(j$UF~:by:fheattomeJ.;client.priYilege

14 ,andlorthe;attorn~work:~productdoctrine.'I'he'doeurnents'fequeSted,rl~tedoandinclude
15communicationshetweetlplairitiff.andms,c()J.U;lselcover 14year;r~o.
16 :DoCUMENT.REQlJEST NO. '7:
AHDQCtJ]Y.{ENTS thatIffiLA:T.Eto'imyuuSi: in.wllic);'YOU:atefhe't:r1l~tottegatdless:of
17 ;
18 . Y01.1Rpresentincomeor,flnanc1aJ:lriterest
19 .' .RESFONSETO;])OCUMENTREQUESTNO. 7::
2DPlrunfiff obj ectsto this requestoD; the 'grounds that it is .pverlr broad, undulyhurden$ome
21 . ,ruidharassin.g and Urili1;nited to scope ,and time~Beca1:J:Seplainfiftdoesnotcontrofahy'i;nlstand is
22 :nofenti:ileii to.;lllly distrlbution.f'1;omanY'tffist, ;plalntiff:f'uB;h~ro1;:ijects tcrthls tequestol1 the .
23 . '&r0Uridsfhat ifseeks documents fuatarenei1;her t~levaiir nor reasonably :ci;ilculated to lead:to the
'24 I,cliscoveryor'admi$sible 'evldencejn'thls~cfiofi.P11lln1ifffitrth~bbJ.ectsto thls.requestontlle'

25 ,.lgrounds
that it calls 'for the pmdlJ.9fi@ofirrelevantdQC1.11;A~!l,tstha,ta:reprotectea from disclosure
.
~-.
26 :byplaintiff'sandthitdparties' Constlfutionallyprotectedrightof privacy. Plaintifffurther objects

,.. '27-
~tcTilii'Screq:uest-onthe~gr-0:an:Gsthat~it'Seeks-dBeumeatsc1ihat;are~prote.Gted.fffim~disG1BStIrebY'the
'28 ' attomey--clientpri...iilegeandlor the attorney work-'product doctrine. Those docLl,1"I].en'ts include
I
I
lcommunicationshetween plaintiff-and bis counse1".the trust and theirccnmsel, and the beneficiaries
2and:tb.eircounseL
I
3
Suijjf;1yt to ;andWithout waivingtbe foregoingobjectionsandJimitations,.Plaintiffresponds
as follows: Phlintiffhas no~trust :documentsrespo,nsive to thlsrequestin.1:Us,possessionor contr.ol.
,5
TmstdocumeI1tsare:believed by plairififftobein the possession and control of tbeattorney .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:ln which 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.haraSsingandunlimitedtosc.Qpeiandtime.Becauseplaintiffdoesnot;corttrol any l:rusfa:q.dis
14:not eJititledto,anydistrlbutronfrOD1.artyJ:ru.sf:,;PhiinfifffUtfherGbJects to,ffiisrequest.oI1 the
15 .;grounds that'i1'seeks;documentsiliat areneimerteievant:110rre(l'SoDaJjlyci1culated. to. leadto,tlie
16 'discQvery-,ofadpri,ssibleeVidence1lltliisaction" .J?lmntiff:furtherobjects~othisr(;tluest'()nthe
11 .groilildsthafit,cal1:sdoftbeprocIuG1!Qfi ofhTelevant doeurnents th1it are~pr;otectedfrori1disc1osure
1'8 .byplaiI1tiff's''aIld thitd J?arties'C6I1stiiitti:orta11y,protected,nghtofprivacy.~ Plruntif'f'further6pjects
;1:9 . to this request Qnthegr.ounds that it'seeksdocuments tb.atareptotected.from aiscle}sure by 'the
20attorney-y1ientpn~ege
andior:ilieattomeywork,,:productdoctrine. 'Those doquments include
21
communications between plaintiffanci'hi:s.counse1" thetlUst ami thelf.couns(;l,and,:the:benefiCiaries
22
and ,their counsel

Suojectto and Withoutwaivingihef~regQm2iobjecfionsand:1irmtat1ons,Plairitif.ftes!londs
23
24' .asfollows:Piaintiffnasl10 dn~ct;n:rfents-TesponsIve1o~thtSi:equestinhtspossessioti 'Or-control. TruSt .
l
I
25 , .dQCllI11ents are"believedbypla:igtifftobein the possession .and contr,olofthe attonieyandTrt1.stee, .
26 .Joseph J. Praske~ nowever, therequesteddocumeIits-areirreleyant to ilie'propopnding pames'

-
28
above.
I
1 DOClJMENTREQUEST NO.9:
2
All DOCillv1ENTSthatRELATE to any trust in which YOU are abeneficiaty"regardiess

!
3 ofYODR present.mcomeotnnanciaimterest.
4
RESPONSE TO DOCU"MENTREQUESTNO. 9:
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the groundsthatitis.ovetly broacl" 'unQuly burdensome
6andhanissingand unIimitett:toscope and fune.Becauseplaintiff does notcontr()Iany trust and is

not~entitledto
any distribution from any trust,plairrtifffurther obJects to this request on the
'8 !groundsthat itseekso.ocuments that are .neitherrelevalltnor reasomibly calcUlatedtoleadto the

9 ,discovery ofadmissibl~~evidencein this. action, 'Plaintiff:f'uQ:her.obj ectsto this request on:fhe
1O'gtounds thatit ca11sforthe'ptoduction,'Ofirtelevant docmnents that are protected from ,disclosure

11:by plaintiffsandtJ:m-dparties"ConsututionallY:jJtotectedri:ght ofprivacy. Plaintifffhrtherobjects
12 toiliisrequest on the groUrids that it$eeks docrtmentstha.t,arep:rofeCted.fromdisclosurel,Jy the
13 fJ.ttortley-c1ientprivil~g;}.ancllortl1eattorneywotk~prod;uctdoctri!:l~. Those documents include

14,cQmm.~icafioru,;betWeen:plaii1tiffandhis;counsel~thetnIst,andilieir.couns.etat:ldfh~hel1~~ici4rles,
15an(Ltheir:counseL
1 6 S u b jectio and without waivin,gt1ie'fot~gofugobJectionsandlimitatiohs~Plainti:ffresponds
17 .' a.sfol1ows:Plaintifflias not1ust>docunrents responsiv:ejoi:his request\l1:his ;possessipn or control.,
1:8 Trost documents are :bE;llievedb:vplaintiff~obe.ii1 the.possession andconi:ror 'ofthe attorney and
19. Trustee, JosephlPrask~; however7thetequested documentS/Ife:irrelevanttothe'Pfopounding
parties~ judgrnentcol1ection.efforts and areotherWisesubjectto thepriyileges'and :privacy nghts
20
21 $etforthabove.
22'DOCUMENTREQUEST.NO.10;
23
All DOCUlMENTS,thatRELATEto any trusfillwID.ch YOUareindass,6fbene:ficiaries>.
24 regafd1essof'dtJ:RpJ:(;~seni mcomeornmmcia.11nterest .
~-II~------------~----~~--
25 J RESPONSE TO DOCIJ1\1IENT REQUEST NO. 10:

,
26Plainti:ff oQj ects to thisrequeston,thegroundsthatit'isoverlybroacluuduIy burdensome
1<1
,1
f)
.I grounds that it seeks documents;thatare neither relevantnorreasonablycalculated to lead to the

'
21 discovery of.adniissibleevidenceinfhisacfion, Plaintiff further ol?jectstotliis ,request :on'the
'3j,grounds thatitca11s for:thepraduct1.onofirrelevant documentsthatareprotecte:dfroII1disclosure

I
'
'
41byplaintitrsandthlrd parties' Consfitutionallyprotectedrightofpriacy.Plaintifffurtherol?jects
51 tothis request on the groundsthatit'se,eks ,documents :that are protected from disclosure by the
61,attomey-clientPljvilege,andlortheattorneywork:'7productdoctrine.ThosedocumentsJnclude
1 II comnnmicationsbetween plainfiff and his CounseL the trust and their OOIlllSel, and the D"",",ciarles .
8 'land thcirrcounseL
Subjectto, andwithoutwaivingthefon:;going ,objections ,and
Iimitations~PlaintiffTe~PQnds
'
10 'as follows: Plaintiffhas :notrustdocuments,responsive tothisrequ~stinhispossessi011or ,c:ontrdL

11 Trust documents are believecfl>yplaintifftobeinthe:possessionan,dcontrolofthe attomeya,nd
12 Tmstee, Joseph):. PraSke~hutthatsair;l documents arejrreIev:Mttb<the,propotrndlngpar:tles"

13 \judgmentcoliedion efforts and are,6therWisesubject'tothe'priviIeges,andprivacy':rightssetforth
14abpve~
lS:DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.ll:
,A1lDOCIJMENTS'fuatREIA$tobiIls,feeE1. inyoice~.'~'charge~tl'aidon ~OtJRbeha1f
16
1.7 j'byariy2PERSQMor'ENTITY<inclumng, hut notJitnited to, :l?acific CoastManagementand,Avalbn ;

18 'C6rponition 'slnc,'2QO.1,
19 I'RESPONSETODOCUMENTREQUESTNO.l1:
-- -------
----
,21
--~----
--- - - --- - - - - - - - - -
------
---- -------
- -------------------------
~------
-- - - - - - - - - - -
- -
- --
---- ----------
--
---
----
--
--
--
_.
---- - - - - - - - - - -
,Plaintiff opJects totbisrequestontlie groundsthatthetenn<~oll YOlJRbehalf' is overly
20'
bmadand,colllPound.PlaintifffurthernbJectstothisrequestonthe:groundsthatitisovedybroad
22 'as to imeand~yope as tOheu,nou1y bu:rC(ensome'anu:hfu'assing, :p1ainfitf:!iiffiiet',Qojecrs :toiliis
23' ,request on thegrou.ndsfuatit;seeks documents 'that .areneithern:ilevanfnor :reasonablyca}'culated
-24 ! -to1ea{n(ftne:-discIT\Tery:ofadmtsslliIe~evidehce llI"tbis;actlol1. -cplrufitltr'fi.m:her objects-:tcn:llls
~----~
~~--'~-:---~'--c-~~~-~~-~~~~-----.l--~--
25 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
26 from disC10sureby plaintiff'.sand third parties' Constitutionally p:rotectedrightofprivacy.'Plaintiff
-
28
disclosure bytheattomey..,client privilegeandlorthe attorney work::-productdoctrine.
i
j
] I'
Subjectto ,and without waiving the foregoiIlgobj eclions and limitations, Plaintiff responds
2;[aSf6UowS: The specified time penodis overlybroad and unre1ated toanYTe$onableattemptto

,3
I colle.ctthls judgment. Ifthe propounding party agrees to limit this request toa relevantilnd
reasonable time period, Plaintiffwillproduce documents.reasonably'responsive to this. r~quest in
5plain1;iffspossessiQn .andcontrol that are not privileged. As to fees paid]:)yplaintiffthat ate'not

6
privileged, those documents haveah:eadybeen producedin dlscvery iritbisactionandthe
Gaggerov. Knapp~ Petersen ,and Clarke action currentlypendingbeforetheLos Angeles Superior
Court in which the propoundingparties'legi:llfirmisfhe firm that prepared these discovery
9 requests.
DOCUMENT REOlJESTNO.12:
10
II
AlLDOCUrYmNrS thatRELATEtotraveleXpensespaid'by YOU OL1lD.Y PERSONol"
12 "ENTITYonyourbihalf sinc~2001.
l$RESPONSKTO nOCUMENTREQIJESTNO.12!
Plain~ffobjectstotbistequestonthegrQ'j.ll1ds,thm;the term,i'oll YOIJJ,t behalf" isov~r1
14
15 'b:toad~and compound~Plaintifffurtherobjects'tothlsteql;testonfhegr:otinds thatiti-lsover1yhroa.d

16, as to 1:ime.ahd:scope as to'beundulyhil:f:densome:and.harass1ilg~ 'Plainti:lf:fuJ:lhep objects totbis
req~eston fhe.grounds that it seeks
17'
d()C1;!IIlen'tS that!are,neitherrel~v~t1ior teason~lyca1cu1ated
18, to lead to the discovery .ofadmissibleeYiclence'ih thisactiQn.PlaintiffTurtherobj ec;tstb this.
19 request on theground$thatitca11s:f'ottheproduct1on'9firrelevl:li1t docu:rnents that;a:reptotected

20 from disc1osurebyplaintiff's andtJ:iird parties} ConstitutlOIla11yprotectedrightofprivacy.Plaintiff:
21
further objects to this requestonthegrotinds thatitseeksdocumentsfuatare ptotected:ftom
22
.disclosure b,ytheattomey-,c1ientprivi1egeand!or.theatt6meywork~'Product'doctrine.
23
SubJect to.and without waiving the foregoingobjectioIls,andlimitations; Plaintiffresponds
24 '. asfollows: Theiime period
is overlybroad and unrelatdLToanyreaiOnable attempuocollecN:1ns
judgment. Should thepropoundlngparty~gr.eetolimitthis.Requesfto a'relevantand reasonable
25
.26 time period Plaintiff 'Win produce documents reasonably responsive to thisreguesHn plaintiffs
-27 I-possession and c-ontrottha.'t-are nut1Jri\illtfged~
215
f-- .--- -_ ..._. - - -..-_. - -._- ..- -------------------- , - --" - - -, - - - - -.---,,---,,--------------- ., - - .-----. -,,-- ---- -
1 tDOClJ1\i1ENT REQUEST NO. IS;
,All DOCUMENTS tllat RELA'TEtolitigatton expenses paid by YODoranyPERSONor

t
.
31ENTlTYon your'behalfsince 2001.
11
jRESPONSE TO DOCUMENT.REQlJESTNO.13.;
51
6
Plaintiff objects.1:o'thisrequeston.fhegrounds that theterm "on YOURbehalP iso'ler1.y
broadandcompOlind.. Plaintifffurthero1?jects to this request :on;:the grounds that it isovetly broad
II
7as to.timeandscope'as to'beundulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther d!?jects:totbis

E request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably Clilculat~d
9 to lead to the. discovery of:admissible evidence: in this action.. Plainlliffjmher. o1:>jects'to tbis'
.1'0 .request on the grounds tbat it icallsfof the production .of1'lT:elevant documentsthatareproteeted
from disclosure,byplaintifrsandthird:parties' Constitutiona1~yprotected'right afprivacy~ Plaintiff'
11
12, ~furtberabjects ta, tffis.request,onthegroundsthat;it seeksdacumentsthat:areprotectedirom

I"
13Iilisclosure,'bytheattam.ey,lie:ritprivil~geandJarthe.attam~ywork~productdoCtrine~.
1:41I
'.
.' '. '.
'.
.......
.....
...' .
Su1?jedtt():and Without waiyirlgtlleforegoing o1?je~oIis'aridlimitatioIis.Plain1iffresP\?nds
t5'asfollows: The~J?ecifiedtim~ period isovetly:bJ;Qad.a.11dunrelatedfo>~ r:aso.l1(lbl~a1t~mlytto
t~icollectt1llsjudg;rrleti(Sliould,:thepr()poundii1gparw .agr:eetol1nilttbis Requestto al'elevant'and

17'reasollaJ)letlme penod:Plainflffwill produce,documehtsrea.sonablyresp,pnsiVe,to thiS: request in.
tS plaintiff\spossessiqnandc9nn:ol that are ,not priVilege<t .:Asto:rees~paid ~yplaiIltifft11at~enot

19 'piivil~ged, those docwnentshave.:already he..enproducedir:t discoyery in this:action(Lll(].the
20 Gagge.ro y.Kna,pp,Petetsenan4 'Clarkeaction:currently'pendingbebn~ theLQ~ .Angeles Superior

21 . Court in~which the propounding parties' legalfmn is tUefutntbatprepar;edthsedlsCQvety
22.
Tequests~
23
;nOClJl\i:1ENTREQUESTNO. 14:
2425
~ AJIDOC~S~iliafRELATE to1:he-tfansfeFof'ariy,asserownea-afanyfuiH~by YOU in
any c apaci1:y .
26 ,RESPONSE TO DOcu:MENTREQUEST NO. 14:

'-27':--'
28
'-~-PlaiIl~ffcobjects-fo:@srequest-(mthei?;tbtirids-11iafit1sover1y"brbaa:asto-:time-andcscopea&:'
to be unduly burdensome.andharassil1g. Plaintifffurtherobjects to thisrequest.on'fue grounas that
1 it seeks documents that are .neitherrelevant norreasonablyca1crilated toJead to the discovetyof
2 admissible evidence in this action. l?laintiff1Urther objectsto this request:onthegrounds that1.t

3
calls .for the production .of irrelevant documents'thatareprotectedfromdisc1osuretrypla.in1:iffs
4. and thirdpames' Constitutionallyprotecte.d Iightofpri\Ulcy.Plainlifffurthenjbj.ects to thisrequest '.
S .on ihegrounds .that it seeks' documents thatare'p:r:otectedTro.rndisclosurebythe attorn~...;c1ient

6
privilege andlorthe attorney work~producLdoctrine.
Subjectto:and withoutwaivingtheforegoingobjectrons.andIin1itations,Plainfiffresponds
8asfoUows: Plaintiff1snotawareofany .assets.hehastransferredsincetheeniry ofjudgtnentin

9
this .matter.
10 DOOUMENTREQUESTNO.15:
.All DOCUMENTS thatRELATEtothetranSferof:anyassetownedat.any~time byYOUas
11
12 .t>artofYOUR.ESTATEP.LANNING;
13 'RESPONSE.TO])OCUl\1ENTREQlJES'I'NO.15:
Plairi1;iffobjectsto the definition ofthe dtrriitibh.dfBSTATEPLANsetforthin
'14
15 'DefendanfsDeflniti6ns.in fuafifincliIdes]:mt.ls1ibt limited to the' preparation of anY plan of
16
.adrriinistrationand:di&positionofPlain1iff'sproperly?,ownedby;Pl8intiff~tanytimeinany
17 .capaCity; .beforeer:afi:erdeath:inc1udiIlg-w.i1I"trust,:gms, orppwer'of,~t1:0rIl~~bt EP:yothennethod '.
18 . ,ofestate:planningandfuItherrefers'tothe,transfer of anY assets.ownedf>y Plaintiff at any tiIlleto:

T9 :any 'PE.RS()NQf ENTITY collectivelyont'he:grou:ndthat.suchanex.panSlvegraup qfdefiriitions
--------
--
- ---
- --------
20 imposes aburden-,greaterthanWhat isrequired.by ,the~CaliforniaRulesofCivil Procedure and.
2:], ,mak;es the .requests .ovetlyhroad, undlilyburdensome~oppressive~ haras~.ng ,atld7ornotofuerwise

22'reasonably ca:1ctilated:t61eaa to tlie ffiscovery ,dreVidence:re1tWantt6tlie:mquiJjriritoPlaiilnff'.s
2.3
- -24 -
current assets, which ~s the sole subject of:tbis'discovery.

- -, -Plaili:tifffUMer obJects to tbls .re:J.Uestun"the:grounu~thatit-'isnot~~imittfd-to-anyr:elevant: '
25
scop~and tin:teperiod.Plaintiff ii;utherobjegts to this reque~ 9hfue>gro:tJ11qsthatitseeks
26
documents that are neither relevatltnorreasonablycmculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible
28
production
or irrelevant documents that:are protected from disclosurehy plaintiff's and'th1rd

--
_.
- -
--
..... . .. ....
....... - - .. ...
- ---------------- ---------_ .._-----_.. _-----------------_._----------- -------- ---------_._--_ .. __ .._----- _._--- -----_._-- . _ - - - - - .~
-'"
.... ,
parties, Constitutionally protected right ofprivaCfY . Plaintiff further obj ects to:this request on the
'2 Igroundsthatit,seeks .documents:thata:J;'e:protectedfrom .rlisd1osureby the: attomey-cli ent,privilege
311andJor the attotney wotk-PIoduct doctrine.

i
Subjectto :andwitholltwalvingthe foregoll1gn1:)jections andlimitation{;,Plain1:iffre:sponds
5 as foILows: :Plaintiffsestate'plan was,set u,p over 14 years:ag(LPlaintiffhas no doc.uments

,6
responsive to this requestin his ,possession 'orcontrol'thatatewithin any reasonable time period of
7 the judgment. Plaintiffs estate planis irtevocable and was established over 14 years ,ago. Estate
8
Plan documents,asplainfiff interpretstheRequest>are:believed tohe in the possessionandcontr'ol .
90fattomey Joseph J.Praske"hQwever1 iherequested,documentsareirre1evanttotheJ)T()pounrung
:10
parties' judgmentcol1ectioneffortsandare,othe!Wise 'stibjecttoattomey client;privilegesand,the
11 QilierprlvilegesandptiVacy
rlgb1sset~above.
12, DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. '16,:

,A1,lDOd~SfhatIffiLA1?B.:l{),'any;postjlld~ntdiscov:ery,W'anY'DIattertowru:eh
13:
14 YOIJtt;:sponded.
lSRESPONSE.TDDOClIMENTREQlJESTNOc 16;
15 'Plailltiftobjectstothisrequest ol1)fue~grbundsthatitis6verlybro~,aSto!titne,and. scope/as

17 :to,he'unduly burdensomE;,~dhar(lss~g~ ,Plaintiff'fuitheroojectstotliis request on ,the:ground$~at'
18 ' itseeksdocun:lIqnp> that;ar~l1either:reJ.evantnor:reasonablyca1ctila~ed to leadJ:o:the,di,scQveryof
19
admissible evidence inthis.,action.PlaillufffurtherQbj ects to:tlii:s request on the grounds 'that it

calIs for the produCtion dfirrelevant 'documents that are protected from disc1osure'byplairitiff's
.2D
21 "and thirdparties'ConStitutiomdlyprotected right.ofpnvacy, Plainiifffurther 'objectstothis.request '.

:22
,omihe,grounds that it seeksdocuments'that~ate,protected from :disclosure:1?y the attorney-clIent
23
privilege' and/orilie attorney work~prodnctdoctrine.

SubJect to and Without watvfngfueforegoing 6bjectlonSand1imltcii100s~Plaintiff :r~s:pondS
24
25
laS;f()llOWS~ Plaintiffhas no documents after entry ofj\ldgment intbiscasefhatareresponsivet.o
26
Ithis request exceptforthe discovery done in this case, which documents are :already in possession
- -27-
-:otlrerequestlI1g.paItY~
--.- .... -- -- -
28[
r- --,.-,----._. --, --,-- - ----"-- ----,----,- -, - --,-- --,----._------., --- .------- , .. ,---.. ,-- -- - -----,-,--, ,----,--,----- ---_.. -, - - ----,----.,. --- --,.--
1 I,DOClJ.lVlENT
REQUEST
I
'
NO~ 17::
AIl DOCUJY.IENTS thafRELATE to ,anyjudgment debtor ,exaIDofYOU since2001.
3 ,RESPONSETODOCUMENTREQUESl'NO.17:
Plaintiff objectstothisrequeston:thegrounds thatitis overly broad as to time and scope as
5 ,to 'be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further objects tofhisrequest on the grounds that
6
itseeks documents that are ,neither relevant nor :reasonablycalculated to leadto the discovery of
7adIriissibleeVidenceiniliis action.PlaiD:tiff;further obj~ to this request on ,thegtounds thadt

8
calls for the production of irrelevant documetrts'tnatare protected fromdisc1osure 'by plaintiff's
9and:thirdparties' Constitutionally protected rightofpnvaqy. 'Plainfifffur:ilier ribjectsto this request

lO:on,ilie groundsihat it seeks documents that 'are protected from disclosure"hytheattorney..,client
11 ' .prlv.i.legeandJor the attorney work-product.docmmt

Subjecttoand Without waiv~'thefuregoii1g obJections and Iimita:tion~. Plaintiffresponds :
12
13 :as follows: Elainfiff:nasn6:documentsifter:enttyofjud.gmentin,thls.casefhat :areresp0uShmto

14 .
;thi~requesfexcept:for,fhedisc()verydoneiIithi$ case~ whichdocmnents,areaireadyinpossession
15 ' ':otthel"equesfingpart,Y~Inaddition.,. the tequestillgpart.yisinairea4possession df aIljudgm:ellt

16 . debtors exams'ta,kenofplaiI),tiff sinee,'z(JOL
1'J:DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.. 18:
1 8 A . l 1 DOCUMENTS"thatRELA'IEtoanyENTITY,ofwhich YOU are:an officer or
19 member,
---
20
21
---
-----
--
--- -
--
- - -- - -
--
--
--
----
RESPONSE TO DOC1JMENTREQUESTNO.18:
Plaintiff obj ects to fills requeston the,ground$ thatitjsQveIiy'broacl 'as'toiimean-d scope:as
22 " toheundulyburdens6me>and,harasslng,
Plaintiff::furtherxllJjects toihls requesto.tt:tne,grounds that"
23 .it seeks documents tbat,areneitherreievantnor reasonabiycalcu1atedtoleadtptheruscoveryof
._~_:_4_(:::;:e:=:::::~:=::==::::::=:
26
and thirdparties~ Constitunonally protected rightofpnvacy. Plaintiff further objects to thisTequest
"27" ~on-the'woumfsi:liati:tse'ekS-ducuiiientS-th:ataf~otected:'fromilisclosure~byt1ie:attorney:c1ient
28privilegeandlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
r---
-----
--_.-- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - ------ .--_.----------------- -------- ------ -----
----
.---~-
- - - - .- -
------ ----------.
Subjecttoand withoutwaivingth~ foregoingobjec1ionsand limitations~Pla.intiff responds
.2 as follows: Subject wand withollt'WalVingilieforegoingobj ectionsand limitanons, Plaintiff

3
responds as follows:Plaintiffhascno dbcumentsJ::esponsivetothis;request.
4 .DOCUlVIENT REQlJEST'NO. 19:
All DOCt.JJ\1ENTSthatRELATE to,anyptopertyat which YOU have resided since
5
6
January2011.
7 ,'RESPONSE TO DOCU:MENTllEQIJESTNO.19:
8Plaintiff'incorporatesby:referen~'each;,md every GeIl.~a1 Objection set forth above as
to
though fi.iI.lyset forth herein., Plaintiff'O'bj eats to this request on ihe,gt'ounas,thatitls 'overly broad, :
'undulyburdensbmeandharassing;Plaintifffurth:erobjects.tb thisrequestonthe.groundsthatit
"
11 ' :seeks documentS taatare neither relevatit'norreasonably :calculatedtolead to ;the, discovery of

12 " )admissibleevidence infhls action. Plainfiff:fj:uther objects to<tIris request on'thegrouJldsthaNt
13
'lca.lls for theproductipnnfi:p:elevant dQcutn,entsiliatate:prqtecteg fitJQ:,l disClo~ureby plaintiff's
14 ,landJ:hirdparties' 'ConstitUfipn~lY'Pro~earightbfpriv~cy.PIaintifffurtb:ert)l:ijects'tmtb.isTequest .
15 on the'grounds thatitseeks doeumentsthataie protected from,disclosurebyilie.attomey-"client
16
;p:riVil~geJ:l,nd/oFthe :attDmey w9fk~preductdoc:trine.
'11
SUbJect't9an.c1 withoutwaiVing:the'foregoin,g;;ol:)j-ectiQIls'andJjm.itanol1s,J?Iairitiffxesppnds. '
18
as follows:Plaintiff':dQes nothave'atlY documentsxes;ponsiveto:thi:s'I'equestthat ate 'rei evantto the ..
19
l?ropo-undingparties~ collectiQnefIortsiI;riliis matter.
20
DOCmfENTREQUESTNO.20;
21 '
22
AIIJ)OCUMENTS'fuatlffiLA'IEtoroo.l property locatedat35QICanadaLarga, Ventura

California, 9300L
23 ,:RESPONSE TO DOcrrMENTREQUESTNO.2l}:
. . 2 4 - - ~PIaintiffcibjectstotfiisrequeSt on the grotindsthafit is,bvetlybro~ag iofu:rie anc[ scope~ .
25
toheundulybur4eJl~omeandharassing. Pla,intifffurth~r_objects tQtbigrequestonthe.grQUlldS that
.26 it seeks documents thatareneitherrelevantllorreasonably calculate4to lead to the disc every of

~zFI
ai:I.rirlsSibltrevi-4encei:rrtnis-actfuit~11rlntifis1iOfih:ebwner~ofsaid reat-propen.y::- Plaintiff--
28
furthetcobjects to this 'request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant documents'
II
1
1 that-are protected from disclosure by plaintiff sand third parties' ConstitUtionally protected right
2 ' ofprivacy.Plaintiff:furthet objects tothisrequesfonthegroundstthatitseeks documents that are
3
protected fromd1sclosure by the attorney..c1ientprivile&eandJor theattomey wor'k..;product
doptrine.
..5 DOCTIMENTREQUEST NO.21:

AlI DOCUNffiNTS thatRELAJEto<anytaxDOCUMENTS filed by YOU arnn YOUR
7 behalf.
8
9
IRESPON~E.TO~O~NTREQIJEST NO. 21:.
..
. .. '
. . . . .. '
...
PlamtiffobJectStotbis:requeston the groundsthatltlsovedy broad as to time and scope as
10 to be unduly hurdensOlD.eandharasSing~. Plaintiff further obJects.:to this request on th:egrounds1hat

11 it seeks documents that are neitherrelev?l1tnorreasonably calcu1atedtolea~ totheiliscQvery of
12 ... adtnissibleevip,enceinthi$action.Plaintifffurllier.obj-ectstofhi$:r:equeston the groundsthant

13
callsforthe produCtion,orirrelevant documel1,tsthatareprotectedfromdisclosUrehy'plaintlffs
14 ,and fhird pat4ies" Constitutionally protected.iight ofprivacy.. oF1aintiff further objectsto:thisreqp.est

15 'On :thegrounds that it seeks documentsihafare'pn>t.ectedfn)In disclosure by th~attomey-c1ie:rit
16 privilege and/or1:he,attomey worJc..;RrQduct,'doc1:J:::iIle~
'17' ])OCUMENTREQI1ESTNO~.22:
18
AlIDOctJl\..:1:ENTS that RELATE to 'anY 'faxes'paid:on y't)DRbehalt: including but not
.19 limited to, in 1(OURcapaCity.asiheequitabIeowner of any ENTITY.
20 ,RESPONSE TO DOCIJl\lIENT REQUEST NO. ,22:

21
22
'Plaintiff objects to ibis request on the grounds 'iliaf the term "on YO'O:R behalf' is overly
broad and compound. Plail1,tifffilrther o'biects tothisrequesron :thegroundsthat,it is. ovetlybroad
23 ,asio iimeand scopeasto be undulyburdensomeandharassing.Plaintifffurtller objectsto this
24' requesf onfue grourids that it seeks documents t!urt,are-neiiher relevant nor reasonablycalculai:ed '
r--------Ir--------------------------------------------------.-.--------.----------~------
25
to lea-d to thediscovety ofadmissiblee'vidence intbis action.Plain.tifffurther objects to this
26 request on the grounds that it calls fortheproductionof irrelevant documents thatareprotecteo.
f.
..
21'- -fromdtsulnsure1Jy-pbrlni:ifP-s1llId~T(lpartres"' 'Corrsti;tuttoqafly protected~right-ofpri:vacy:PJaillfr:f.f,: ..

28
r""---'--" ._.- .-.-.. ---.-.--.------...-.--.--.----.. --.----.---.---.. -.-.......----.----. --......-..... -..-.. .--....-.- . . .-....... --..--.--..-.. -.............
disc10sureby iheattomey-'C1ientpriyjlege~?Ildiorthe:attomeywot1c-'product ~doctrine.
Subj ecHo. and wiilioutwaivingthe foregoing objections :and limitations, .Plaintiffresponds
3 !'as follows: PhuntiffisnottheownerorCll'+yEntity)eqriitableor "Otherwise.
i
l
~.
II

.'
.5
'6
AllDOCUMENTSthatRELATE'to.any income tax retumsinc1udiI!g,butnotlimited.to,
1'
IW2 s, 1099 s, K-T's,'whetherpreparedforfederal state> or:municipal thatlffiLATEtoYO'Osince .

1
7 January 1, 2005.
8 ':RESPONSE TOD()CUM]}NTREQlIESTNO.2~
Plaintiff oblectstothis .request 'onthe,gtounds tbatit is overly broad, undUly burdensome
IDandharassing.Plaintifffurther Qbj ectstothisrequestOl1 thegtounds that it seeks documents that

'11'$IeneitherrelevantnofreasonablYcaIcu1atedto leadtothe'discoveJ;YOfadmissibleeyidence 1;11
12 this action. Plainfiffurther 6bjectsto:thlstequeston the groun(fS thatit calls fot fue 'production of
13 ;rrrelevantcdacumetitsthatare:protected.fkom disclosmebypJaint1ifs'andtllltd'parlies'
.14 'Co~stitufiona11y protected rightufpIiva.cy..RlaiD:'f:iffifurthero~iects to thl:s,request onthe:;g:rounds
15 !.that,itseeks. documentsthat.are:protectedfromdisclOSilre,bYthe;'a.tto:rney~1ientpiivilegeand!or
16 the attorney wOfls:""product.dotrt:rine,.

17 .:DOCUME:NTREQUESTNO.24:
I ...
SthatREL~TE.
AI."1DOCUMENT
....
'. to. an
. ".' .y.m.on.ey:gtvento YO-Cf:forany
J:Q t:RESPONSKTODOCIJl\1ENT REQUEST NO. 24:
1Jl
:20
21
p~l;I>osesi!lce2{no. ;
Plaintiffobjectsto tbisrequeston thegtoundsthatitisvagueand ambiguous, .overlybroac;l,
unduly burdensomeandharaI?sing. Plaintifffu,rthergbj:ectsto this reque~tpn thegro:urtd.sthatit
22 '. seeksdocumems that 'areneifuerreleva:nt+1orreasonabIycalculated tolead.tothe disgovery of
.23adnlissibleevidence inthis:aciiQn.P1a,intiff.furtherdbjectstothl~<rt:questol::l;"thegrounis that it
. 2:4- , .caUslortneproduclionofmelevaD.t.doci,u:ilen,tS-'tllat;a:reprptectedfrom.rusclosurenyplainiiirs
~-
25~andthird.parties' -Consntu:t;ionallY prqtected,.right of privacy.Plainiifffurther o~ject.s to this request
26 .onthegrounds tIlatit seeks docum~nts fhat'llfe ptotectedftomdi$clo~e:by'the;attorney-cIient

'2T-prlvitege:arrdfOrtheattarneywor~w-pdllCtdoctJine:
..
28
r--' -.- - ----.._--.----.---. ---.-..-.. -..---- . .----.-.-. -----.-.-.. ---- _. . . ------... - - -....--.---.--. ---.--..-.. --.--.. _. . . .-.-. --.-. -..-
/)
Ii
11 DOCUMENT REQlJESTNO. 25:

'"
-
2jAlIDOCMNT8thatRELA.'11ito allY incomeeamed.byY0Usince 2010.

I
3jRESPONSE
TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.:Z5:
,
41
Plaintiffobj ects to this request on 1:hegroundsthatitIsoverly 'broad as to time and scopea,s
.,
51 to he unduly blirdensomeandhara,ssing, PlairitifffUrthet objects toibis request .onfhegrounds that.

1
6 .it seeks documents that are neither relevantnoTreasonablycructilated toleadto thediscoveIY of

adniissibleevidencein thisaction.Plaintiff:furtherobjeetsto this request on the grounds thatit
~.I.callsr~r thel'~oducfiOn <Ofinel<Wantdooum~th!it~P~ ~!lisCltis~~ypl~'

9
I and third parties' ,Constttuuonallyprotectedrrght of pnvacy.Plamttfffu,rther obJects to this request
10onthegrOimds that itseeks dOCunientsthatiireprotected>fromdlsc!osurebythe attomey..dient

II, .priViiege.andiorfueattomeyWtitk-product doctrine.
12 "
Subjecttoand'Withont'w;:iiving,i:he;foregbing'objections and1jmitatio:n$:>Plaintiffre~pollds
13!':as follow$,: Plaintiffwillproduc.eany documellts
res:poMivei:othlsR.eqlle~t1n hispossessiol1:and
14 J<controlifthe'propour:i.dingpartyagrees tQlimltthe. dQCtirtIenfrequest!to the'televanttiIneperiod.
ts
16'
1'1
.lJ)OClJ1\IIENT REQtJESTNO.26:
AIlbariksBiatementsforanypersonalotbusmessaccount .IDwliich OtJ:.'havelegalor

"equitaPl~ interest;
18RESPONSETO])OCUMEN'l'REQUESTNO~ '26:
19 PlaintiffubJeotstotJii:srequest on thegtounds:tb.afItisoverly'broadasto,:tlme.and. scope.as

~ -~
20 ; ~iobe~un:dulY]iUideiisome-anQ1iarassirig~PlamtifrfuLtlier-::-obJectSto.:trus:ii;quesioiifuegrounds that - ~ ~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 for theproduc1ion:oflrrelevantdocumentstJ:ratarecpr:..otectedftom disclosure :byplainfiWs

I
'24and~tbir&parties>Constitutionally;protected right.,.ofpr1v,acy.Phiintmfurtherubjectsto:thlsteguest
I
I
25
onfhe grounds thant seeks docun;tents that.are prpteqecLfrom .disc1osureby theattotney..:cI1ent
26
privil ege and/or theaftomey wotk-proouct doctrine,
ZL - ~~--s~bj~(ito~41:b.otlfwaivfug.~fu.~foregoingobje.ctionsandljmjtation~.J?1aintifUe&Pond~ _"_
18 . -as rol1ows:Plarntlff.hasno:documerifsresp011siviio thisrequesfbec&rse-he does not haveabaIlk

I
~ --
J
1
Iaccount in which hehas.aIegalorequitablejnterest.
2 DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.27:
A11sayiItgsacGountsinjnstitutipnsiliat represent :accounts in which YOU have an
4. equitable interest
5
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQIJEST NO.:Z'7!
.Plaintiff furtb:erohj eets to this request on the grounds thatit seeks documents tha:tare
7 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead tothe,discoveryofa4missibleevidencein fhls

:8
action. Plaintifffurtherobjectsto this request ,on the, grounds tha.t1t cansforthe production of
irrelevant .documents that are protected from disclosure ,by plaintiff's and'thirdparties'
10 'Constitutionally proteetedrlghtofprivaC)T,Plainti:ffurther.ol:>jectstothisrequestonthe-grounds
11 thatit seeks documents that are pr.otected itomdisdosurebythe attomey-,cIientpnvilegeand1or

12 the,;attorneywork~productdoctr1ne.
Subjecttoca~dyYithoutwaiVingthe foregoingobjectibns'andjiniitafions~Pla!p:tiffrespon!s
13. 1
14 .\ asfblJows: Plaintrffhasllo docum-ems
reJ)po1fS~vetQthis requeStinmspossessio.niorcontrol.
15 !beca,usehe .does l1otnave:,abank,accourt:i::irJwhl6hhe'hasanequitable::interest

16
DOCUMEN1\RE2UES~NO.28:
.Mldeeds
.orany.other DOG~,.evidenclng,anyinteres1>.or
j leases~mortgages)
.
.
.
17
':
18owrrership" includi:iig:eCiwtableinterest 'o.rownership7by 'YOlJiuTealproperty.a;taJ.1.y"timesmce
19 ,1997.
20 .RESPONSE TO DOCU1\fENT:REQUEST NO. 28:
21
Plaintiff objects tothisrequeston'the groundsfhatit is oyerlybroad.ascto time and scope as
22
tOibeundUly burden~0IIleandp.arassi~g. Plaidfurther:objects tcrthisrequest'on thegroundsthm
23
itseeksdocumentsthat are neitherrelevantnor reasonab!ycalcu1ated to lead tothe:d1scQveryof
24
adillisSlhleevtdence in tIlls
action. :Plmnnff::further.objectsto-:t;mirequest Olfilie gioundsihat it
t---~~~~II
~--~-I~~~~~
25
calls ror the production;ofirrelevantdocumentsthat areprotected.frommsclosurebyplaintiff1:s
26
andthirdparties'ConstitutionaUy protected right of privacy. Plaintifffurther:objects to this request
. - 2it - oJDll:~gro@a:s llfatirsee1csdocuments:-fua.hrr~rot~cted-from'ffis:c-loSri:re-by11i:eiltro~y-'clrenL -
28
privilege andlorthe attorney work-produG!: doctrine.
)
1
'Subject to and Withoutwaivingtheforegoing objectionsand.limitations, Plaintilfresponds
as 'follows:Plaintiffhasnodocuments'responsive 10 ihis:requestinhis ;possession or control which
I'would evidence any interest orown:~rshipheldinTeal prQpert.Y after entry ofJudgmentin this
-4
matter.
5 .DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29:

6
,All DOCIIMENTSeviden,cingany interestorownershi,p;inc1ud,l:qg equitable interest or
7ownershlp, by YOU in any asset ,at .anytime since 1997,
,g,RESPONSE'IO DOCUMENT .REQUEST NO.:29:

9
Plaintiff 'obj ects to this request qn,the groundsthatitis overly broad as i:o time,and.scope as
10
to be 'undUly burdensome and harassing. Plainti:fffurtherobj ects:to ibis request on the groUnds that
Ii
itseeks -documents 'that are neitherrelevantnor reasonablycalc'lila:tedtolead tothe discovery-of
T2adrrrlssibleevidence in this action. ,Plaintifffurtherobjects1e this request on theground.s.thettit
13 .' caUs~fqrtheprotiucfion ofirrelevantdoq~ents thatareprotecteiLfromdisc1oS1l:(eby plaintif'Ps

14 . and third.,parnes' GonstitutionallYJlrptectedlig4t()f'priv:acy~ Plaintlfffurl11erobjectstothlstequeSt .
15 . bIithe grounds thatits~eksdq~e:ntsthat:areptoteGted fromdisclosm;ehxthe'attOmey,,-c1ien,t

16 piivilegeandlorthe;attorn,ey'work-i>Todlictdocmne.
Subjectto-?nd cWithout waiving the 'foreg6irigobj~ctionsatidIiniitati6ns~,J?1a.1J:rtin.re~ponds
17
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 stockcertificafusorother DOCtTh:1ENTSeVid.encing ownership of stocks and bonds
22 .held
oJ YOUinany capaeity.
23 ' '-RESPONSE TOfiOClJ:MENrREQlJEST NO. 'SO:

24
25
- .- "PIrunfiff objects tomisrequesfon thegrounasthatitisbverl)fbfdad aslo funeand~scope as
to he undwyburdensome~ndharassing: .PlaintifEfurther objects totms, request on the grounds that.
26 it seeks documents that ate neither relevantnorreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
- -'27- --a:dmisSiQle~evidenc&i:tJ:'thls--ac1ion.-Plaintiff-furthet~obj-eCtS-to"tbis-:tequest-c()n-th~grounds--thatit--
28 . calls for the production ofirtelevantdocumentsthat areprotectedftpm disclosure by-plaintifPs
land third parties' .Constitutionallyprotemed right. ofprivacy.. Plaintiff furtheroojectsto this request
on the .grounds'thatif seeks documents that are .protected fromdisclosru;e by the ,attomey-dient
2
3
'I
privilege and/or the attorney 'Work:product doctrine.

Sribjectto.and Without waiving the foregoing objections candJimitations,Plaintiifresponds
5asfollows:Plaintiffhasno docum'ellts responsive to fhis requestinliis possessionor,controI.
6 .DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.:31:
All DOCUMENTS RELATINGtoPaCific'CoastManagement'Corporatiqn.
'1
'8 "RESPONSE TO DOCUM:ENTREQUESTNO.31:

Pbiintiff objects ;totrus,request ontlie grounds thatitis ovetltbroad as to timeaird .scope as
.9
If) '. to be unduly 'burdensome and.harassing.Plaintifffurtherobjecfsto this request on the grounds that
1,1 1itseeksdocumentsthatare>lleither relevantnorreasomiblycaiculatedtqlead to the
discov~of
12~dl!lissible eyidence infhi$ ,ac1ion..,P1ru.ntinftmilier.objectsto this requestonthe:ground'Sthat:1t
:11: .1"allS~rthep~ductioncb(~e1evant doeum~-am~"p~~'discl~bY)lla~liftil

"ra;nd:third:parti:eS' :Const1tutlonaIJ,yprotectedngnto'fpnvacy ..Plamtifffurt1ierooJects tothlsrequest.
15
on the grounds thatit:see1cs:docunrentsthat 'are protected from disclosurebythe:?,ttdpxey-cUent
1.(j.
prlvil.ege:an<1!ortheati: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~
--~~ __ 20
~_I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---.' of an,y:individualswhomay'haveresponsive documents,
21 ' DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32:
22
23.
AllJ)OCU1\1ENTS :REL:ATI~~~GtoAva).on C01;f)()fatioh.

.RESPONSETO D'OCUM:E:NT'REOIJEST NO.:32:
24-Plailitiffdbjectsto'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;s to this request pntllegrounds that'
26 itseeksdoburnents that ate neither: relevant Iiorreasonablycalculated to lead to thediscdvexy of
;;'7-- aElmi-ssible~evldellGe-mti&:aGti0a-~1~nti:ffJlartb(;}r~QbjGts:'tQ::~hisl:quest-f)B-th~gF0m1dB:that,it-
28c811s for the production ofirrelevant 'documents'thatareprotected fromdlsclosure byplaintiif $
._-----
---------~
------.----.---.---.---~--
.. ------.-.----
---_ ....
_-
__ __
.' . ... .............. .... ".....-."".;."":"",

...
": ,,,,!", ,'.".
-_._---_._._---_
---_
.. _. --------- -- '---~"'
,,,,,,~
.~
>,
.~
~)
. ~.'
"'\}
and thlrdparties'Constitutiona11y protected right of privacy. Plainnfffurtherobjects to this requestl
2 ) on the grounds that it seeks documents that:areprotectedfrom
disclosure'bytheattomey~Client
3 privilege andlorthe attorneywork;.product,doctrine.
Subjecttoand without waiving the foregoing objections andJimitations", Plaintiif responds
5ag fOllows: Plaintiffhasno documents responsive totbis request in his possession orcontrdIand is
6 l.mawareofanyone who wouIdbe:inpossessionofsuch documents.
7 .DOCUMENT REOIIESTNO~:33:
All DOCIJ1SiIE:NTSRELATINGtoanyENll'I'Yiti wJjichPacificCoastManagement
9 Corporanonis a general partner.

10 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREOUESTNO~33:
J1
.Plaintiff obj ects tothlsrequeston tb.e grounds fuat.itls ov:er~ybroad ,'as lonme andscqpe as
12 . tobe undulyburdensomeandh~ssing~Plaintiff further.o~jects tQthis teqlleston the,groundsthat
13 . itse.eksdocumentsthat.areneiilier;rele'VIDltnor.reasonablycBlculated to leadto.the.d1SQQverydf
14 l~&nissibleevidenceinthls' action.Plairififf:f'tirtherobjects to thls requestonthe ,gfoundsfhat it
15 IcaUsfortb.eproch,1ction'ofirr:eleva:ntdocm:nents.thatateprotected ,from
disclosur~'by plaintiff':s
16'1 arid thirdparli~s~ConstitutionaUyprotected iightofpiiva~y.J?laintiff further;.objectsto'tl;iisrquest .

1710n.~e.groundsthat it;seeksdocumentsthat:are,p~otectOOfrom discIosureby the,attorney-client
181 pnvllegeandlor theattomey work,:prodllctdoctnne.
r~
19
SubjeCtto.and'Withoutwaivingthe\fon:~g6ing'obje,cti6ns:andJimitations,PlruntifftesporidS
26
Plaintiff obj ects to this request on the grounds that itjg'overly btoadas to time and scope as
-~ 2':] ~
to-be-unduly-burdensomecandharassmg-i' :PJaintifffurther.-(ibjec~to-tbis-~equest-QIl.-fhe:grotmd$i:hat. -''- - ~ ~--
28-it se~ks documents that are neither relevant norreaSonabiy chlcU1ated to lead to the discovery of
.)
1 .aclmissibleeVidence in thlsaction. Plaitttiff furtherobjectstothls request on the grounds that;it

2
calls for the,production of irrelevant documents 1:b:atare protected from disc10sureby plaintifFs
3 . andthirdparties'Constitutlomillyprotected .nghtofprivacy.J>laintifffurther obj.eCts to this -request

4 . on the grounds that it.:seeks documentsthatareprotectedfromdisclosurebyfheattorney""client
5
privilege andlortheattomeywork.product doctrine.
Subjecttb and 'Withoutwaivingtheforego~g objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
'7
as 16iiows: Plaintiffhas no documents .responsive to this request in hisPQssessionor conn-oLand 15
:8 .unaware of anyone who wouldbeinpossessionofsuch .documents.

.DOCUMENT REQUESTNO* 35:
10
All DOClINffiNTS RELATINHtoany lawsrut;ll1whlchYOUaremvo}vedasa
11 representatlvefor any PERSON .0rENTITY.

t2. ,RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35:.
13 ..Plainuffobjects to thls'.requeston'i;he'gI:-Orindsthatitisoyeily broad;astoiitneaudscopeas .'
14' tobeundulYburdensome'andhat:asSing. Pla:1ntifffurthei oPJects'toofmsj;,eque,ston the grounds that
15
',ih~eks "documfrrltsthatare.nei:th~rrelevantnbr'reasomi.blyca1cillated,to.1eadtothe,discoye~ of
'1:6' "admissible: eyidencejnthis action.:P1Rintifffurther't)bJects to:thi.srequesf:o~fuegrounds"thafjt
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.ects to this requ~st'
19
o:p:',fuegrounds that itseek$.documentsthat;areproteCtedfrotn;disclosurebyi:he:attbmey~c1ieI;lt
20 .ppvi1ege.'and/ortheattorneywork:-:-product (loctrine"
21..'
Sribj ect to and without waivingtheforegoing objectionsandlimitation~. ::elaintiffrespOlids
22iisfcil1ows:
There~enpne~
23 .DOClJMENT REQUEST NO. 36:

- 24"
25
"AlIDOCUl\ifENTS that RELATEto'lnsutan'CepoIicies~iliatinsuteluss'tb~ IDiypfopettY~rea1

PI personal,
wmcg. YOP own, incl1iiling equitahleowtiers~"jm:l~yidua11yorJbillt1y wi:illany other '
26 PERSON_
28
Plaintiff obJects to this request on fue grouri.4s that itis overly 'broad as to time and scope as .
1 tobeunduly .burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further pbjects to trus request onihegrounds that
Z it seeks documents that are neitherrelevantnarreasonablycalcu1ated to lead to the discovery of
:5
admissibleeVidencedn this action. Plaintifffurtherobjectstothisrequest on the grounds thatit
,calls for the production of irre1evantdocuments :that;are.pT.otectedfromdisclosurebyplain1i.fBs
.5 . and third ;parties' Constitutional1yprotectedrightof:piiva~y. Plain.mfurther objects to :this request

6
on the .groundsthatitseeks"documents tbat.are prdtectedfrom . disclasureby .theattorney-cHent
7privilegeandlorthe .attorneywork..,productdoc:trine.
8
Subjectto .and W;ithoutwaiving ihe'fofegoingobjeciions and liniitations"Plaintiffresponds
gasfollows: :elaintiffhasnodocuments,r~ponsiyetothis.requestin his .possession otcontrol

10 ;because he hasnolegat or equitable ownership intetestmproperty~
11
12
DOCUMENT'REQUEST'NO.37:
All,DOCUMENTSthatRELATEto:any:debtlhcurred:by OUSince200S~
.13RESPONSETODOCUMENTREQUEST'NO~37:
14 'Elaintiffol:iJe~ to'f1:frsreque$f.ontn~groundsthatitisqvti~y'broadasto:tim~ ;and.scope;fis;

15 fo;ljeimduly burdensome,and,harassing~Plaintif.t:further'o1iJeqtst6'th1g'tequest"Ohthe grounds that:
t6
itseeks,documents:thafareneither.relevant:norreasonably,'caIeulated.to]ead~to't1iedlscov:er;Y;pf
17 'admissible 'evidence hUms/action. Plaintifffurtller'objects to: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 .:
Subjecftoand without waiving the oforegoing obJections and limitatioIis,Pla1jj:tiffe~pol1ds, ~
23- . as follows: 'Plaintiff has. nodOCl1ments'te~otisivet{)this;requestin his possession or'.CoIitrol
-24, - Telatin.gto ~anydebt1ncurred aftetthe judgment'infhi's'case'-rrecameiinal25
DOCUMENT REOUESTNO.38:
26A,llDOCUMENTS thafRELATEtopaymentofanydebfinc:urred by YOU.
I
I
28
Plaintiff o'bjectstothls requesionfue;groUI1dsthatltis~overfybroadas to time,andscop.eas
-------- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------=:...:.... .. _- - - ..~~:~:.:: ..:.:;~... ~.:.......~::... ..:'!:~:-.-y.::...:..---
------- --
PROOF OF SERVICE
,2,1 Tam.:aresident ofthe'State ofCalifomia,overiheageof.eighteenyears, :andnota party to the

l't'..w.ithinaction,' M.'. ' ybusinessaddressis 2625 TownsgateRoad, Suite 330,WestlakeViUage,
.31 California 9136L
On AprlL31), 2012, [ serVed the foregomKdocument(s) described as: ,l'Ll\INTIll'F

'. .I! STEPHE.N M.GAGGERO'S. S. up
. ' LElVIE.
...
' NT
. .. ~. RE.SP.. O.N
. SES TO
. ,. 'DEFENDA:NT KNAPP,
5 ,FETERSEN & 'CLARK'SREQUESl'FOR,PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I [pURSUANT TO CODROFCIVIL PROCEDURE708.030]
'6
4 ,Ii
p.
7(1 _X _ .BY MAIL I placed the above,document(s)in a sealed envelope withpostagemereonfully .

:8 ,prepaid) in the United StatesmaiLat Westlake Village, Californ1a.,addressedassetforth:below. I
law readily familiar with thenrm'spractice'f,orcollecnon:and processing.ofdocuments fonnailing, .
'9 IUndertha..t;practice}t J'0uldbe~deposited:wi~p"~.Postal SerVice :onthatsame~&y'With:postage' .
thereon full?! .p~pa1d lnthe<?rdm~ course:ofbusme~s~ I am awarethatonmoti:ono.ftheparty
10 Isenred,servlce lspresume4tnvahd!~po~t:a1cance!lafion date pr postage meter date;lsmore than
one,day ~fter date .of deposIt fonnrulmgm affiilaVlt.
.I
11 1
BYFEDERAL.ExPRESSTplacedthe(:\bovedocument(s}in.a;sealed et1velope:and placed .
'12 itfordepositwitllFederalEJqJress,ptepaidJQrin.extdaytlelivry) address,edas'set~brthbelow,
13
I-.. .~ . BYFACSIMILE Itran~ittedth~;aboedoClinient(s)by .facsimiletranSnrission.to,thefax:
'.' 'I nutnber~s)~et~o.rth..}:).elow.ol1thisrl,atl? b~fOre$!p()pan. " 'and Ie.ce.J.v.~d.. confirmed'transmlSSlon
'14 I .reports'lUdlcatlllgthatthedocument(~)wenesuccessful1Ttransrnrtted.
15
I . .BY PERSQNALDELIVERYTplaced.:the,abovedgcumenf(s)in:asealed ;envelope and

'catlsedthem tobepersqn,a11.yd~live:r~4 byh~d,toihepers~n('S)'set forfhhe10w:
,'.
.'.
1.6 'Randall A. lVfiI1er

'Mi1iet,LLP '.'
17 515 'South FlowetS:tree1; 'Suite:#2flSD
18 Los Angeles, CA 90071
I
I delareunder'pen,~lty df;;peDUW underthe laws of the State of California thadhe above is
----- 19
20-\-we,an-a-correci:;-------------~ ___
c . . __ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -
21 \
221
23
24
25
26
- 2728
,Executed on Apri130,2{)12~
- - - - - - - - - - - --
at Westlake V1Uage) California.
-- -
---- .--._---_.-
- . . . .-
.. --- -
-------
.... -
---------
..~
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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;:DECLARATION OF
:5
'DAVID BLAKE :CHATFIELD
:6
-X- BY ~ I placed'the above do~umeJ,1t(s) in .a"seruedenyelqpe'wiiliposta,geiliereo.n :fully
prepaid" in' the Unitei1 States mail ,atW~stlake Villqg/::, Ca:1iforriia:, addressed'as.sel forth
below. I ani tead~ly i<gniliar with thE: ,fithi's pra,dice Jorcollc:ctionandprocesSingof
documents for,rruuli:q:g~ 'Under tliatpractic.61twoUldbe :deposited with:U:S.Postal ServiceOll
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$t;Ucancellation
date br:pos~g~,metetdat~ js,:rnbrethan,one3d~y l3,fter$tefof depbsitfor.mai~g:in'affidaVit.
.7
8
9.
10
'-
1:1
BY FACSIMILE Ittilnsniitted the 'above dbeJiment(s) by facsimile 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
1213
14
BY FEDERAL.:EX:PRESS l.p1aceiitbeabovedocument(s):in :asealeii:envelQpeand,p1a:ged.

it fordepositwiiliEederalExpress, prepaid for next day delivery, :addressedas ,set ;forth
below"
...
:BYP]j~ONAt
DEI.;]N,JfrR Jplacedth e 'apoyedOCU1nynftm :~ &ea4ed.eltvelQP~' and.

caused them to pe'persOilal1y~ueliy:eted ,by'hana'tQth~pe:rS()il(s}$etforth be1ow..
15
.. -.
16 Randall A. Miller
",Ans~a -W@:ily ,
t7MillerLLP
51KSo;uili EloW:erStreet.,~Suite:$i50
18 " LosAilgeles, CA'90071
Facsimile: ~888~749",5'812
-~T9-:-
20
'21
-.
Idet:iare.undcrpel1alfy ofperjulyuudedheJawofrl1.e ;'State,Qfqalifornia"iha;t:the 'abQYels.

1:rt:teand. correct
..
. .
Ex:~cuted on MayZ5, 2012, .at 'Westlake Village, California.
22'
23
D~-s-te~rn~
. ..~-'--------I----~
'24
25
:26'
27
28.,
9
MOTIOJ>tFOR POST JUDO'MENT ENFORCEME:t'j'f PROTECTIVE ORDER
r''-'---'-''---''--''''''---''' --,_. - --,- .. - , - - ..
--~,~-
.. - . ----,-------.
-~.
, - - , .. ----- - - -.. - ..----.- - - .
-.-.---,-.-.~,-
... - .. - .. ",.-.... - , - . - - . - . - -- .... - . _. - .. --- .. --
1 'pavid Blake Chatfield, State Bar 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'
Attorneys IofPlaintiff
STEPBBNM; GAGGERO
SUPERI0RCOURTOFTHE STATE OF CALIFORl~IA.
7'
:8
FORTH}l:COUN:TY OF LOS ANGELES
'CASEI'NCl.,': BC2869l5
:Filed:
DeceIrlbet12~ 2002
9 "STEPHEN M,GAGGERO.
10
1\.ssignedTo Dept lA
11
Y.
12'~~JAi~i~~~~~~~~fBN
,[PROPOSED]ORD.EROFPROTECTION'
t3 1t\NIJJUj J~ll'1l;'mld:DDES 1 thro~gh50~
14
j ,inblusiye~
D:efehdatits.
JJ>ate: XulY'AO,:ZOf2
Twe: 1:3'Op,Irl.
. Ilept: lA '
16
17
1$
--19c-' c .
20
2'1
;22
,2.:3
24
25
~6,--
21
28
[PROPQSED]OlU)EROFPROTECTION
1 :IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDTHAT:
1.
Any ,documents' to be ,produced by plaintiffStephen M.Gaggero fhatcontain or
3cCqmpri$ec,onTI.d~l1tiaJ
;financial inforrp:atiop (':{:}on:fidenfial Miiterial
H
)
shall be :,gQV;er:J;ledb ,this
40rder~and;sha1i he identifietlbyaffixinga:'fConfiderttial InfOlJl1iition$ubjecrtoProtectiveOtder"
S. JegendfixLaconspicu(nis mamreroIl'eachdocilmeIitso.dassified.
All ;Confidential Material will be entitled to protection from disclosure under
7 . {)alifonria law.
3.
Any .pther .pi:!:pers :nledWifh 'the
QPtuj:
that contain or quote ,r;my C91lfidential
9 'Matenalsha11be ,:suojebt.to.fiTing ui:J.der :the following .procedure: If the tloc,umertt to be Jlle,d With :
.lothe court pertains toaiiisc0verj motion .ot ,disc0vettprace:eding, it shall be filed ina .sealed
1.1 . .envel~pe;on which'Shal1 he affixed a :copyofthe ;ca,pfiol1page .ofthe ;docurrieIit phis .the ;words
""ooWUl~mIAL' -
12
'EILED, UNDER SEAL, SUBJECT TO GONFIDENTJ:A:LITY:ORDER'"
13
1Ll.:
theJuo,ge assrgnedtotIUs action, :mafked'~ltIJ)GE'$00P' ancl9l?:ntai;l.1i:qgthte sfate.mep.tol1,tlie

15. ,cap.tion:;n.r .age~ "'FILED TINnBR 8EAL> SUBJECT ToeOJNFIDENtIAtm :ORDER," A cop.y. ,of
'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
.__
()rptli:p.Q!3e~ No:ConfidentiaLMaterial
ma.y be disclose4----------,.----to.anyperson
19 ~ )~rlcl9t!l.O~O!1l~:pl-gceed~g
. ... --- ---------,--------------------- ------- - ------------------------------ ---------------
;20
other thari.the fonowing..:

a. rlrenamedparties.
'21
b;
12
Counsel.ofrecord~,and,thefr office.staIf.
c. Court reporters who '$J;1all a,gree o:qthe record Drinwritin,gto abideT>yihe,terttis
'2-3
f--------~I :~-~---~ot11i&'..OIde,....
f - - -______~___ ~~__________~~_~,----
24
Nothing in the foregoing provisions shall preclude plaintiff or any affected third
5.
25
- .-. - :;pattyfrofu seeking-sueh;addltionaipr-0tee-tion-Witl1regardt<lFilie ,G0nfidenti~lity0f~e (}onfidentlct1 ~ .
- -26--~"--"---'- -- ------,,- --- ------------- .------- .. - - - -.--." - ---------------------------------- - --.-. -.---
:JVfliteIial,as fuafpartfJl1a)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
. . . . .
Confidential Material that plaintiff has produced, thesubpoenaedparty shalLpromptlygive written
notice to plaintiff prior to compliance with the subpo.ei1a ,so as to allow the plaintiff and any
:3 ,affected third pames time to seekprote.ction by the 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 of this action, all Confidential Material ,and allcopiesthereQf
'7
shan, be deliv.ered toplalIitiffs ,counsel. Thisinc1udesGonfidentihlMateria1filedwiththeco~,
whetherornoifiled und.erse:~il;provided,however, Jhatcounsel of record'may ret
am copies of
:9doc@1entsfiled with the Gourt antlattome}Y work product that contains, or constitutes' Confidential
Material so loligas' Sl1Ch documen.tSa:reIn~tained
10
ill
,accordance With the provisions ,of this
11' Order.
8.
l2 '
The ;namedJ)artie~<andailtbird partiessnbjectto 4iscovetyln tmsproceeding

,
13 ',m.d/O!,wl1o n~ceicv'e :~c0,;PY of this :Order" herebJ' consent tothejunstUctiouOf this court forthe< "
,pw:pose';ofeJ1force:m.ent~0f ~e,.te11llsimd,pr:ovi$lons,,'effthis ':Graer wit11'.respecttojhls ,proceeding,
14
l~
.'
ruidfhe c(}:urt.h~repy J;flta;insjurisdictionto,interpref 'and ,eIilbrceJthisOrder .under the laws 'of~he

,State,.ofCalifoniia.,
16
f7 .
DATEI)::May~2{)12
18
--- -
Iu(ige,.ofthe.'Supe:rlor'Court'
---T9~'
.20
21'
22
. "23'
24
25
'-2-6-' - '
27
28
.2
1----,,-- ,--
-~---
,--~---~-----,-------~
.-. -- -- ---- --
[pROPOSEDjORDER OF PROTECTION
.-~--
-, --
---------~--
--
-~,--
--, ,--- . -- --"--- ----, -----.--, -- ---
PROOF OF'SERVICE
2 . '.
. lama resident. ofthe.$tateofCaliform1:l, oVer the age:of eighteen years, and nbt:wpartyto
:the within ,abtibii.Mybusinessaddress is is 2625 Townsgat.R,oad, Suite 3:30, Westlake Village~
3 .Califomia:9136L
.
..
.
. '.
. O n May ,23, 2DJ2, IserYed the fQregolngdob1:ttnent(s)described,a$~ [PROPOSED]

. ORDEROFPROTE'Cl'IQN
.
X-
BY FEDER,AL,lt'KJ>BESS :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.
.
10
It
12
15
BY FA:CSOOLE 1 transmitted the ;above document(s) ,by facsimile transmission to 'the fax
;nfunb;er(~) ,set, IotthJJ.:cilow 011, "ful's datebef(~r.e '5;00' p.m., ~~. receiveq' '~()nf'1r111ed
ttansinissionreportsinmcauug'thatthe document(s)Wete,;sl:l,c,ce$.sfu11yfrtm,smitted,
13
14
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.edasset forth
below. I am readily familiar with thefirni's practice lor 'collecfroll andpro.cesiingof
doc:tin1elits. formaili~g. Under thatpractice it wQuld":he"depositedwithU.s.PostalServiceon
that ,same day' with pc/stage thereon fu11ypt~paid in 'theordinarycbtjrse .ofhusiness, lam
aware that on motion,of'the partyseIYed~ service ispreslifned ittalidifpostal cancellation
date 'or post~ge:meter dale is'morethan:one :day after date ofdepositior mai1i:qg:m'aflidavit.
..
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, Suite 21$0
. LQsAilge1es, CA;90d71
18 : Facsimilet :S88"749.;;5812
~--~~
t9~--
20
-- --
------------~---~
- -- ---
------~----- ---~--
----- -------- - -
Idec1ate;,undet penaltydfpe!jury under thelaw.Softhe State ofCaliforiiia':fhattneAibove is

true.andcortect..
11
Executed on May 2~, 2012,atWestlake ViHag~, CaJjJornia.
22
24
Dawn Master
-6--'-- - -
27
28
3
[PRo;PQSED] URDER OF PROTECTION
r -
___
~_o
- - - --- --
-~-----
_ ___ ___________
-~-----~
--~-
--
-~
-~-
--- ----
0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ___
--~-
--- -- - -- ---- -- - --- ---------
---~--
~-
o_______________________________________________
--
-~--
------~---
0' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - -- -- ---
" __________
-~~
__________
----~--
--- -- ---- ---- --
.o _____ o__ ._o. _ _ ._. ___ ._o __
----~--
.~
- - -
----- -- --- -- ----
---~-
-~
--~--
_____ " __ ____________ "" _____ ___ _

~
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Austa Wakily
Friday, May 25, 2012 9:30 AM
'david chatfield'
RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke
Mr. Chatfield,
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

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:58 PM
Subject: Gaggerov; Knapp,Petersen-& Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,

David Chatfield
r-----------------------------------~~,2D~12~------------------------------------
)
Austa Wakily
MillerLLP
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke

BC286925
Dear Ms. Wakily,

This letter is in short response to your letter of May 10,2012, thatwas 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 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 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 modified andlor 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 andlor verification. As soon as I receive back a returned verification to the responses I
will send them to you.
Very truly yours,
__ ~ ________ ~ ___________________________________ L ________ _
This e-maiLis covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally
dissemination, disttibuti6h6T copying 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
)
Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Austa Wakily
Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49 PM
'david chatfield'
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
Sent: Friday, May 25,20125:37 PM

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

message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this-communication
telephone (805) 267~1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
91361 phone: (80S} 267~1220 fax:-(805) 267=12U-email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo;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
will proceed with a motion to compel as we cannot allow further bad faith delay tactics.
1
by Apr4WO, 2012. Wc----~
-)
)

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:37:26 -0700
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?

Dear Ms. Wakily,
1------+Ais-e-mail-is-E0veFeEi-13y-tAe-EleEtrenie-GemmuniEatiens-PFivaEY-AEI:,18-lJ.S.G.--2-5Q~2-52-1-anEi-is-leJaIIY-l'lFivileJeEl.-"-Ais--~
-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
From: austa@millerlip.com
Date: Fri, 25 May 201210:01:00 -0700
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
Sent: Friday, May 25,20129:54 AM


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
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:30:27 -0700
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 prbtectTve oFder::wewould-nave appfeciate(lthepFbfessionalcoufte~yofaninfb-ntjdICfttempltd

niacn-an agreemenfwltfiouftne necessitY-oTfHTng pr()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
scheduled on May 9,2012. Second, you' requested a protective order with respect 10 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
~!iay 24, 2012 9:58 PM
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke
Sent: Thursday,
Dear Ms. Wakily,

David Chatfield
May 24,2012
Austa Wakily
Miller LLP
Re: Gaggero v. Knapg Petersen & Clarke

BC286925
Dear Ms. Wakily,

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 tIme We are-rrrlneprocessof completlng-tne secona-sLipplementaf responseloKPC'sSeconaSetofProaUa:Ton

responses that hav~~een mo~!fied 91"1c1LClr}imi!eclbyy()(Jf_MCiY 19! 2012IettE!r'. indlJ_din~our statemellt of_ co lT1plIance and
expe 0 ave e secon supp emen a
4
r --.. -------.-.---.---. --------- ---- - ----. ----... -- --- -- -- -- .. --.------.-..
--~.~------
. -.... ----------.-..------.---- ----- -. - - -..------------.---
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,
I
5
..\
i
r-
I
~--
... --
--~
-- ---- -----
-~.------
_._-- -_ .. -
- ._-- --
_... _-------_.- ------- --- - - -
--
--------- ----- --_._--_._--------- --- -----
_.
__ . ---- ----------_._- -----
-- ----
--
- - - "------
---
----
RANDALL A. IvIILLER (Bar No. 116036)

(Bar No. 238788)
SCOTT NEWMAN
(Bar No. 257424)
AUSTA WAKILY
MILLERLLP
3
4
5
6

Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
M. HARRIS andANDREJARDINI
10
11
a..
.....I
.....I
0::
12
13
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.:
BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.

Hess, Dept. 24]
v.
15

HARRIS andANDREJARDINI,
16
Defendants.
14
W
.....I
.....I
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
17
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC's

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
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-~--
24
27
28
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT
Praske in his capacity as the trustee the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante
Foundation is hereby added as ajudgment debtor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated:
8
9
10
11
CL
--.J
--.J
0:::
12
13
14
W
--.J
--.J
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC'S MOTION TO Al\IfEND JUGMENT
-2-
RANDALL A. MILLER (BarNo. 116036)

AUSTA WAKILY
(Bar No. 257424)
MILLERLLP
2
3
4

Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
9
10
11
CL
....J
....J
0::::
W
....J
....J
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
CASE NO;:
BC286925

Hess, Dept. 24J
v.

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

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case No. B203780)
(Trial Case No. BC239810).

8. Attached as Exhibits G
IS
a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Transcript on Appeal of Joseph Praske Cross Examination on June 30, 2005. Gaggero v. Yura
(2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case No.
B203780) (Trial Case No. BC239810).
9. Attached as Exhibits H
IS
a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Transcript on Appeal of Stephen Gaggero's Re-Direct Examination on July 15,2005. Gaggero v.
10
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.
0::
14
B203780) (Trial Case No. BC23981O).
--.J
--.J
15
11. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the 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.
a..
--.J
--.J
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
14. Attached as Exhibit Mis a true and correct copy of the Declarations of Stephen M.
24
___ ._2.5. __G1lgg~XO_gnd lQ.s~ph.Pmske in support of aMQtion for. Reconsideration .filed.the Gagge.ro.y. Yura,
---- ----
--.
26
-- --
--- -
-~.-
_.- --- -- -------
--
_.
----
-- -
--
-.---
Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
---
- -------_.-_.
_.
---
---
--
--- ---- -- --
-.--
BC239~10).
27
28
-3DECLARATION OF AUSTA W AKILY IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO AMEND mDGMENT TO ADD mDMENT DEBTORS
')
15. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy this Court's transcript for the October 5,
2011 hearing on the KPC's motion to compel further responses to post-judgment special
interrogatories in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case
No. BC286925).
16. Attached as Exhibit 0 are documents obtained from the website of the Secretary of State of
Nevada. The website provides basic information on corporations or other business entities
incorporated in the state. I personally printed true and correct copies of the information for Pacific
Coast Management on April 3, 2012 by visiting http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch and entering
"Pacific Coast Management" in the search box
10
17. Attached as Exhibit P are documents obtained from the website of the Secretary of State of
\
c:::
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 .
W
.....I
.....I
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, 20 II.
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.tf<2:LP[O_dl,lction QfDo_C1U1.1~JJt.s(s.~t Two), Th.ediscoy.~ry_w.a-.S _serYed_ou lilllUary
-._-."
---
"------
-.-------
--
------
---
attomey~
------- "--_
..
-~
-._-
-._-- ---"--
_.
--
--_. ------------- .. - - - - - - - -
--" ----"._--
---
-.-.-
------.--- -----
31,2012. Gaggero's
27
availability due to his traveling. Gaggero received an extension to resp_ond to March 20, 2012.
28
Chatfield, r_eQllested a 30 day e]{tensionbased on Gaggero'
limit~d
26
~4-
DECLARATION OF AUSTA W AKILY IN SUPPORT OF

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

MOTION TO .A.11END JUDGMENT TO ADD JODMENT DEBTORS
()
3
4
5
RANDALL A. MILLER (Bar No. 116036)

SCOTT NEWMAN
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
AUSTA WAKlL Y
MILLERLLP
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDIN!
10
11
a..
--I
--I
0:::
UJ
--I
--I
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.:
BC286925

Hess, Dept. 24]
v.
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
15

HARRIS and ANDRE JARDIN!,
16
Defendants.
AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD
17
JUDGMENT DEBTORS;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE; AND DECLARATION OF
AUSTA WAKILY
18
[PROPOSED] ORDER
19
20
21
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
May 29, 2012

8:30 a.m.
Department 24
22
23
26
27
28
/)
/
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS 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
7 Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFWLP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP,8
Marina Glencoe LP, Biu HouseLLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske; trustee, of the
Giga.."'1irJ. Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, :md Aquasante Foundation as judgment debtors. This
10
motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 on ~e following grounds:
1.
11
D...
.....J
.....J
-a::
ill
.....J
.....J
-~
----
-------
The Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation are Stephen
12
Gaggero's alter ego and should be added as judgment debtors, through the trustee, Joseph Praske,
13
pursuant to the alter ego doctrine and/or as the real parties in interest.
2.
14
15
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
16. 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
17
18
~oin!and authorities, the- - -accompanying

Declaration of
-----;--------
19
Notice, and, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such additional facts and argument
20
as may be presented at or before the time of the hearing.
- - - -- - - -
------------
Austa Wakily, Request for Judicial
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
-~~
------- ---------
- - -------
~.
21
22 . Dated:.April1.0, 2012
._. .:tVIILLER LLJ'
23
By:
Z4
_ ._25_.
~
.~ ~~
26
27
~~W-d~--~~--II~
RANDALL A. :MILLER, ESQ.
SCOTT NEWMAN, ESQ.
____~_AUS'IA-WAKILY,BSQ~--~
___ ~.
__ . ____ ~
_ ~ ~_~_AttomeysJorDefendants, .KNAPP,_PETERSEN~~ __
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS :ana.ANDRE~JAlW1NI . :
-------------~-r----------------------------------------------------~-----I----
28
-2-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 3
A. UNDERL YING MALPRACTICE ACTION RESULTING IN JUDGMENT AGAINST

GAGGERO ............................................................................................................................ 3
B. ESTATE PLAN" ...................................................................................................................... 4
C. POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY EFFORTS ..................................................................... 6
III. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 7
A. TIDSCOURTHASAUTHOruTYTOAMENDTHEJUDGMENTTOADD
GAGGERO'S ALTER EGOS AS JUDGMENT DEBTORS ................................................ 7
10
Cou..-rts Have IrJ1erent P3..uthorirj to Prevent Frustration, p.~buse, Or Disregard of Their

Process ............................................................................................................................ ,... 7
11
2. Alter Ego Claims are Appropriate for Gaggero's Trusts and Business Entities ................. 7
12
B. GIGAN"IN TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND AQUASAN"TE FOUNDATION ARE

GAGGERO'S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ......................... 8
~.
(L
-I
-I
13
0:::
14
UJ
15
-I
-I
16
17
18
--------------
-------------
19
C. PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT IS GAGGERO'S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL

PARTY IN INTEREST ........................................................................................................ 10
D. GAGGERO'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS
ARE IDS ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ............................... 11
E. PRESERVING THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATIONS AND

GAGGERO WILL SAN"CTION A FRAUD AND PRODUCE AN UNJUST RESULT .... 13
F. REVERSE CORPORATE PIERCING IS APPOPRIATE TO ADD GAGGERO'S

---- -- -GQRFORA-l'IQN,-bIMIT-E:G>-LIARILI-'fGQMPANIE~, AND-LIW'fED - - ---------------PARTNERSIDPS ................................................................................................................. 13
20
1. Pacific Coast Management Corporation ........................................................................... 14
21
2. Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships ................................................... 14
22
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 15
23
24
. -,.. -
_..
25
---
26
27
28
-1NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
--I
.--1
a:::
~
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. LADT LLC (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
10
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
12
13
Fleet Credit Corp. v. TML Bus Sales, Inc. (9th Cir.1995) 65 F.3d 119, 120 .................................. 14
14
In re Schwarzkop/(9th Cir.2010) 626 F.3d 1032, 1037-1040 .......................................................... 8
15
In re Turner, Bkrtcy. (N.D. Cal 2005) 335 B.R. 140, 146 .............................................................. 14
W
--I
--I
Cases
11
0...
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
16
17
LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis (2000) 116 Nev. 896, 903 ................................................. 14
18
19
20
Statutes
Code Civ. Proc. 187 .................................................................................................................... 2, 7
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-IINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
-_.
r -------. -----.. --------.--. -.. -.-.-.-.--- -----.--- -- .. ------.--- - - ... ----- -- ---..--- - --.--------- . - . - - .-- .. ------.. - ..----.-..--- -----.---------- --. --_.--.- --- ----
0...
....J
....J
n::
I.
-2
Judgment Debtor Stephen Gaggero, fIfteen (15) years ago, transferred all of his personal
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 of his 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.
10
Gaggero continues to exert full control over all of the assets in the estate as the "asset manager"
11
and has absolute authority to command payment of money by the trusts.
12
With the assistance of his attorneys, David ChatfIeld and Joseph Praske, Gaggero has used
13
this estate plan to avoid his obligation on a $1,520,943.30 judgment, now over $2,000,000, entered
14
against him by this Court. Gaggero has not only boldly touted his estate plan impenetrable, but he
15
and his attorneys have steadfastly refused to respond to post-judgment discovery claiming that the
16
information relating to his trusts or entities is irrelevant, invades third party privacy rights,
17
attorney client privilege, and other frivolous objections. When pushed - he simply claims to have
18
no responsive documents or information, then appeals. When ordered by this Court to provide
W
....J
....J
INTRODUCTION
-----
------------------- -
---
--
--
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:sJ<l;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
--
a..
and his counseL Basic discovery designed to ferret out the structure of Gaggero' s assets have
been met with frivolous responses and antagonism by Gaggero and his attorney, Chatfield. KPC is
further discouraged by the fact that the transfers occurred in 1997- beyond the limitations period
for fraudulent conveyance.
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
malpractice for 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
10
them, yet when hoisted on his own petard, Gaggero unabashedly asserted that his assets were
11
impervious to execution. Such a one-way street cannot stand.
12
Fortunately, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code Section 187 to address precisely
13
this situation. Section 187 grants courts the authority to use all necessary means to carry its
0::
14
jurisdiction into effect, even those not provided for by statute, to compel obedience to its
W
.....I
15
judgments, orders, and process. Under the plain language of Section 187 and case law interpreting
16
the statute this Court has broad authority to amend the judgment to add Gaggero' s alter egos.
....J
....J
....J
17
Pursuant to Section 187, KPC seeks to add Gaggero' s trusts and foundation as judgment
18
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 _ClQ91AK G9: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 tincler SectIon i 87 supp()rtedby case law:
27
28
r ........................-. - ........--.---.- ---.................-............... _.......-...-.....-_ ....- - ..... -...-... -.....-.. -._.-..... _-- - ............ _..--...
KPC, therefore, respectfully requests that this Court add Gaggero's alter egos and/or the
real parties in interest: Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511 OFW, LP, Gingerbread Court, LP,
Malibu BroadBeach, LP, Marina Glencoe, LP, Blu House, LLC, and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC, and
Joseph Praske as trustee of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante Foundation.
This motion also seeks to add any successors to the entities, trusts, or foundation as judgment
debtors.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. UNDERLYING MALPRACTICE ACTION RESULTING IN JUDGMENT

AGAINST GAGGERO
10
a..
....J
....J
11
Gaggero retained the law firm of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke to handle a number of matters,
12
including five lawsuits that are the basis of the 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
Federal Bank v. Blanchard (First Federal 1) involved a deficiency judgment against Gaggero
20
(formerly known as Blanchard); Gaggero v. First Federal Bank (First Federal 2) involved a
21
lawsuit filed by Gaggero against First Federal Bank for wrongful foreclosure. Gaggero was
22
awarded $200,000 in damages and $750,000 in attorney fees. Slocumb v. Gaggero involved a
23
lawsuit against Gaggero for attorneys' fees in the amount of about $150,000 for work done on
24
First Federal 2. Declaration of Austa Wakily ("A.W. Decl."), Ijf 2, Exh. A, A-2.
--
25
i -- !
--
--
-"
. Q~gg~f~ jn .:Q_eC~1pQ~L ~QQ~,~l~.cl~Ja:w..:tIiL~gaip.sJ KP.CaUegmgJegal 1I!fllpmGAce. fQ;r: .. __
Gaiiero-v. Knapp:- Petersei-z-& Clarke,-atal,-- Los
26
their -handJJ.llg of the -above f1ve-(5) Gases.
27
Angeles Superior Court (Case No BC286925). The case wellt to trial in 2007 and this Court ruled
28
a..
.....J
.....J
c:::
against Gaggero. (ld., ,-r 2, Exb.. A). The ruling included an award of attorneys' fees in KPC's
favor. Gaggero appealed the decision, which was subsequently affIrmed. (Id., ,-r 2, Exb.. A-2).
KPC fIled an amended judgment on May 2010 including additional attorneys' fees and costs on
appeal. (ld., ,-r 3, Exb.. B). KPC has since been unsuccessful in enforcing the judgment against
Gaggero.
B. ESTATE PLAN
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
10
residence, to various limited liability companies, general partnerships, limited partnerships, and.
11
corporations. (ld., ,-r 7, Exb.. F pp. 935-939). Gaggero fIrst transferred all his assets into limited
12
liability companies and limited partnerships. (Id., ,-r 4, Exb..
13
Gaggero owned prior to the completion of his estate plan was owned 100% by him either by virtue
14
of his membership interest in the company, shares in the corporations, or direct title to the
15
property. (Id., ,-r 4, Exh. C at 100:10-14). Gaggero transferred approximately $35,000,000 to
16
$40,000,000 from his personal portfolio to an entity. (ld., ,-r 4, Exh. C at 104:22-26). Upon
17
Gaggero's transfer of his assets to the various entities he would transfer his full ownership
18
interests in those companies to one of his trusts. (ld., ,-r 7, Exh. F at 935:23-28, 936:1). At the end
C at 96:9-19). Every asset that
W
.....J
.....J
-----
------~---
~---
19
of the day, all of Gaggero' s property was held by either a limited partnership or a limited liability
20
company, which in tum, is owned by one of his trusts. (Id., ,-r 7, Exh. F at 937:1-7). As of2005 the
21
value of the assets in the estate has increased substantially. (Id.,,-r 7, Exb.. F at 942:8-10).
22
-
Gaggero's estate is comprised of three trusts (two trusts and one foundation), multiple
-- -
--
--
_.
23
partnerships, and multiple corporations. (Id., ,-r 5, Exb.. D at 309:19-21). The three trusts are the
24
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
a..
--I
--I
a:::
Aquasante Foundation. (Id., 'i[4, Exh. C at 91:10-15). The Arenzano Trust is an off-shore trust
organized under the laws of Anguilla -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 of these 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).
10
Praske, as the trustee of the trusts, has control over all the entities and assets in the estate
11
plan. (Id., 'i[5, Exh. D at 3l3: 12-14). Praske is the trustee ofthe trusts or foundation that owns the
12
shares to the corporations. (Id., 'i[5, Exh. D at 3l3:1-8). He is the trustee, managing member, or
13
majority membership owner with 100% ownership of all the various entities. (Id., 'i[ 5, Exh. D at
14
3l3:1-8). Praske's role, however, is limited to advice. (Id., 'i[10, Exh. I at 4028:11-15).
W
--I
--I
:2:
15
Gaggero has retained control over his wealth as the "asset manager" of all the assets. (Id., 'i[
16
5, Exh. D at 314:4-7) (emphasis added). In this capacity, Gaggero is in charge of "refinancing,
17
dealing with tax issues, insurance issues, making decisions to ... buy or sell the asset, to improve
18
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
a..
.....I
.....I
c:::
Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id,
in the sense that it is his personal residence. (Id., ~ 7, Exh. F at 937:24-28). Praske is the trustee of
all three trusts. (Id,
comprised part of Gaggero's estate." (Id,
by Gaggero for the sole purpose of "owning real property." (Id,
Praske is the agent for service of process for all entities associated with Gaggero. (Id,
Exh. 0, P). The business addresses of the various entities are also identical. (Id,
P). While there are numerous other entities and trusts that are part of Gaggero's estate, KPC, has
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.
7, Exh. F pp. 994-995). He is the beneficiary of the Giganin Trust
7, Exh. F at 995:18-19). Praske was retained by "all of the entities that

~
7, Exh. F at 905:1-2). The trusts own entities created

~
20, Exh. S pp. 40-49, 53-55).
~~
~~
16-17,
16-17, Exh. 0,
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,
16
corporations, partnerships, trusts or foundation are irrelevant and violate the privacy rights of third
17
parties. (Id,
W
.....I
.....I
~~
18, Exh. Q). Gaggero further asserts that any information related to his
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,
22
frivolous responses. (Id,
23
judgment special interrogatories on August 9, 2011. This Court granted the motion to compel on
24
October 5, 2011 ordering Gaggero to provide further responses without objection and awarded
-------1
18). With respect to the special interrogatories, Gaggero provided evasive and
~
18, Exh. Q). KPC filed a motion to compel further responses to post-
2S~m;:tQtiOJ:),~_~gam~tGCtgg~IOaJ:l.gJlis...cQUP~~1
26
in. the_ amoW1to:( .$2~ 7QQ,{Jq'J ~_._l~,_E?W.,-.N) ..G~gg~tQ_.
has ignored the court's order in its entirety.
27
28
-6-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
KPC served Gaggero with Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) on January 31,
~
19, Exh. R). The responses were due on March 6, 2012. (Id.,
19). KPC granted
2012. (Id.,
Gaggero and extension to March 20, 2012 to accommodate his travel/vacation schedule. (Id.,
19). Gaggero again failed to produce any documents including only boilerplate and improper
objections based on relevance and invasion of privacy. (Id.,
discovery propounded to Gaggero will be similarly futile without amendment of judgment.
19, Exh. R). Further post-judgment
7
8
9
10
11
0...
.....I
.....I
m.
DISCUSSION
A. TillS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT TO ADD
GAGGERO'S ALTER EGOS AS JUDGMENT DEBTORS
1. Courts Have Inherent Authority to Prevent Frustration, Abuse, Or Disregard

of Their Process
12
13
Every court has the power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process in an
0:::
14
action or proceeding pending before it, and to use all necessary means to carry its jurisdiction
.....I
.....I
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
,of the litigation, and was therefore represented in it. Alexander v. Abbey of the 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
-)
0..
....J
....J
c::
(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 of Gaggero' s trusts.
Alter ego liability exists when two conditions are met: First, there is such a unity of interest
and ownership that the individuality, or separateness, of the individual and corporation has ceased;
10
and, Second, adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would sanction a
11
fraud or promote injustice. Greenspan, supra 191 Cal.AppAth. at 511. Factors suggesting an alter
12
ego relationship include, in part: the identical equitable ownership in the two entities; the
13
treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own; the use of the same office
14
or business location; the employment of the same employees and/or attorney; the use of a
15
corporation as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or the business of an
16
individual or another corporation; the concealment and misrepresentation of the identity of the
17
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 no
24
single factor is determinative a court must evaluate all the circumstances to determine whether to
W
....J
. ....J
t-----~-~--~~-I
______
26
27
_______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_
__________~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0-
_______________
"
___
___________
"
_____________
0 _________
B.GIGANIN.TRIIST, ARENZANQTRUST,ANDAQUASANTEF_QUNDAIIQN
ARE GAGGERO'S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
28
__
(-,),
);
Applying the above factors, there is no doubt that the trusts comprising Gaggero' s estate
plan are his alter egos. As stated above, the plan took several months to implement and involved
two key steps. First, Gaggero transferred all his assets to corporations, limited liability companies,
or limited partnerships in which he had 100% ownership interest. (Id.,
Second, Gaggero transferred his ownership interests in the various business entities in one of his
three self-settled trusts. (Jd.,
the day, concealed all his assets in an entity owned by his trusts. By implementing the estate plan
Gaggero is forcing his creditors to penetrate multiple layers of sham entities in order to ultimately
pierce his estate plan. All of his personal and investment matters are handled through the sham
10
~~
4, Exh. Cat 100:10-14).
4,7, Exh. C at 100:10-14; Exh. F pp. 936). Gaggero, at the end of
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.,
0:::
14
Gaggero stated "I could take this asset in my name, transfer it to an entity, a limited liability
....J
....J
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.,
0..
....J
....J
18
1-----------------------
6, Exh. E at 617:8-14). When asked how he would take title to a property,
6, Exh. E at 617:8-14). Gaggero does not distinguish between
the different trusts or foundation in the estate plan, nor does he distinguish between the entities in
-~----------
---------~--
--------~
-- ---------- ---
--------~----
------ --------------------- --- - - - ------------------- ----
19
the estate plan. Gaggero, in purchasing a property or asset, looks at "the liquidity of the trust at the
20
time" in determining how to acquire the property within his estate. (Jd.,
21
Finally, all gains on the properties flow through Gaggero's tax returns via the trusts and all other
22
entities. (Id.,
4, Exh. Cat 119:13-23).
10, Exh. I at 4035:4-7).
Gaggero also has retained full control over all assets in the trusts as the asset manager. (Id.,
23
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
\,
resources to purchase this all cash or with a mortgage, and if there happened to be a 1031
exchange opportunity available, I would have exchanged it into one of the entities that were
owned by my trust." (Id,
whole in determining how to acquire additional property.
.~
9, Exh. H pp. 3426-3427). Again, Gaggero looked at the estate as a
Gaggero as the "asset manager" has authority to negotiate on behalf of the trust to purchase
~
properties. (Id,
insurance issues, making decisions to buy or sell the asset, to improve the asset, overseeing any
improvement to the asset, fmancing, designing some ultimate disposition of the asset. (Id,
Exh. C at 110:12-19). Gaggero makes all decisions with respect to all the real estate held in the
4, Exh. C at 110:3-9). He is in charge of refmancing, dealing with tax issues,
4,
10
estate plan and Praske follows his recommendations. (Id,
11
all assets in the estate plan are controlled by Gaggero, as the equitable owner and "asset manager."
12
(Id,
13
8, Exh. Gat 1002:25 ..28). Ultimately,
8, Exh. Gat 1002:16-28, 1003:1-3).

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,
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,
17
(Id,
18
"Gaggero's personal estate" which has funds well in excess of $1,100,000. (Id,
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,
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.
7, 9, Exh. F at
6, Exh. E at 617:3-7). Praske also refers to the trusts as belonging to Gaggero.
7, Exh. F pp. 936-937). For example, in a declaration Praske stated that he is the trustee of
~~
14, Exh. M).
7, 14, Exh. F at 936:24-28; Exh. M). Gaggero
..
. ..
C ...:eACIFIC.COAST.MANAGEMENT.IS ,GAGGERO~SALTEREGO ANDTHKREAL.. . ... .. 26
PAE.TYIN INTEREST
27
28
-10NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGl'v1ENT TO ADD JUDGl'v1ENT DEBTORS
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)
10
CL
...J
...J
0:::
(emphasis added).
11
Although PCM pays for all of Gaggero's personal expenses and "manages his life"
12
Gaggero could not answer basic questions relating the entity. Gaggero did not know whether PCM
13
had Articles of Incorporation, whether there were officers or directors, if he was a director, and
14
when it was formed. (Id, , 12, Exh. K pp. 37- 39). PCM's "in house" counsel, Chatfield, similar
15
did not know basic information relating to the entities, including the ownership, place of
16
incorporation, and the entities that retained him as an in-house counsel. (Id, '2, Exh. A pp. 13-
17
14). PCM, clearly was established by Gaggero as part of the estate plan designed to evade
18
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.
W
...J
...J
21
22
D. GAGGERO'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITEDPARTNERSHIPS

ARE IDS ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
23
Gaggero' s limited liability companies and limited partnerships were created for the sole
24
purpose of taking legal title to his real property. As discussed above, this was his first step in
c-------~I
26:H()use,
27
LLC,}30ar~wa1k
S1lllset,_ LLC, Malibu Broad Beach, LP, I'v1arina Glencoe, LP,- 511 OF~, _..
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
a..
....J
....J
Blu House, LLC and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC was created on May 23, 1997. (Id.,
Exh. P). Blu House, LLC's business purpose was ownership of property located at 523 Ocean
Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id.,
Sunset, LLC's business purpose was ownership of property located at 601 Ocean Front Walk,
Venice, California. (Id.,
the owner of properties located at 523 and 601 Ocean Front walk, Venice, California. (Id.,
Exh. C at 96:9-19; Exh. S at 45:4-24). Praske is the agent for service of process for both
companies. (Id.,
Ste., 201. (Id.
~~
~~
17,
4,20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. S at 45:4-24). Boardwalk
4, 20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. S at 47:6-25, 47:1-6). Gaggero was

~
4,20,
17, Exh. P). Both companies have as their address 1473F South Victoria Ave,
17, Exh. P). Blue House, LLC and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC are two of the 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.,
12
96: 9-19, 104:16-21) .
4, Exh. C at
13
Less than one year after establishing the above companies, Gaggero established Malibu
0:::
14
Broad Beach, LP and Marina Glencoe, LP. These limited partnerships were created on February 5,
....J
....J
15
1998 and have Praske listed as the agent for service of process. (ld.,
16
Broadbeach, LP and Marina Glencoe, were established for the purpose the ownership of property
17
previously owned personally by Gaggero. (Id.,
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.,
20
Additionally, Malibu Broadbreach, LP is associated with the Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id.,
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.,
23
~~
~~
17, Exh. P). Malibu
4, 10,20, Exh. Cat 104:16-21; Exh. I pp. 4031-
4, 10, Exh. C at 96:14; Exh. I pp. 4031-4032).
~~
4,8,
20, Exh. S at 54:15-20, 55:7-
--
16). Both entities were created by Gaggero as a means of shielding personal assets from creditors.
I~-~~~~~I
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,
27
as the agent for service of process Praske. (Id.,
EXh.]. Both have
17, Exh. P). Both were established for the
28
-12NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND ruDGMENT TO ADD mDGMENT DEBTORS
(~
)
purpose of owning property. (Id., ,-r 20, Exh. S pp. 40-44). 511 OFW, LP had as its business
purpose the ownership of 51 1 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., -U-U 4, 20, Exh. Cat 96:9-
19; Exh. S at40:22-25, 41:1-2). Gingerbread Court, LP had as its business purpose the ownership
of 517 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., ,-r 20, Exh. S at 43:11-17, 44:2-11). Gaggero
owned both 511 and 517 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California and transferred those assets to
these limited partnerships. (Id., -U-U 4, 20, Exh. C at 96:9-19, 103:2-5; Exh. S pp. 41-44). These
entities are Gaggero' s alter ego and created for the sole purpose of shielding personal assets from
creditors. OFW, LP and Gingerbread Court, LP should be added as judgment debtors as Gaggero's
alter ego.
10
11
D--I
--I
0:::
W
--I
--I
12
E. PRESERVING THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATIONS

AND GAGGERO WILL SANCTION A FRAUD AND PRODUCE AN UNJUST
RESULT
13
The second requirement for application of the alter ego doctrine is fmding that the facts are
14
such that adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would sanction a
15
fraud or promote injustice. Greenspan, supra 191 Cal.App.4th. at 511. The test for this
16
requirement is that if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, it will produce an unjust
17
or inequitable result. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300. In this case
18
allowing Gaggero to avoid his obligation through the use of his estate plan, set up to shield his
19
personal assets from creditors, will result in an injustice to KPC and other creditors. Gaggero
20
created the estate plan 15 years ago foreclosing claims for fraudulent conveyance. Additionally,
21
piercing Gaggero' s estate plan is likely to deter his continued disregard of this Court's orders and
22
other court orders.
23
24
F. REVERSE CORPORATE PIERCING IS APPOPRIATE TO ADD GAGGERO'S

CORPORATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, AND LIMITED
PARTNERSHIPS
25
26
.. corporaTIOn'S assets tosatlsf)ia sliareli()lder's pers()na1 delJt- it is fully jUstified and Withfu This
27
Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of Its process and supported by-CaIiforma case law.
28
/)
1
1. Pacific Coast Management Corporation
Pacific Coast Management isa Nevada corporation. (Id,
recognizes reverse corporate piercing as an appropriate avenue to impose liability on a judgment
debtor's alter ego. The application of the doctrine is especially appropriate when the judgment
debtor uses an entity to hide assets or secretly conduct business as part of an attempt to avoid his
pre-existing liability. LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis (2000) 116 Nev. 896, 903. As
discussed in detail above Pacific Coast Management, as an entity that manages Gaggero' s life, is
clearly subject to alter ego liability. Because it is a Nevada corporation, and Nevada recognizes
reverse corporate piercing, Pacific Coast Management can properly be added as a judgment
debtor.!
11
fl.
19, Exh. R). Nevada law
10
--I
--I
2. Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships
12
Under California law an entity or series of entities created with no business purpose and
13
simply as a means of shielding personal assets from creditor is viewed as the alter ego of the
14
individual debtor and will be disregarded to prevent injustice. In re Turner, Bkrtcy. (N.D. Cal
15
2005) 335 B.R. 140, 146. California also recognizes the application of reverse-piercing to impose
16
alter ego liability against a corporation for a judgment incurred by its sole shareholder. Taylor v.
17
Newton (1953) 117 CaLApp.2d 752, 758-60; See e.g. Fleet Credit Corp. v. TML Bus Sales, Inc.
18
(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).
W
--I
--I
-~
23
California more recently addressed reverse-piercing in Postal Instant Press, Inc. supra,
24
162 CaLAppAth at 1518. The judgment creditors in Postal Instant Press sought to use a
1--------1
I..
25 .. oI]o[ation'~ .ass()\ !o.~tify. t)l"perS.911"J.~1Jt of a JQ=er~h"re.lt!>l<!er, Id.,Ille ,oJl!1; r.e~t9 .....-
I~:~:~~-d:ertiItguffeM
..
I------~__H"'"
p.
isalsoFoP-eri:rrtl:ri:s-C1~C
28
-14NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO A1vIEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
0..
-I
-I
-a::
ill
-I
-I
-~
apply reverse piercing because (1) the corporate form 'was . not being ririsused; (2) innocent
shareholders of the corporation would be adversely affected by a decision that would require a
corporation to pay for the debts'of an individual shareholder, and (3) the judgment creditors had
sufficient h?gal remedies to pursue without the necessity of reverse piercing. Id. at 1522-1523.
Postal Instant Press does not address the situation, as is here, where an individual uses a
corporation or other entity as an alter ego to shelter personal assets rather than the other way
around. Postal Instant Press is inapposite.
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
10
circumstances in which reverse piercing is acceptable. Id. at 1524. To apply reverse piercing ~C
11
must show that innocent creditors would be adequately protected and that there are inadequate
12
legal remedies.
13
are part of Gaggero's "estate plan" and are merely his alter ego. He established the entities to
14
shelter his wealth and continues to have full access and control over his assets. (Id., , 4, Exh. C at
15
120:2-6, 121:22-23). Second, because tht;: transfers occurred in 1997 KPC cannot pursue claims
16
for fraudulent transfer. Thus, to the extent this case involves the application of reverse corporate
17
piercing, it is appropriate and within this Court's authority.
18
-~--------
-------------
IV.
-
Here, there are no innocent shareholders. The trusts; foundation, and entities
CONCLUSION
~-----------~---------------
---
F or the foregoing reasons, judgffientcredItors
19
20
Id.
KPC:- respe-ctfully- requeSt-thIs -CoUltfo -- -
-~-
amend the judgment to add Gaggero's alter egos and/or the real parties in interest to the judgment.
21
22
23
24
25
Date.d: April 10, 2012
M1LLERLLP
By:
z:t;:tA WPk~j
RANDALL A. MILLER,
EW
AUSTA WAKILY,ESQ. .
-- -.AttGme-ys-iGr-Defendants,KbIAP-P-,-PETERSEN&.- -.-- -- -.----CLARKE,.S1EF-HEN.RAYGARCIA,-STEPHEN-M.-- - .
BARRISaIlc1.).4,Nl':REIAMINI
28
-15NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND TIIDGMENT TO ADD TIIDGMENTDEBTORS
1
2
3
4
5
6
RANDALL A. MILLER (Bar No. 116036)

SCOTT NEWMAN
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
AUSTA W AKILY
MILLERLLP
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
M. HARRIS andANDREJARDINI
10
11
0..
--I
--I
0::
W
--I
--I
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.:
BC286925

Hess, Dept. 24]
v.
15

16
Defendants.
17
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT
DEBTORS
May 29,2012
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS
"-
""
--"--- ----""-"--
- - - --"---- "---- -- -
-- ----"" -"-" - -- - --- -- ---------------- "----- -- - - ----
- -"----" "-- -
"-"
-- "-"-"----- --- ---- -
""----""
-- -"-"-" ----- --- -"-----
Pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452(d) and (h), judgment creditors Knapp,
Petersen and Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (collectively referred
to as "KPC"), respectfully ask this Court to take judicial notice ofthe following records:
1. All pleadings, flIes, trial transcripts, and any other evidence filed with the Court of Appeal
in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, (2010), California Court of Appeal, Second
Appellate District, Division Eight, (Appeal Case No. B207567).
CL
....J
....J
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 Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen &
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
0:::
14
by this Court in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles
....J
....J
15
Superior Court (Case No. BC286925) .
16
Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy ofthe Amended Judgment filed in
17
the Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court
18
(Case No. BC286925).
19
Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of excerpts and Reporter's
20
Certificate from the Reporter's Daily Transcript taken on August 2, 2007 in the
21
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case
No. BC286925).
22
-
23
---
-~--
--
--
--
_._-
Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of excerpts and the Reporter's
24
Certificate from the Reporter's Daily Transcript on August 7,2007 in the Gaggero
25
Y_Kr!gpPLr(;t~~!i(}t!: _&_J:}Cl(ke,~t_f!!,_1_~_)~_AP:g~I~~_~uQ~Jj.Qr~QllJ1_(Qll~~_No.
26
BC286925).
27
28
-2REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS
October 5, 2011 hearing on the KPC's motion to compel further responses to post-
judgment special interrogatories in the present case Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen &
Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).
Third Party Debtor Exam taken on June 9,2009 and the Reporter's Certificate of
the transcript.
3. All pleadings, files, trial transcripts, and any other evidence in connection with Gaggero v.
Yura, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC239810).
10
....I
....I
0:::
Attached as Exhibit S is true and correct copy of excerpts from Joseph Praske's
0..
Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy this Court's transcript for the
Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the 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 of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
15
Division Five, (Appeal Case No. B203780) .
W
....I
....I
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
20
~-
--~--~
~----
---~--~------
~~
~---~-
--~-----
- - --------
of the Reporter's Certificate for the Transcripts on Appeal.
Attached as Exhibits C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
21
Daily Transcript of Stephen Gaggero's Direct Exanlination on June 27, 2005 from
22
the appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
23
BC239810).
24
25
Attached as Exhibits D is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
__ J2aj!y I r l:!!1:1)Crjpt9J S!~h~p-O:i:!gg~ro's)~i!~()t~~~!pi--!li:!ti<?l1<?_n I~~~~,~Q9~_gom
26
theapp_lllo( Ga~iero v. Yura, et aI, Los .AilgelesSuperiorCourt-(CaseNo. -
27
BC239810).
28
-3REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS
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).
CL
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
10
Daily Transcript of Joseph Praske Cross Examination on June 30, 2005 from the
11
appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
12
BC239810) .
13
0:::
Attached as Exhibits F is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
......I
......I
Attached as Exhibits E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Attached as Exhibits H is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
14
Daily Transcript of Stephen Gaggero's Re-Direct Examination on July 15, 2005
15
from the appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
16
BC239810).
W
......I
......I
-~
17
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
18
-------
----------------~----
-----
-------~---------------------~--------------
---
---------------------------
19
from the appeal of the Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case
20
No. BC239810).
21
- --------
Attached as Exhibit J is a true and copy of the Reporter's Certificate on Appeal
22
relating to the excerpts in Exhibits C-I above.
23
6. All documents publicly available on the Secretary of State of Nevada website
24
http://nvsos:gov/sosentitysearch relating to Pacific Coast Management and related entities.
/--------1
__ _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
- --------
"',)
7. All documents publicly available on the Secretary of State of California website
http://kepler.sos.ca.govrelatingto 511 OFW, LP, Gingerbread Court, LP, Malibu Broadbeach, LP,
Marina Glencoe, LP, Blu House, LLC, Boardwalk Sunset, LLC, and related entities. Attached as
Exhibit P are documents obtained from the website of the Secretary of State of California.
,5
MJLLERLLP
Dated: Aprill 0, 2012
. By:
AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.

CLARKE,. STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
10
'.
11
a..
...J
...J
0:::
-;F:- ;-_A_~ = -'A~.L;"';L=-. :;-r-;:~:MII=....,-;:.fJ.=ER,~~=CS1t&=-.-'-I--~---

;-_.
12
13
14
W
...J
...J
15
16
17
18
---- - - - - - - - - -
..
------
~-----~--- - -
~-----
.-.
_.....
-----------~------------
---------.---------------------.:..-:-~---~-~--------------
----
- - - " -------"-----~~--
19
20
21
22
23
24
. . .. 25 ....... .
f'
I
2-7-
28
-5-
REQUEST FOR TIJDICIAL NOTICE ill SUPPORT OF MOTION TO .A.11END JUDGJvfENT TO ADD JUD:MENT
DEBTORS
-1
, _RANDALLA_MILLER--(Bar~No.116036)
SCOTT NEWMAN
(Bar No, 238788)
AUSTA WAKILY
(Har No. 257424)
MILLERLLP
Telephone:800~720:2 126.
Facsimile: 888.7495812
3
4
Attonlt{Ys for Defendants" KNAPP,PETERSEN &

6M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
5
7
'8
SUPERJOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
'9
comITY OFTOSANGELES
10
J1
a..
....J
....J
'0::
...J.
...J
.~
STEPHENM. GAGGERO,
12
Plaintiff.,
:13
KNAPP. PETERSEN & CLARKE,

STEPHEN RAY GARCIA" STEPHEN M;
15 .' HARRlSand'ANDREJA:RDINI,
.
14
16
.D'efendanfs.
17
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
1:8
f---~
-~--- ~--
19
- -~------ - - - - - - -
20
Having considered Defendants and JudgmentCreditClrs Knapp, PetersenandCl:mxe,

Stephen Ray Garcia,StephenHarris, and Andre lardini (KPC) motion to amend the judgment to
21
add judgment .debtors pursuant to the Code Civil Procedw-e Se.otion 187, and the papers and .
22
-:-23
I----~~~----=--:--+
pleadings submitted in support of and in. opposition, and good calise appearing, the Court hereby
- - - - - -,grants KPC's motion. Pacific Coast Managernent, 511 OFW LP, QIIlg~Lbr_e.ad_Cmut.LE,..Malib~ __~~
24
Broad Beach LP,Marina Glencoe LP,Blu House
LLC~aIld Boardwalk Sunset LLC.are the
.25
__~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
Praske .in hlscapacity asthetmstee .the Giganin Trust7 ArenzanoFamily Trust, and Aquasante
2' Foundation 'is here~yadded;asajudgrnent debtor.

3 IT IS SO .oRDERED.
4
Dated:
HonQrableJudge Robert Hess
8
9
10
11
a..
12
.....J
.....J
13
.~
0::
14
LU
.....J
...J
15
16
.~
17
18
19
20
21
22
~
23
24
25
26.
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGKPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT
,-
~2-
-- ._- -- ------- _.- --_. --
~.-
--
_.
-- -- -- -- --
_."
--- - ---- - --
--
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3
4
5
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
by transmitting via facsimile the document( s) listed above to the fax number( s) set
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.
8
9
10
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 of the

addressees as set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m .

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 .
11
a..
.....J
.....J
12
13
0::
14
W
.....J
.....J
15
16
17
18
~----
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection 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-------- . -. --19 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
-------~----------
20
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
22
--
at Los --Angeles,
California.
Executed on May 31,2012,
---
23
24
25
Joseph Dirkx
26
...
27
28
SERVICE LIST
2
3
4
5
6
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.

WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
Attorney Judgment Debtor, STEPHEN M.

GAGGERO
Ph. (805) 267-1220
Fax: (805) 267-1211
Email: davidblakec@hotmail.com
David Esquibias, Esq.

Tracy Kitzman, Esq.
Law Offices of David Esquibias
Attorneys/or Judgment Debtors, PACIFIC

COAST MANAGEMENT, 511 OFW LP,
GINGERBREAD COURT LP, MALIBU
BROAD BEACH LP, MARINA GLENCOE
LP,BLUHOUSELLC, BOARDWALK
SUNSET LLC, AND JOSEPH PRASKE AS
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
8
9
10
11
a..
--.J
--.J
0:::
12
13
14
W
--.J
--.J
15
16
17
18
f-----------------------
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

+------------- - ---------
----

05.31.12 Motion To Compel RFD (Set Two)

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

05.31.12 Motion To Compel RFD (Set Two)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

\

RANDALLA.MILLER (BarNo. 116036)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STEPHEN M. GAGGERO; an individual;

Plaintiffs and Judgment Debtors,

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO

July 20, 2012

KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEPHEN

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

KPC is entitled to the documents requested in Request for Production of

documents and has failed to substantial his claims of privilege or objections.

process by making, without substantial justification, unmeritorious objection and evasive

against Mr. Gaggero and Mr. Chatfield.

before the time of the hearing.

Dated: May 31, 2012

AUSTA W AKILY, ESQ.

Judgment Debtor, Stephen Gaggero, a wealthy real estate developer, implemented a

one penny towards the judgment.

requested documents. Mr. Gaggero simply refuses to cooperate.

Remarkably, while claiming that is he is destitute in response to KPC's post-judgment

purchase three ocean front properties in Santa Monica exceeding $2,000,000.00. 1

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

entities, and general fmances. See Declaration of Austa Wakily (Decl. AW

schedule and other lawsuits as a basis for the request. (Id at

3, Exh. B). Mr.

4, Exh. C). As a matter of

March 20, 2012. (Id., at

5, Exh. D ). The responses included general boilerplate objections

conferred on April 19, 2012.

(Id. ~~ 7-9, Exh. F). Mr. Chatfield agreed to (1) provide

11, Exh. 1).

disputes informally. (Id.

further delay tactics was forced to bring this motion. (Id.

17-18, Exh. M).

Mr. Gaggero created an estate plan in or about 1997. (Id.

20, Exh. N). As part of the

properties and the trusts and foundation.

(Id). Based on Mr. Gaggero's and Mr. Praske's

clearly in bad faith and warrants sanctions.

their judgments." Youngv. Keele (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1090, 1093.

ago when he implemented the estate plan. (Id.

to his current assets. (rd.

relating to Mr. Gaggero's estate plan implemented over 15 years ago.

13, 20, Exh. J, N). Mr. Gaggero seeks to curtail

employment asserting a myriad of boilerplate and improper objections. (DecL A W

10, Exh. H).

B. KPC'S REQUESTS SEEK DOCUMENTS THAT WILL AID IN THE

+-----------..____1- or foundations in which

-8MOTION TO CO:tv1PEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

No. SCI00361). (Decl. AW ~ 13, Exh. J).

access to payments of any kind. (Id.

13, Exh. J).

Post-Judgment Discovery: Request 16 seeks documents relating to attempts of other

documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's involvement in post-judgment discovery. (Id.

13, Exh. J).

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

13, Exh. J).

C. MR. GAGGERO HAS IGNORED IDS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH

"helieved to be" in:MI. Praske's possession or control. (Id.

10-11, Exh. H). First, Mr. Gaggero,

with his obligation.