Colen Decl Doc 514-1

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 514-1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:13362
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Marc Steven Colen, sbn 108275 Law Offices of Marc Steven Colen 5737 Kanan Road, Ste. 347 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Tele: 818.716.2891 Attorney for Defendants Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
) ( Lisa Liberi, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Orly Taitz, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) __________________________ )
Case No.: 8:11-cv-00485 AG (AJWx) Hon. Andrew Guilford Courtroom 10D DECLARATION OF MARC STEVEN COLEN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRMS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date Action Filed: Trial Date: Hearing Date: May 4, 2009 June 5, 2012 May 21, 2012
Liberi v. Taitz Case No.: 8:11-cv-00485 AG Declaration of Marc Steven Colen pg. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF MARC STEVEN COLEN I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and, in particular, the United States District Courts therein. I am attorney of record for Todd Sankey and The Sankey Firm, Inc. in this matter. I have personal knowledge of facts stated herein and, if called upon to do so, would competently testify. 1. 2. I make this Declaration in support of Todd Sankey and the I served discovery on the Plaintiffs and in response to that Sankey Firm, Inc.s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. discovery Plaintiffs have provided not one valid response. Repeated Meetand-Confer attempts between Mr. Berg and I have been fruitless and, having leave of Court to do so, I am filing Motions to Compel. 3. Plaintiffs responses in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are required in order for Todd Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. to adequately oppose the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment not a single document was provided in support of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint. Responses to Interrogatories have provided no information either. 4. Although an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment is being filed herewith, that Opposition is certainly not what would be filed if the Plaintiffs had provided any information. Countering Plaintiffs allegations is highly limited when all of the information concerning those allegations has not been provided. 5. Defendant Orley Taitz is what we contend to be the central character in this case and is the primary witness to most all of the actions on which Plaintiffs case is made, but discovery could not be and is not available
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
because of the stay on her portion of the case. Countering Plaintiffs allegations is highly limited when the primary witness is unavailable. 6. The evidence desired, indeed needed, to controvert Plaintiffs allegations are not available with no fault of Todd Sankey and the Sankey Firm, Inc. Where fault is considered, the fault is that of Mr. Berg. 7. In view of the foregoing, I respectfully request that the Court continue the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment until such time as the required information is made available to my clients. 8. I am well familiar with the Declaration that I prepared with Todd Sankey which he signed and which I filed with our Motion to Withdraw Admissions. The attached is a true and correct copy of that declaration. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 7th day of May, 2012, in County of Ventura, State of California.
Marc Steven Colen
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 496-2 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID 514-1 05/07/12 4 18 #:13365 #:12106
Marc Steven Colen The Colen Law Firm 2 5737 Kanan Road, Ste. 347 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 3 Tele: 818.716.2891 4 Fax: 818.597.4631
1 5
Attorney for Defendants Neil Sankey, 6 Todd Sankey, The Sankey Firm, Inc., and Sankey Investigations, Inc.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No.: 8:11-cv-00485 AG (AJWx) DECLARATION OF TODD SANKEY IN SUPPORT OF TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRMS MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
) ) Lisa Liberi, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Orly Taitz, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ) __________________________ )
Case No.: 8:11-cv-00485 AG (AJWx) DECLARATION OF TODD SANKEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC.S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS PURSUANT TO FRCP 36(B) Date Action Filed: May 4, 2009 Discovery Cut-Off: March 5, 2012 Final Pre-Trial Conf.: May 21, 2012 Trial Date: June 5, 2012
EXHIBIT 1 CONCERNING THE RESPONSES BY TODD SANKEY
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit YOU were aware and allowed Neil Sankey to use YOUR log in credentials to access Plaintiffs People Finder data and Personal Identifiers through the Reed Defendants (Reed Defendants includes Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, ChoicePoint, Inc.) and Defendant Intelius, Inc. without any type of permissible purpose or legal entitlement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I never allowed or authorized nor was I aware that my father was investigating anything concerning Plaintiffs without any type of permissible purpose or legal entitlement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit YOU have accounts with Confi-Chek, U.S. Search, Intelius, Inc., Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, ChoicePoint, Inc.) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I do not have accounts with any of these companies. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Admit YOU were aware and allowed Neil Sankey to use YOUR log-in credentials and obtain Plaintiffs financial records, credit records, employment records, medical records and other records from Intelius, Inc., Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, and ChoicePoint, Inc., Intelius, Inc., U.S. Search, KnowX, Confi-Chek, etc. without a permissible purpose or any type of legal entitlement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I never allowed or authorized nor was I aware that my father was investigating anything concerning Plaintiffs without any type of permissible purpose or legal entitlement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit YOU were aware and assisted Neil Sankey in filing false allegations about the Plaintiffs with State and Federal Agencies, including probation departments. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I had no knowledge of nor did I assist in any actions taken or not taken by my father concerning the Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit Neil Sankey used YOUR office, YOUR telephone number, YOUR Company, The Sankey Firm, and YOUR log-in credentials to obtain the People Finder data, financial data, sealed court documents, medical data, and Personal Identifiers of the Plaintiffs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL
2
My father did not obtain any sealed court documents, medical data and Personal Identifiers of the Plaintiffs through the use my log-online credentials to obtain data from online service providers. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit YOU accessed and obtained the People Finder data, Personal Identifiers, Credit Reports, Financial Reports, Sealed Court Documents and other documents on the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Spouses, Plaintiffs Children and Plaintiffs Family members through Intelius, Inc., Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, and ChoicePoint, Inc., Intelius, Inc., U.S. Search, KnowX, Confi-Chek, etc., without any type of permissible purpose or legal entitlement and provided Plaintiffs data to the other Defendants, including but not limited to Neil Sankey. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I did not access and obtain any information concerning the Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit YOU were aware Neil Sankey sent an email to Reporter Bob Unruh with World Net Daily, from the Sankey Firm, about Plaintiff Lisa Liberi that contained Plaintiff Liberis full Social Security number, date of birth, spouses name and Social Security number and other private data. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I was never made aware of any email being sent to Reporter Bob Unruh. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services restricts Private Investigators from accessing and obtaining a person(s) full Social Security number
and other private identifying information for the purpose of publishing to harm the individual(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL The BCIS does not restrict a private investigator from accessing and obtaining any information available to the public, nor does it restrict the publication by providing such data to that investigators clients who are, in general, adverse to the party being investigated. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit YOU were aware and allowed Neil Sankey to utilize YOUR log in credentials and obtain information from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, other person(s), agencies and entities, including the other Defendants, on the Plaintiffs based on false pretenses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I was never aware of nor did I allow my father to obtain any information concerning the Plaintiffs based on false pretenses REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit YOU have created irreversible harm and damages to Plaintiffs by disseminating erroneous information; their People Finder Data and their Personal Identifiers to an immeasurable amount of people and businesses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I never disseminated any information concerning the Plaintiffs.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 514-1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 10of 15 Page ID Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 496-2 Filed 04/13/12 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:13371 #:12112
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit YOU did not have any permissible purpose or legal entitlement to any information regarding any of the Plaintiffs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 Deny that I require any purpose or entitlement to obtain publicly available information about the Plaintiffs. REASON FOR DENIAL I do not need any permissible purpose or entitlement to obtain publically available information. Anyone can obtain such material, whether a licensed private investigator or not. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit YOU were aware Neil Sankey falsely accused Plaintiff Lisa Liberis husband of being a parolee and diverting funds from Philip J. Berg, Esquires website. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I was never aware that my father made such an accusation. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit YOU were aware and allowed Neil Sankey to use YOUR log-in credentials and YOUR resources to assist Defendant Orly Taitz in harming and causing damages to the Plaintiffs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I was never aware of or allowed my father to do anything regarding Orley Taitz.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit YOU never reported to law enforcement the misuse of Plaintiffs People Finder Data and Personal Identifier data that Neil Sankey through YOU and the Sankey Firm, obtained and provided to Defendant Orly Taitz and the other Defendants and allowed Defendant Orly Taitz to distribute Plaintiffs data all over the Internet, through mass emailing, mass mailing, etc. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19 This Request is so convoluted as to be unintelligible. Based on my best possible guess of what it means, I admit that I never reported anything to law enforcement concerning any portion of this case. Deny that Neil Sankey did anything through me. As to the rest, I have made a reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable this responding Party to admit or deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I never reported anything to law enforcement concerning any portion of this case. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit YOU were aware and allowed Neil Sankey to use your log-in credentials and access and pull sealed documents including, but not limited to sealed court documents pertaining to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Spouses, Plaintiffs Children and Plaintiffs Family Members. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL I was never aware and never allowed Neil Sankey to use my log-in credentials to obtain sealed court records concerning the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Spouses, Plaintiffs Children and Plaintiffs Family Members.
EXHIBIT 2 CONCERNING THE RESPONSES BY THE SANKEY FIRM
Attachment II Concerning The Sankey Firm, Inc. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit you have accounts with Confi-Chek, U.S. Search, Intelius, Inc., Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, ChoicePoint, Inc., and KnowX. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL The Sankey Firm, Inc. (TSF) has no such accounts. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit Neil Sankey and Todd Sankey used your log-in credentials and obtained Plaintiffs financial records, credit records, employment records, medical records and other records from Intelius, Inc., Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, and ChoicePoint, Inc., Intelius, Inc., U.S. Search, KnowX, Confi-Chek, etc. without a permissible purpose or any type of legal entitlement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither Neil or Todd Sankey used TSF log-in credentials to obtain any of Plaintiffs financial records, credit records, employment records, medical records and other records without having any required permissible purpose or any type of legal entitlement.
7
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit you are responsible for your employee(s) actions and inactions. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 Deny as to all actions and inactions, admit that this Responding Party has limited responsibility for a few actions and inactions of its employees. REASON FOR DENIAL No employer is responsible for all of the actions of an employee. As an extreme example, should an employee of an investigation company firm kill someone while driving from his/her home to a theater, the firm has no liability. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit you and/or your employee(s) accessed and obtained the People Finder data, Personal Identifiers, Credit Reports, Financial Reports, Sealed Court Documents and other documents on the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Spouses, Plaintiffs Children and Plaintiffs Family members through Intelius, Inc., Reed Elsevier, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.; LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; LexisNexis.com; LexisNexis, Inc.; LexisNexis Group; Accurint, and ChoicePoint, Inc., Intelius, Inc., U.S. Search, KnowX, Confi-Chek, etc., without any type of permissible purpose or legal entitlement and provided Plaintiffs data to the other Defendants, including but not limited to Neil Sankey. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF nor its employee accessed and obtained any information whatsoever concerning the Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit when you or your employee(s) investigate an Individual, you and your employee(s) are required to maintain the Individual(s) private and personal data, including but not limited to name, address, telephone number, date of birth, place of birth, Social Security number, mothers maiden names, financial and credit data, medical data, etc. confidential and not share it with the public.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL There is no such legal requirement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit the California BSIS restricts you and your employee(s) from accessing and obtaining a person(s) full Social Security number and other private identifying information for the purpose of publishing the personal data to harm the individual(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL There is no such legal requirement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit Neil Sankey and Todd Sankey utilized your log in credentials and obtained information from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, other person(s), agencies and entities, including the other Defendants, on the Plaintiffs based on false pretenses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither Neil nor Todd Sankey utilized TSFs log-in credentials to obtain any information concerning the plaintiffs on false pretenses. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit you and your employee(s) have created irreversible harm and damages to Plaintiffs by disseminating erroneous information; their People Finder Data and their Personal Identifiers to an immeasurable amount of people and businesses.
9
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF or it employee disseminated any erroneous information concerning the Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit you or your employee(s) did not have any permissible purpose or legal entitlement to any information regarding any of the Plaintiffs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 Deny that The Sankey Firm requires any particular purpose or entitlement to obtain publicly available information. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF nor its employee requires any legal purpose or entitlement to obtain publicly available information regarding the public. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit you and your employee(s) must have a permissible purpose and legal entitlement to access any individual(s) Personal Identifiers, People Finder data, financial data, credit data, medical data, and any other information and data. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 Deny that The Sankey Firm requires any particular purpose or entitlement to obtain publicly available information. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF nor its employee requires any legal purpose or entitlement to obtain publicly available information regarding the public. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit you and your employee(s) allowed Neil Sankey and Todd Sankey to use your log-in credentials and your resources to assist Defendant Orly Taitz in
10
harming and causing damages to the Plaintiffs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 Deny REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF nor its employee allowed anyone to use its log-in credentials to assist Orley Taitz in any way. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit you and your employee(s) failed to report to law enforcement the misuse of Plaintiffs People Finder Data and Personal Identifier data that Neil Sankey through you and your employee(s), obtained and provided to Defendant Orly Taitz and the other Defendants and allowed Defendant Orly Taitz to distribute Plaintiffs data all over the Internet, through mass Emailing, mass mailing, etc. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19 This request is unintelligible but to the extent that a response can be made, The Sankey Firm additionally responds as follows: The Sankey Firm took no actions to assist Defendant Orly Taitz. As to the remainder, The Sankey Firm has made a reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable this responding Party to admit or deny. REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF nor its employee took any action to assist Orley Taitz in any way. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
Admit you and your employee(s) allowed Neil Sankey to use your log-in credentials and access and pull sealed documents including, but not limited to sealed court documents pertaining to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Spouses, Plaintiffs Children and Plaintiffs Family Members. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20 Deny.
11
REASON FOR DENIAL Neither TSF nor its employee allowed Neil Sankey to use its log-in credentials and access and pull sealed documents. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit when you and/or your Private Investigator(s) are requested or hired to perform a job for a client, you and your Private Investigator(s) are required to ensure your client has a permissible purpose or legal entitlement to the information sought. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL There is no such requirement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit you and your employee(s) are required to verify the permissible purpose and/or legal entitlement of your Client to Individual(s) People Finder Data, Personal Identifier Data, Financial Records, Credit Data, and other information. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL There is no such requirement. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit you and your employee(s) failed to obtain and/or verify Orly Taitzs, permissible purpose and/or legal entitlement to Plaintiffs People Finder Data, Personal Identifier Data, Financial Data, Background Checks, Credit Data, or any other information and/or data. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23
12
Deny that The Sankey Firm had anything to do with Defendant Orly Taitz. REASON FOR DENIAL The Sankey Firm had nothing to do with Defendant Orly Taitz. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit you and your employee(s) were fully aware Orly Taitz or any of the other Defendants, did not have a permissible purpose or legal entitlement to any of the Plaintiffs information or data, but you and your employee(s) provided it anyway. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25 Deny. REASON FOR DENIAL Deny that The Sankey Firm or any employees that it had anything to do with Defendant Orly Taitz.
++++++
13

Colen Decl Doc 514-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Colen Decl Doc 514-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 514-1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:13362

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 514-1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:13363

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 514-1 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:13364

Marc Steven Colen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

EXHIBIT 1 CONCERNING THE RESPONSES BY TODD SANKEY

EXHIBIT 2 CONCERNING THE RESPONSES BY THE SANKEY FIRM

You might also like