Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 ray@boucher la 2||Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 bhujwala@boucher.ta Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No. 268100 weitz@boucher.la 4] BOUCHER LLP 6 || Fax: 2 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 (818) 340-5401 | JAMES EUGENE CARREY MARK BURTON, an individual, Plaintiff, v JAMES EUGENE CARREY, an individual (aka ARTHUR KING); and DOES | through 100, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED CASE: Brigid Sweetman v. James Eugene Carrey, etal, JAMES EUGENE CARREY, an individual, Cross-Complainant, v. FILIPPO MARCHINO, an individual; THE X- LAW GROUP, a professional law corporation; MARK BURTON, an individual; BRIGID SWEETMAN, an individual; and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, Cross-Defendants, Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, 16" Caeenthe UR dg : rk Clon Roane ~ Arr SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT Case No. BC634315 Consolidated With: Sweetman v. Carrey, L.AS.C. Case No. BC636760 REDACTED DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO: PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE), FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1 (SET ONE), AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS OF CATHRIONA WHITE DATED DECEMBER 28, 2011 PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 24, 28, 29, AND 32 ‘November 21, 2017 8:30 AM Dept: 49 Reservation ID: 170721236740 Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Deirdre H. Hill, Dept. 49 Burton Action Filed: September 19, 2016 ‘Sweetman Action Filed: October 11, 2016 ‘Trial Date: April 26, 2018 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS1 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER 2 I, Raymond P. Boucher, declare as follows: 3 1. Tam an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am a partner 4 || with Boucher LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, James Eugene Carrey. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except as to those stated on information and belief and, as to those, | am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein, I make this declaration in support of Defendant James E. Carrey’s Amended Motion to Compel Plaintiff Mark Burton to Provide Amended Responses to Requests for Admission (Set One), Form Interrogatory Seow aan 17.1 (Set One), and Produce Test Results of Cathriona White Dated December 28, 2011 Pursuant 11 }]to Requests for Production Nos. 24, 28, 29, and 32. 12 BACKGROUND ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13 2. Mr. Carrey’s amended motion to compel relates to motions to compel that Mr. 14|| Carrey previously filed this summer, which the Court has re-scheduled for hearing on November 15 ||21, 2017 regarding any remaining issues following the parties’ participation in informal discovery 16 }] conferences and their counsel's further meet and confer efforts 7 3. On May 15, 2017, my office propounded to Plaintiff Burton the following written 18 |] discovery: Defendant's Special Interrogatories (Sets 1-3), Requests for Admission (Sets | and 2) 19 |] and Form interrogatories (Sets 1 and 2), which requested responses to Form Interrogatories 1.1 20 || and 17.1, On May 22, 2017, my office propounded to Plaintiff Burton six sets of Defendant's 21 |] Requests for Production of Documents. On June 16, 2017, June 19, 2017, and June 23, 2017, 22 |] Plaintiff Burton served written sets of objections only to this discovery, which prompted the 23 |] efforts at resolution described below. 4 4. On June 15, 2017, I received a phone call from counsel for Plaintiffs, Michael 25 || Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti, LLP. During that call, Mr. Avenatti explained that we would be 26 || receiving Plaintiff Burton’s responses to our discovery requests and that the responses were 27hobjections. However, he wanted me to know that, as a professional courtesy, his office and client 28) } 2 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS1 || were working on providing substantive responses to all of the discovery, which would be 2 || forthcoming in the near future, 3 5. On June 28, 2017, my partner Shehnaz Bhujwala and I participated in an in-person 4 || meeting with Plaintiff Burton’s counsel to meet and confer over discovery issues and discovery 5 || scheduling. We again discussed Plaintiff Burton's service of objet ns only. Mr. Avenatti assured 6 ]]us that the objections were essentially placeholders and that Plaintiff Burton would provide 7 | substantive responses and documents. We agreed that Plaintiff Burton would provide verified 8 || responses to Mr. Carrey’s Requests for Admission Sets One and attendant Form Interrogatory 17.1 9)|] within two weeks (July 12, 2017). 0 6. Ina subsequent communication after Court that week, Mr. Avenatti assured me that 11 }] Plainiiff Burton would provide responses and responsive documents to all written discovery, 12 ]J except for Defendant’s Requests for Admission Set One and related Form Interrogatory 17.1, 13 || within four weeks of the meeting (July 26, 2017). However, Plaintiff Burton would provide his 14 | responses to Defendant's first set of Requests for Ad ion and responsive documents within 15 }| three weeks of our June 28, 2017 meeting 16 7. Having not receiving any response or documents by July 20, 2017, I called and 17] spoke with Mr. Avenatti. I was again assured by Mr. Avenatti that his client’s responses would be 18 || received within the next couple of weeks. I, again, requested that Plaintiff Burton provide 19 responses to Defendant's first set of Requests for Admission, along with the Form Interrogatory 20 |] 17.1 responses and documents associated with it, because | had been told Plaintiff possessed the 21 || documents responsive to these requests available to him. The subject matter of that written 2 || discovery centers around the question of when Ms. White was first diagnosed with exposure to 23|| Herpes Type I and Herpes Type 2. Additionally, Defendant’s Requests for Production (Set One) 24 || Request Nos. 24, 28, 29, and 32 requests that Plaintiff Burton produce all of Ms. White's test 25 || results for sexually transmitted diseases or infections. In sum, this discovery goes to the heart of 26 || Plaintiffs’ allegation that Ms. White was tested for sexually transmitted diseases before meeting 272| Mr. Carrey and her results were allegedly negative. Plaintiff's case is predicated on this alleg. f 3 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS1 |/as Plaintiff claims that Ms. White was so traumatized by her exposure to sexually transmitted diseases (falsely claiming) by Mr. Carrey that she took her own life over two years later. 8 On July 21, 2017, my partner Ms. Bhujwala sent counsel for Plaintiff Burton a letter addressing Plaintiff Burton’s failure to provide responses to any discovery requests and setting forth Mr. Carrey’s position as to certain boilerplate objections Plaintiff Burton raised as to sane oe each and every request. The letter made clear that the objections should not serve as a basis for 7 || withholding responsive information and documents. We requested that Plaintiff Burton provide 8 || responses and responsive documents to all discovery requests by no later than July 26, 2017. 9 9. July 26, 2017 passed without receipt of responses or documents, or any response to 10]|our July 21, 2017 letter addressing issues with the objections raised by Plaintiff Burton as a basis 11] for refusing to provide discovery responses or produce documents. Over the course of several 12 |] weeks, { had a number of additional conversations with Mr. Avenatti, during which I was 13 || repeatedly assured that Plaintiff Burton’s discovery responses and documents, and as a priority 14 || Burton's responses to our first set of Requests for Admission and associated documents, would be 15] produced in the immediate future. 16 10. On August 4, 2017, Mr. Avenatti and I agreed to extend the deadlines for Mr. 17]| Carrey to file discovery motions to compel responses to allow Plaintiff Burton more time to 18]| provide his discovery responses and responsive documents. With the agreed-upon extension, the 19 || deadlines were continued as follows: 20 ‘Motion Old New Deadlir Deadline 217 | Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories | 8/7/17 8/217 (General), Sets | and 2 22 | [Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special 8/77 8217 Interrogatories, Sets | through 3 233 T Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for BIT B2IN7 ission, Set 244 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for 8/7 8227 Ee Admission, Sets 3 and 4 5. | Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories | 8/8/17 872217 be (General), Sets 3 and 4 6 | Motion to Compel Further Responses and Does to Requests for | 8/14/17 | 828/17 Production, Sets | through 6 4 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO. ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS11, On August 8, 2017, I advised the Court during a hearing that Mr. Carrey needed a hearing date for discovery motions relating to the lack of substantive responses by Plaintiff Burton, but that the earliest date that could be obtained from the court reservation system was a date in March, 2018. The Court ordered that the date of the next conference, September 21, 2017, would be available for setting hearings on Mr. Carrey’s discovery motions. 12, After the August 8, 2017 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas, I met and conferred with Mr. Avenatti’s colleague, Ahmed Ibrahim of Eagan Avenatti. We discussed again our need to receive Plaintiff Burton’s discovery responses and production of documents. Mr. Ibrahim advised that, if it were up to him, we would have the responses by now but that the timing Mr. Avenatti’s call. of responding to discover 13. On August 15, 2017, at Plaintif?’s deposition of Mr. Carrey’s assistant, Nicole Montez, I met and conferred again with PlaintifP's counsel over Mr. Carrey’s need to receive Plaintiff's responses and production of documents, Mr. Avenatti assured me that the responses and documents were forthcoming. 14, On August 16, 2017, I spoke with Mr. Ibrahim again about the issue. During our conversation, I received additional assurances that responses to the outstanding discovery would bbe forthcoming. In particular, Mr. Ibrahim represented that the responses and documents associated with Requests for Admission Set One, and the attendant Form Interrogatory 17.1 associated with it were forthcoming. 15, Days went by, but Plaintiff Burton did not serve discovery responses or produce ‘any responsive documents. On August 21, 2017, Defendant filed three Motions to Compel Reponses to the Requests for Admission (Sets 1-4), attendant Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Sets 1-4), and Special Interrogatories (Sets 1-3). On August 28, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel the Production of Documents pursuant to Request for Production (Sets 1-6). The hearing for all motions was set for the date cleared by the Court for discovery motions, September 21, 2017. 16. On September 5, 2017, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference. During the conference, counsel for the parties discussed what the parties were able to produce, what Mr. Carrey had already produced, and which categories of discovery requests required more time in 3 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS,10 12 3 4 Is 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 25 26 274 which to respond. Counsel for the parties agreed to breakdown the discovery due in terms of priorities, and on behalf of Mr. Carrey, we did so. 17, On September 6, 2017, I sent Mr. Ibrahim an email identifying our list of priorities. ‘Attached hereto as Exhibit | is a true and correct copy of this September 6, 2017 email. First and foremost on the list was discovery of information relating to Plaintiffs" allegations that Mr. Carrey gave Ms. White sexually transmitted diseases. 18. On September 7, 2017, | spoke with Mr. Ibrahim, and we discussed the outstanding discovery and the issues relating to the timing of production. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to our list of priorities, 19. On September 11, 2017, a second Informal Discovery Conference was held with this Court. During that conference, counsel for the parties agreed that all matters set for hearing on October 3, 2017, and September 21, 2017, including Mr. Carrey’s discovery motions, would be continued to November 21, 2017. We also agreed to the following schedule for the discovery at issue in the pending motions: On Friday September 15, 2017, Plaintiff Burton would provide Mr. Carrey with his responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One) and Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set One) ‘and associated documentation, and Mr. Carrey would provide documents responsive to Plaintiffs” third party subpoenas served on four of Mr. Carrey’s medical providers b. On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff Burton would provide discovery responses and documents to “Priority I” category. Mr. Carrey would provide documents responsive to Plaintiff Sweet man’s Requests for Production (Set One), which were identified in the “fast” category. c On October 16, 2017, the parties would make a second mutual exchange of discovery. Plait iff Burton would provide discovery responses and responsive documents in the “Priority II” category. Mr. Carrey would provide documents responsive to the remaining ‘categories. On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff Burton would provide responses and responsive documents in the “Priority III” category. 6 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS,1 || MR. CARREY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE), FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1 AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 24, 28, 29, AND 32 2 20. Based on White's prior extortion of Carrey and Plaintiff's allegation that White had 3 tested negative for sexually transmitted diseases just prior to her relationship with Carrey, the 4 legitimacy of Plaintiff's claims and, in particular, White’s “medical records” was critical. 1 5 drafted discovery to Plaintiff Burton seeking an admission that Cat White had not been tested and was not free of HSVI I or HSV 2 prior to meeting Jim Carrey. { also sought any records Plaintiff relied upon to support the denial of the RFA. 21, On September 15, 2017, in accordance with our agreement at the Informal Discovery Conference, Mr. Carrey hand-served on Plaintiffs’ counsel documents subpoenaed from certain of his third party medical providers. Plaintiff Burton served his amended discovery responses to Request for Admissions (Set One) and Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set One) by U.S. Mail. As such, we received Plaintiff Burton’s responses on September 19, 2017. In his amended responses, Plaintiff Burton denies: a. That Ms. White was never tested for Herpes Type I and II, Chlamydia, and Gonorrhea, prior to meeting Mr. Carrey; b. That Ms. White tested positive for Herpes Type I and I, Chlamydia, and 7) conorthes, prior to meeting Mr. Carrey; ue c. That there are no test results that establish/show that Ms. White did not 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 response in Form Interrogatory 17.1: 2 have Herpes Type I and II, Chlamydia, and Gonorthea, prior to meeting Mr. Carrey; 4. That Plaintiff Burton has no facts that support his allegation that Mr. Carrey “knowingly gave Ms. White sexually transmitted diseases without any regard for her safety and well-being”; and ©. That Plaintiff Burton has no facts that support his allegation that Ms. White “had been tested immediately before having sex with (Mr. Carrey] and was disease free.” 22, For each denial of a Request for Admission, Plaintiff Burton gave a universal Prior to her relationship with Defendant Jim Carrey, Cathriona 28 White was tested for several sexually transmitted diseases on or , a DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO || COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTSSc wera 12 B 4 15 16 7 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2h about December 28, 2011. Ms. White was tested for Herpes Type 1, Herpes Type 2, and Chlamydia, among other sexually transmitted diseases, but Ms. White's test results were all negative. Plaintiff Burton also identified the following document as supportive of his denials of Requests for Admission in his Form Interrogatory 17.1 responses: “Ms. White’s December 28, 2011 lab test results for STDs from Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley.” Plaintiff Burton verified his written responses to the Requests for Admission (Set One) and Form Interrogatories 17.1 on September 15, 2017. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Burton's executed verifications are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. However, Plaintiff Burton did not serve any associated documents as we had agreed upon. | immediately sent an email to Plaintiff Burton’s counsel requesting the promised documents. A true and correct copy of my September 19, 2017 email to Plaintiffs’ counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 23. On September 20, 2017, Plai three documents that iff Burton produced by emai were Bates Stamped PLT0001-PLT0008, responsive to RFP Nos. 24, 28, 29, and 32, and designated by Plaintiff as “confidential” pursuant the Protective Order: (a) alleged test results for JANE DOE from Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel, dated December 28, 2011 (PLT0001-0004); (b) A Pathology, Inc. Clinical Report dated February 21, 2013; and (c) A Quest Diagnostics Test Results faxed May 2, 2013. A true and correct copy of PLT0001-PLT0004, together with Plaintiffs? email transmitting the document, is provided under seal as Exhibit 5 because Plaintiff Burton designated the document “Confidential” under the Protective Order. 24, On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff Burton served Plaintiff Burton’s Amended Responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff Burton’s signed verification was sent under separate cover and is dated September 27, 2017. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Burton September 27, 2017 signed verification. 25, On September 29, 2017, my partner Shehnaz Bhujwala sent opposing counsel a letter acknowledging our receipt of Plaintiff Burton’s production of documents Bates Stamped PLT0001-PLT0004, and pointing out, correctly, that the test result that Plaintiff Burton had iproduced (Exhibit 5) is not identified as belonging to Ms. White, but to a third party, JANE DOE, 8 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P, BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO. ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS‘and that Mr. Carrey had requested Ms. White’s medical records, not medical records of a third party. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the September 29, 2017 letter that redacts the name of the referenced third party for privacy. 26. On October 2, 2017, Ms. Bhujwala followed up with a second letter to Plaintiff's counsel to meet and confer over Plaintiff Burton’s amended responses to Requests for Admission (Set One), Form Interrogatory 17.1, and Requests for Production (Set One), and Plaintiff Burton's need to produce Ms. White’s test results. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of ‘our office’s October 2, 2017 “meet and confer” letter to Plaintiff Burton’s counsel. 27. To date, PlaintifPs counsel has not substantively responded to either of the September 29th or October 2nd meet and confer letters, necessitating this amended motion. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS AND ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF MS. WHITE’S STDS 28, —_Inan effort to ascertain the authenticity of the 2011 documents previously provided by White and Marchino in 2013, | requested from both JANE DOE as well as from Planned Parenthood Pasadena/San Gabriel Velley (“PPPSGV”), via a signed release, a complete copy of JANE DOE’s file 29. On March 22, 2017, Planned Parenthood Pasadena/San Gabriel Velley (“PPPSGV") faxed to my office a complete copy of JANE DOE’s file. A true and correct copy of this file is provided concurrently herewith under seal as Exhibit 9. 30. JANE DOE's records from Planned Parenthood included JANE DOE’s April 22, 2013 request for her medical records. There was no record, however, of a visit, examination, testing, or any lab results in December, 2011. 31. PPPSGV confirmed that it had sent JANE DOE’s complete file. PPPSGV checked its system and was unable to locate any records for JANE DOE between October 2011 and February 2012. 32. On March 23, 2017, my office again spoke with PPPSGV. The facility confirmed there was no record of a December 2011 visit by JANE DOE. | had my office ask PPSGV to look up the order numbers and the Accession numbers on the records. The PPPSGV contact {determined that the Accession Number 20302 referenced on the four-page document was b 9 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTSe e | J associated with a visit, exam and testing of Jane Doe on April 2, 2013 and not with the December 2|}28, 2011 documents produced by Mrs. White in 2013 and by Mr. Burton in response to discovery 3] in this case. 4 33, In comparing White's 2011 document that White and Marchino used to extort 5 || Carrey in 2013 with JANE DOE’s authentic records from PPSGV, I concluded that White's 2011 6 |] document was a forgery. I conducted an analysis wherein I identified material discrepancies 7 || between the two documents as well as the similarities, including unique identifiers, such as 8 |] Accession Numbers and Medical Record Number (“MRN”). [ determined that White and 9)|| Marchino used altered records from DOE’s April 2013 records to conform to the dates and 0 ]| information she required to support her allegations to Carrey that she had tested negative for 11 |{ sexually transmitted diseases just prior to her relationship with him. A copy of the analysis of the 12 || two sets of documents has been documented by Bruce Graham, and is being lodged with the Court 13 || under seal as Exhibit 10. 4 34, Asnoted above in paragraph 22, on September 20, 2017, Plaintiff Burton produced 15 [a four-page document purporting to be Cat White’s December 28, 2011 STD test results, Bates- 16] stamped PLT0001-PLT0004. 7 35. The four-page document produced by Plaintiff was virtually identical to the four- 18 || page document produced by Ms. White and Mr. Marchino during the July 2013 mediation (which 19 }]is the subject of Mr. Carrey’s cross-complaint herein) with some unexplained further alterations. 20 ]| Certain text on the bottom of PLTO001-PLT0004 was removed. Is 2 | eee 23 || NNN My office was only able to identify the alteration by comparing the document used 24 || during the July 2013 mediation with PLT0001-PLT0004 because Plaintiff did not redact the text 25 || using a black box. Plaintiff Burton also has not provided a privilege log identifying the basis for 26 || withholding this information 27; 36. A comparison of PLT0001-PLT0004 to the original medical records of JANE DOE from PPPSGV reveals the following: 10 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS PoPLT0001 is an altered version of page 2 of JANE DOE's April 2, 2013 visit; b. PLT0002 is an altered version of Page 3 of JANE DOE’s April 2, 2013 visit; . PLT0003 is an altered version of JANE DOE’s test results for Chlamydia and Gonorthea (urine collected April 2, 2013); and d. — PLT0004 is an altered version of JANE DOE’s test results for Syphilis (blood and urine collected on April 2, 2013). The below table highlights some of the alterations made to JANE Doe’s records and used by Cross-Defendant Marchino and Ms. White in July 2013 to fraudulently obtain money from Mr. Carrey: A COMPARISON OF PLT0001-0004 AND JANE DOE'S (APRIL 2, 2013) TEST 2013 TEST 2011 TEST ORIGINAL TEST OF JANE DOE MS. WHITE’S ALLEGED TEST po ee | el ee |i EE = eee eee = ee a es — — — fe = as [EE | | es a es Es fel po a ee u DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS2013 TEST 2011 TEST ORIGINAL TEST OF JANE DOE MS. WHITE’S ALLEGED TEST 37. 38. Katya Hirose was retained as a certified fraud examiner to conduct a forensic analysis of PLT0001-PLT0004 and JANE DOE’s April 2, 2013 test results from PPPSGV to determine whether PLTO001-PLT0004 was an altered version of the April 2, 2013 records. 39. Sean A. Espley was retained as a Forensic Document examiner. Mr. Espley ‘examined PLT0001-PLT0004 and JANE DOE’s April 2, 2013 test results from PPPSGV to determine whether PLT0001-PLT0004 was an altered version of the April 2, 2013 records. 40. Dr. K. Campbell, M.D. was located and asked to examine PLTO001-PLT0004 and determine its authenticity based on his experience from 2006-2016 as the former Director of the Laboratory Services for PPPSGV and familiarity with the customary laboratory procedures and reporting practices of PPPSGV and Planned Parenthood Pasadena-Micro Lab. 12 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO ‘COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTS10 u 12 13 4 Is 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 21: 41, The only record produced and relied upon according to the discovery responses are the records of a third party that had been substantially altered and are not the records of Ms. White. The discovery statute is clear. Based upon the discovery responses provided by Plaintiff Burton to the subject Requests for Admissions, Set One, the attendant Form interrogatories 17.1, and the related Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 24, 28, 29, and 32, Mr. Carrey is entitled to either Ms. White’s alleged December 28, 2013 test results (and not altered ‘copies of her friend’s records) or an unqualified admission to each request in Request For Admissions, Set One. What is clear is Plaintiff cannot deny the Requests for Admission and use an altered and fraudulent copy of a third party’s medical records from two years later as the basis of the denial. 42. By way of this Motion to Compel, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jim Carrey seeks an Order from this Honorable Court compelling further answers to the requested discovery, answers that are consistent with the truth | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 18th day of October, 2017, at Woodland Hills, California. Ze Raymond P, Boucher 13, DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO. || COMPEL PLAINTIFF BURTON TO PROVIDE AMENDED RESPONSES AND PRODUCE TEST RESULTSTOU SCFBT > EXHIBIT 1e e Shehnaz Bhujwala = From: Ray Boucher Sent: ‘Wednesday, September 06, 2017 2:12 PM To: aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com; Michael J. Avenatti Ce: Shehnaz Bhujwala Subject: Burton Discovery Dear Ahmed, Pursuant to yesterday’s Informal Discovery Conference with Judge Hill, we have reviewed and prioritized our propounded discovery (which is the subject of our three Motions to Compel now set for hearing on October 3 2017 at 8:30. am.). We have broken this discovery into three categories. Given the length of time the discovery has been outstanding and the indication from prior discussions that it's nearly complete we would be amenable to production and responses in three phases as follows: Phase V/Priority 1 This category we believe should require the least amount of work on your part and is the highest priority to us for reasons discussed yesterday. 1. _ RFAs (Set 1)/Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set 1). There are only 15 RFAS. They all relate to Plaintiffs’ STD allegations. 2. RFAs (Set 3)/Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set 3). RFAs 35-72 relate to Plaintiffs’ allegation regarding Mr. Carrey and Plaintiffs’ allegations that Mr. Carrey violated the DDLA. 3. REPs (Set 1). Requests 1-38. This set seeks documents such as Ms. White's di notes, her cell phone, her computer, things left for Burton at the scene of her suicid 4, REPs (Set 2). Requests 39-61. This set focuses on Ms. White’s communications with Dr. Cohen and Mr, Marchino. These should be produced prior to Dr. Cohen’s deposition. 5. RFPs (Set 6). Requests 175-215. This set focuses on communications between Ms. White and Mr. Carrey’s employees/agents. These documents should be produced prior to their depositions. , her suicide Phase Il/Priority 1 Special Interrogatories (Set 2) Special Interrogatories (Set 3) RFPs (Set 4)/Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set 4) RFPs (Set 3/Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set 3) pene Phase IIV/Priority III 10. Special interrogatories (Set 1) 11. RFAs (Set 2)/Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set 2) 12, _RFAs (Set 4)/Form Interrogatory 17.1 (Set 4) 13. SFRPs (Set 5) Let me know what time you are available on Friday to talk further regarding the above as well as the proposed modification to the protective order and the outstanding SDT. Thanks a 1 E/Have a good day. Ray Sent from my iPad‘VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ‘have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE and know its contents. Lam a party to this action. ‘The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my cown knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belie, and as to those matters I believe them tobe tue. 1 declare under penalty of pesjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is tue and correct. Executed on September LS. 2017, 15 PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 42wat WES 10 " 2 b “ 16 ” 18 19 20 au 2 2B 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1 have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 (SET ONE) RELATING TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION NOS. 1-15 (SET ONE) and know its contents. Lam a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September IF’, 2017. 8 SPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 REGARDING REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE CAINTIFF'S AMENDED 4SEVE SEATe e Lisa Baker Morgan From: Ray Boucher Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:51 PM To: Michael J. Avenatti; ‘Ahmed Ibrahim’ Subject: Documents Good Afternoon gentleman, | sent an email to each of you yesterday but have not heard back from either of you. As part of our agreement to get you the records from JC's doctors by Friday the 15" you were going to get us the answers to RFA set 1 the answers to Form Rogs's 17.1 along with documents that support the denials, also by Friday. We emailed you all of the records including all records relating to alleged STD's. For some reason we didn't receive your responses by email but by mail instead. This agreement was confirmed with the Court. However the tests that support the denials are not included. These are the tests that you have been promising to get me for months. | am scheduled to meet in Phoenix on Thursday relating to this issue. Please email me the tests relating to your clients answers to RFA set one today. If not, we will need to go forward with the call tomorrow with the Court. Thanks much. If you have any questions please call Raymond P. Boucher Partner BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnaré St., Ste 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91387 ‘7818, 340-5400 | F818.340-5401 5 LY1022562017 EXHIBIT 5EXHIBIT 5 CONFIDENTIAL — FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER AND BY LAW WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SEALING ORDER REQUIRED1 VERIFICATION 2] STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 1 have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF*S AMENDED RESPONSES TO 4|| DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE and know 5 |[its contents 6 {Tam @ party to this action, The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my 7 Lown knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, as as to 8 || those matters I believe them to be true. 9 4 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 10 } foregoing is true and correct. uy Executed on September 2 2017. , , n LL 9 MARK BURTON "27 3 728 1 PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 2 DOCUMENTS, SET ONE = esLIBLISTBIe e BOUCHER LLP September 29, 2017 Sent Via Email Only Michael J. Avenatti, Esq. ‘Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq. EAGAN AVENATTI LLP 520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-7000 Fax: (949) 706-7050 Email: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com Burton v. Carrey, Lead Case No. BC634315 Dear Counsel: We are in receipt of Plaintiffs’ production of records Bates-labeled PLT0001-PLT0004, which are the medical records including STD test results of third a Mr. Carrey requested Plaintiffs’ production of decedent Cathriona White's medical records, including her STD test results and blood test results from the time before she met Mr. Carrey. See, e.g. Carrey’s Request for Production Nos. 24, 28, 29, and 32. We did not ask el’ medical records. There is no basis for withholding responsive records on the basis of any asserted objection or claimed privilege because they do not apply or lack merit. For example, in response to Request 24, which asks for all documents relating to Decedent not having sexually transmitted diseases before she met Defendant, Mr. Burton objected on basis of the attorney-client privilege, work- product doctrine, privacy under state or federal law, an unspecified “immunity” from disclosure, the spousal testimonial privilege, the marital communications privilege, that the request seeks “private, confidential, proprietary, financial or trade secret, that the request is vague, overbroad as to time and scope, unduly burdensome, and seeks “irrelevant information” not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The same objections and claimed privileges, which we believe lack merit, were made to Request 28, which sought all documents relating to decedent having/presenting no evidence of infection of herpes simplex, to Request 29, which sought all of Decedent’s medical records from January 1, 2010 to September 28, 2015, and to Request 32, which sought all blood test results for Decedent from January 1, 2010 to September 28, 2015. Your agreement to produce “all non-privileged documents with Responding Party's possession, custody or control” subject 40 the asserted objections and claimed privileges indicates that Plaintiffs are withholding responsive documents. We addressed at length, in prior ‘communications and Mr. Carrey’s motion to compel, the reasons why these claimed objections and, privileges cannot serve as a bar to production of these relevant, responsive documents and need-not address them again here. Your clients have put at issue Ms. White’s prior STD history by = 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600, Woodland Hills, California 91967 ~ Telephone 818.340.5400 | Facsimile 818.340.5401 _Michael Avenatti September 29, 2017 Page 2 filing this case. Ms. White’s medical records and test results evidencing her STD history prior to her meeting Mr. Carrey are not privileged and need to be produced forthwith. We continue to review the amended responses and production and will be addressing other issues shortly. In the meantime, please produce all responsive documents to the requests identified above, and amended responses withdrawing these objections or stating unequivocally that no responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of these objections or privileges, by Thursday, October 5, 2017. BOUCHER LLP By: Shehnaz M:Bhujwala, Esq. LVOErS7rOTEXHIBIT 8 4be e BOUCHER LLP October 2, 2017 Sent Via Email Only Michael J. Avenatti, Esq, Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq. EAGAN AVENATTI LLP 520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-7000 Fax: (949) 706-7050 Email: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com Re: Burton v. Carrey, Lead Case No, BC634315 Dear Counsel: Mr. Burton denied Request for Admission Numbers 1-4, which asked him to admit that Ms. White was never tested, prior to meeting Mr. Carrey, for Herpes Type I (RFA 1), Herpes Type 2 (RFA 2), Chlamydia (RFA 3), or Gonorthea (RFA 4). Mr. Burton also denied Request for Admission Numbers 5-8, which asked him to admit that Ms. White tested positive, prior to meeting Mr. Carrey, for Herpes Type 1 (RFA 5), Herpes Type 2 (RFA 6), Chlamydia (RFA 7), and Gonorrhea (RFA 8). Mr. Burton also denied Request for Admission Numbers 9-12, which asked him to admit that there are no test results that establish / show that, prior to meeting Mr. Carrey, Ms. White did not have Herpes Type | (RFA 9), Herpes Type 2 (RFA 10), Chlamydia (RFA 11), and Gonorrhea (RFA 12). ‘Mr. Burton also denied Request for Admission Numbers 15, which asked him to admit that that he has no facts to support his allegation that Ms. White had been tested immediately before having sex with Mr. Carrey and was disease-free, as alleged in Mr. Burton’s First Amended Complaint at Page 5, line 14. In Mr. Burton's Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1, he stated: “Prior to her relationship with Defendant Jim Carrey, Cathriona White was tested for several sexually transmitted diseases ‘on or about December 28, 2011. Ms. White was tested for Herpes Type 1, Herpes Type 2, and Chlamydia, among other sexually transmitted diseases, but Ms. White's test results were all negative.” See Burton’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1(b). In the same response, Mr. Burton identified several documents supporting his denials of Mr. Carrey’s Requests for Admission, ingluding “Ms, White’s December 28, 2011 lab test results for STDs from Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley...” See Burtons’ Response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1(A. a 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600, Woodland Hil, California 91967 a Telephone 816.340.6400 | Facsimile 818.840.5401Michael Avenatti October 2, 2017 Page 2 To date, Mr. Burton has not produced Ms. White’s December 28, 2011 lab test results for STDs from Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley. What was produced were lab test results for a third party (Bates-labeled PLT0001-PLT0004). We don’t want a third party's test results. We're entitled to Ms. White’s STD test results for the period prior to meeting Mr. Carrey. The e-mail communications between Mr. Singer and Mr. Marchino between July 3-10, 2013 indicate that your client and colleague, Mr. Marchino, had copies of Ms. White’s test results, and he represented that the test results were “negative.” We need you to produce Ms. White’s STD test results by Thursday, October 5, 2017 or, with respect to Mr. Burton’s responses to Mr. Carrey’s first sets of Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatory 17.1, we will have no choice but to move to compel their production. BOUCHER LLP By: Shehnaz M.'Bhujwala, Esq.EXHIBIT 9EXHIBIT 9 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER AND BY LAW WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SEALING ORDER REQUIRED LVOU/SEFOTEXHIBIT 10EXHIBIT 10 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER AND BY LAW WITHOUT ANY FURTHER SEALING ORDER REQUIRED EVE STOTrerern MD eyesryrennenccpagn et THIS Is YOUR CRS RECEIPT INSTRUCTIONS, lease print this receipt and attach it tote corresponding moton/decument as the lst page. Inicate the Reservaton IO onthe motontsocument face page (s0@ example). The doounent wil not be ‘scoped without his receipt page and the Reservation 1D. RESERVATION INFORMATION Reservation 10: 170721236740 ‘Transaction Date: July 21,2017 Case Numbor: aceaeats Case Tile: [WARK BURTON VS JAMES EUGENE CARREY Party: ‘CARREY JAMES EUGENE (Defenden’Responden!) ‘Stanley Mosk Courthouse rr Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responsos, 342018 08:30 am FEE INFORMATION (Foes are non-refundable) Fest Paper Feo: Party assors fst papr was previously pa Description Feo] Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses $60.00 Total Fe ‘Receipt Number: 11707210270 ‘$60.00 PAYMENT INFORMATION ‘Name on Credit Card: Reymond Boucher Great Card Number: YOOX 200K I0K227 A COPY OF THIS RECEIPT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CORRESPONDING MOTION/DOCUMENT AS THE LAST PAGE AND THE RESERVATION ID INDICATED ON THE MOTION/DOCUMENT FACE PAGE. oT Loft 727, 549 PM.