Você está na página 1de 26

FILED

14 JAN 27 PM 4:03
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383-7 5

1
2

3
4
5
6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON


IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

10
11
12

)
)
)
TWILA MARKHAM,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
and
)
)
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM,
)
Respondent. )
)
In re:

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA


PETITIONERS MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

13
14
15
16 ____________________________________________ )
I. MOTION
17
1. Relief Sought. Twila Markham, the Petitioner herein, by and through her
18
19 attorney of record, Karma L. Zaike, of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, moves this Court for

20 a Protective Order limiting the scope of discovery propounded by Respondent/Husband to the


21
Petitioner/Wife.

22

23
24
25

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg.

1of 5

LAW O FFIC ES_____________________


M ic h a e l W . B u g n i & A s s o c . , p l l c
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
SEATTLE, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

1
2

2. Background. A full background description is set forth in the Wifes Response in


Opposition to Motion to Continue Trial filed together with this motion and will not be

3 repeated here.
4
3. Grounds. The Wife was served with the Husbands Requests for Production on
5 October 28, 2013. It quickly became clear to the Wife and her attorney that such discovery
6

7
8

was not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery that will be admissible evidence at trial.
Rather, the bulk of the Husbands requests serve as a poorly disguised attempt to obtain

9 unnecessary access to the parties home over the Wifes objections and as a tool by which to
10 burden and harass her.

11
4. On October 29, 2013, a request for a discovery conference to limit discovery, was
12 sent to Mr. Urie. On October 30, Mr. Urie responded with a 14 page letter in which, among
13 other things, he stated:
14
Further to your proposal to have a discovery conference as to YOUR
15
OBJECTIONS to our recent proposed discovery, be advised that to date we
have not received your objections and therefore your proposal is premature. The
16
discovery rules simply don't provide for a conference in advance of your filing
objections to our requests, however the balance of this email may address some
17
of your concerns. If after we receive and study your (we assume very specific)
objections and we think any are not well taken, we will contact you and arrange
18
a meeting to discuss them. We expect you will professionally respond to our
19
requests and to any request for a discovery meeting we there after think we need
as we have professionally responded to yours. Exhibit 1.

20
21

22

5. Due to Mr. Uries refusal to conduct a discovery conference by phone, a detailed


letter to the Husbands attorneys on November 18, 2013, outlining the Wifes specific

23 objections to his Requests for Production. Exhibit 2. However, as with the October 30, 2013
24
25
LAW O F FIC E S_____________________
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 2 o f 5

M ic h a e l W . B u g n i & A s s o c . , p l l c
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
SEATTLE, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

1
2

request for discovery conference, the letter expressed a willingness to work together in good
faith to determine the appropriate scope of the Husbands discovery requests, as well as

3 provide a list of documents the Wife was willing to produce. The wife has since produced
4 more than 1,000 pages of documents, including but not limited to all of the parties tax returns
5 in her possession, bank statements, credit card statements and other financial statements in her
6

7
8

possession for a minimum of two years for all of the colossal number of accounts in which the
parties have an interest, and has packed up much of the Husbands personal property, which

9 remains ready to be delivered, as stated in my letter.


6. For months, Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi refused to respond to the 11/18/13
10

11 discovery letter. Counsel for the Wife was unable to bring a motion for protective order
12 because the CR 37 conference, had not been completed. A partial discovery conference
13 occurred on January 8 with Mr. Tsai and Mr. Urie, but was incomplete as follows:
14
In addressing Request for Production No. 1 ,1 asked Messrs. Tsai and Urie to provide a
15
general identification of documents Mr. Markham sought. There was never an
agreement to allow any person to paw through the Wifes home contents. The
16
proposal for a neutral party was to be accompanied by more specific information that
the husband sought. No such specificity has been provided.
17
In discussing RFP #2 with Messrs. Tsai and Urie, Mr. Tsai stated he would
18
communicate with his client to determine what tangible personal property Mr.
19
Markham wanted identified. Ms. Markham proposed assets valued at more than
$1,000. Mr. Tsai said he would speak with Mr. Markham to narrow the scope of
20
contents in the home he wanted itemized along with a proposal as to how the
inventory was to be completed. No response was provided.
21
22

23
24
25

Regarding Request No. 3, Mr. Tsai stated he was not sure if the video
inspection... [of] the real property... was or was not intended to be the real estate
appraisal for the parties home and rental. Mr. Tsai could not answer the question and
said he would respond at a later date. Mr. Tsai could not state why his Request #3
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Pg. 3 o f 5

MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
SEATTLE, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

1
2

3
4
5

6
7
8

requested entry into a home in which neither party has an interest. He stated that if, in
fact it was true that the parties have no interest in the home located at 808 NE 59th,
then he would withdraw the request. He never responded.
Regarding Request No. 4, Mr. Tsai could not state what computers were sought or
how he proposed to copy the internal information without destroying the original data.
He had no plan other than the Request which requested production for video taping the
exterior of the computers in the home. Again, Mr. Tsai could not state why a request
was being made of Ms. Markham for a home which neither she nor Mr. Markham had
no interest. Again, Mr. Tsai said he would respond at a later date but failed to
respond.
7. After going through only four questions, it was painfully obvious that Messrs. Tsai

9 and Urie had never reviewed my letter of November 18 with Mr. Markham, nor had they
10 conferred between themselves as to the scope of discovery needed. It was obvious neither

11 had any idea what he was looking for and no idea why prior counsel had sought Adam
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Logges information from Ms. Markham. Mr. Urie excused himself early from the discovery
conference, then shortly thereafter, Mr. Tsai requested a recess so that he could consult with
his client and Mr. Urie. No response was ever provided.
8. The motion to compel should be denied because Messrs. Tsai and Urie have failed
to participate in a discovery conference in good faith. Mr. Urie refused to consult informally,
then both Messrs. Tsai and Urie failed to read and confer with one another or their client to
provide a reasonable idea of what is sought in discovery.
9. The Wife has made a substantial effort to obtain documents she believes are

21 relevant and necessary for the parties to determine the scope of their joint estate for division
22

23
24
25

after a 33 year marriage. She is willing to cooperate, but the current discovery requests are so

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 4 o f 5

LAW O F FIC E S_____________________


M ic h a e l W . B u g n i & A s s o c . , p l l c
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
SEATTLE. WA 98125
(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

1
2

broad and overly burdensome that she cannot begin to understand what remains to be
produced beyond the thousand pages of documents which have already been produced.

10. If the court does not limit the scope of the pending discovery, then the Wife
3
4 alternately requests that a Special Discovery Master be appointed to oversee the discovery.
5 All costs should be fronted from the parties largest asset, an Ameritrade account (#4823)

6
7

hold solely in the Husbands name with a balance of $5.2M at the time of separation.
11. Because the Husbands conduct necessitated this motion, the Wife also requests

9 attorney fees incurred in obtaining this order, pursuant to CR 37(a)(4). Ms. Markham has
10 incurred attorneys fees as set forth in the attorney fee declaration filed with this motion.
MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

11
12

13 DATED: January 27, 2014


14
15
16
17
18
19

Karma L. Zaike, WSBA #31037


Attorney for Petitioner/Wife

20
21
22

23
24
25

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 5 o f 5

LAW O F FIC E S
M ic h a e l W . B

u g n i & A sso c ., p l l c
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
SEATTLE, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

EXHIBIT 1

LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY M. URIE, pllc


A Professional Limited Liability Company

ttorney a t la w

18130 Midvale Ave N.


Shoreline, WA 98133
Ph: 206-542-4066
Fax: 206-542-6655
Cell: (206)859-3400
Email: anthonyurie@gmail.com
Admitted in Washington & California

October 30, 2013


Ms. Karma Zaike
Attorney At Law
11300 Roosevelt Way N.E.
Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98125

In re: Markham vs. Markham


King County Case No. 13-3-08383-7 SEA
Dear Ms Zaike:
My response to your October 23, 2013 letter
regarding Mr. Markham's objections to producing
"statements for all bank accounts" was in final draft
before I received your current email. I think the
response (infra) should address all your concerns. If
after you receive it you still wish to have a discovery
conference about OUR objections to your first request
for production augmented by your October 23, 2013
Page-1

email, please set a time on Thursday a.m. and we will


place a conference call to you. But that conference
needs to be so limited.
HFurther to your proposal to have a discovery
conference as to YOUR OBJECTIONS to our recent
proposed discovery, be advised that to date we have
not received your objections and therefore your
proposal is premature. The discovery rules simply
I don't provide for a conference in advance of your filing
objections to our requests, however the balance of
this email may address some of your concerns. If
after we receive and study your (we assume very
specific) objections and we think any are not well
taken, we will contact you and arrange a meeting to
| discuss them. We expect you will professionally
| respond to our requests and to any request for a
I discovery meeting we there after think we need as we
I have professionally responded to yours.
I would think from the very comprehensive answers
we gave to the rest of your discovery that his (proper)
objections do not remotely suggest Mr. Markham is
trying to be obstreperous or unreasonable in
responding to your discovery. Nor has he otherwise
been in response to your late August representations
that its now Mrs. Markham's intents to retract her
earlier May 9, 2013 representation offering to allow
him to demonstrate, he has no anger management
issues to Dr. Maiuro's satisfaction and try to reconcile
and instead proceed directly to a divorce.
Page- 2

As we represented to you in all good faith, our intent


in bringing our motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction was twofold. First we believed it
was right. But we also sought bring awareness to the
serious Washington inheritance tax consequences
that will befall her heirs from a her claim to a
Washington domicile and the pursuit of her divorce
here. You however chose to somehow convince her
that this was being done to gain some sort of
procedural advantage when nothing was further from
the truth? Thats now unfortunately her loss.
In addition you've persuaded her to respond in an
unnecessary and irrelevant punitive manner by having
her and her son file affidavits attempting to support a
claim that her husband is a long time batterer when
your letter of May 9, 2013 clearly reflects she did not
initially so claim. Rather then she was then willing to
defer to Dr. Maiuro's evaluation as to whether he even
had an anger management problem? Moreover she
and her son know (and you should) that there is not
one police or medical document in these parties long
loving marriage supporting that claim. On the contrary
having put this issue in evidence you've clearly
effectuated a waiver to Mrs. Markham's privilege to
her many years of psychiatric counseling, the Seattle
Fire, ambulance and Virginia Mason records of April
19, 2013 and all of her medical records that
proceeded (and followed) Mr. Markhams April 24,
2013 arrest which your claim now forces us to seek.

Page- 3

Rather if its now Mrs. Markhams intent to proceed


directly to a divorce, we only seek to effect a fair and
amicable professional exchange of all of the important
documents relevant to this proceedings. As you can
see from our first request for production our first
concern is for the integrity of all of these parties
relevant files. As your client is further well aware, the
house in Seattle that they jointly occupied
immediately prior to Mr. Markham's arrest, contains a
substantial volume. Our first concern regarding your
production (and ours) is compliance with WA Civil
Rule 38(b), which clearly directs
"A party who produces documents for inspection shall
produce them as they are kept in the usual course of
business".
It is for this reason that our request for production
demands that all of the files at this residence be
produced and a video record made of their position in
the file, box or where ever theyre located (when this
discovery was served) be done by us at the earliest
opportunity before they are disturbed and copied.
Until this is done it will be difficult for either party to
meet the others request in compliance with this rule.
But with a basic amount of professional cooperation
we should be able to do this in short order. Be
advised that due to his familiarity with these
documents and things and the only person capable of
assisting his counsel in this inspection, Mr. Markham's

Page- 4

presence will be necessary at that home through out


every phase of that inspection.
In our last court hearing the court ruled the DV order
was not an impediment to the parties presence
together. On the contrary its basic to his
constitutional right of due process and confrontation.
And in recognition of that fact his DV stipulated order
of continuance expressly permits the Markham's may
have contact in the presence of a 3rd party as
necessary to pursue their divorce. However we do not
seek to force that or affect any other ulterior purpose
in this request. Mrs. Markham's presence is not
requested at this inspection. She can choose to be
absent and instead have her counsel there.
However when our proposed inspection and
production is complete if we are not in a position to
have a mediation to attempt to resolve this matter, we
will need to promptly thereafter take Mrs. Markham's
deposition. This needs to be done at the 810 NE 58th
residence where the documents we seek are located
so that she will have easy access to them while
testifying and we anticipate Mr. Markham's presence
will also be essential for that. Accordingly to move this
along as you've requested please advise of a
proposed time after the proposed inspection and
production when we may notice that.
It is also possible however that after the video
inspection we propose and your response to our
current discovery, that we might alternatively be in a
Page- 5

position to have the mediation you proposed in your


May 9, 2013 letter? If this matter is to proceed to a
divorce Mr. Markham would of course like to do so in
the least stressful to Mrs. Markham and least costly
manner, and to be fair to her in all things. But your
recent introduction of unfounded charges of domestic
abuse is hardly conducive of that!
Accordingly if you are going to persist in that path, we
will need to get all the relevant facts to the issues you
unilaterally raised in your domestic violence charges
out on the table. And as well to see the documents in
demanded in our request. So far your conduct in the
course of this litigation gives us little hope we will
voluntarily see any of that. We hope if you persist in
interjecting these unfounded and irrelevant charges
your responses will disabuse us of that notion.
Alternatively an easier way to move forward in good
faith, with the least amount of stress and expense to
both parties and hopefully mediate this dispute in
good faith would be for you and I to consider a written
stipulation that domestic abuse is not an issue in this
divorce. The reason that I am suggesting this
approach achieves multiple purposes.
1. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of
producing psychological and medical records
which at the end of the day will establish no
Domestic Abuse Complaints to her medical
providers. And it will save Mr. Markham the
Page-6

expense of rebutting these unfounded and


irrelevant allegations.
2. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of paying
her attorney to litigate irrelevant issues. There
are no children here and if this matter is to
proceed to a divorce it should only be about a
division of money and assets. Your insertion into
this divorce the claim of domestic abuse which is
unsupported by anything but Mrs. Markham and
her sons interested testimony is contrary to what
all who know them will testify was a very happy
relationship and marriage for nearly 35 years.
And its a marriage where Mrs. Markham was
provided from her husbands tireless work as a
trial lawyer, well over a Million dollars in accounts
in her sole name to and a virtually remodeled
extremely valuable home in Seattle titled in her
own name (as well as several more titled jointly),
to provided her the freedom to live apart from Mr.
Markham if she ever felt the need. I hardly think
at the end of the day, the financial freedom that
she has enjoyed in addition to a fine lifestyle
including the annual use of and traveling to,
multiple vacation homes (near her children from
other relationships and marriages) will remotely
support a claim to domestic abuse.
AS TO YOUR RECENT REQUEST FOR BANK
ACCOUNTS after we accomplish our video
inspection, I would like to hope a further amicable
Page-7

resolution of your current concerns could be obtained


by your client simply doing the work that the law
obligates her to do before trying to shift this burden on
to us. Repeating what we did in our discovery
response the only "bank accounts" that Mr. Markham
is aware of are as much or more in Mrs. Markham's
custody and control than his. To be more specific
(although that is unnecessary, as your client knows all
this) the only "banks accounts" statements in his sole
name (but hardly his sole control) are those of the
First National Bank of Alaska (FNBA) Kodiak. But for
the period of your request (and some substantial time
previously) these statements have at Mrs. Markham's
request been sent to the parties Seattle address to
facilitate their payment of expenses.
In addition Mr. Markham authorized Mrs. Markham as
an additional signatory on all of those accounts
except his trust account. And we further believe she
has online access to those accounts (that Mr.
Markham also presently does not). Finally at your
May 9, 2013 letter's request Mr. Markham did not
terminate her authority to continue to temporarily
maintain the "status quo" with respect to the payment
of those bills customarily paid from those accounts
(and refreshed their balances when necessary to
allow her to do so. Accordingly, she should have all of
those statements and as you can see from our recent
discovery, it is we that need to request production of
them from her! If (remotely) after you've discussed
this with your client (in connection with our request)
Page- 8

you feel you don't have all of these statements,


please identify specifically which statements you don't
have and on pre-payment of my client's estimated
costs (including his and his counsels' future and past
professional time for attending the discovery
conference you scheduled, my October 1, 2013 email,
and this one (from funds in accounts in Mrs.
Markham's personal name) following an appropriately
noticed discovery conference we will hear your
reasons why we should be securing those records
from this bank when your client can just as easily?
The only other "bank account" that Mr. Markham is
aware he has any "control" of is a joint account that
the parties maintained at Islander Bank
in Friday Harbor to enable them to pay local bills.
There was only a few hundred dollars in that account
when the parties separated following which Mr.
Markham funded it with $2000 to allow him to be able
to pay Dr. Maiuros fee before it became clear Mrs.
Markhams son Adam Logghe would arrange for
delivery of his FNBA "traveling" office check book to
him. Since then Mr. Markham also deposited some
small refunds that have come to the parties Kodiak
address into that account for convenience. And for
that reason in the future (and its preprinted checks)
he wishes to keep this account open for now and he's
had its statements since generated forwarded from
Kodiak to him in Friday Harbor. For statements prior
to that time Mrs. Markham knows best where those
are since she established the manner of filing them
Page- 9

but they either came to and remained in Kodiak or


were sent on to Seattle. Either way Mr. Markham
in Friday Harbor has no personal knowledge of their
whereabouts and no convenient manner of knowing.
While we think the sums involved in that account are
insignificant, if you insist on copies in his immediate
possession to verify that, forward a check for $100
(again from Mrs. Markham's personal funds) to my
office for his professional time and copy costs and on
his return to Friday Harbor later this week, he will
copy those that he has and we will produce them in
due course. If on receipt of these you seek more,
upon receipt of a similar check, and express
directions as to their location, he will similarly request
Karl Loffler in Kodiak to look for any that may be in
Kodiak. Or if this proves unsuccessful he will advise
and (again upon pre-payment of a reasonable sum for
his time and costs) he will consider securing copies
from the bank. But again this is a joint account so she
has equal access to them.
On information and belief there are at least two other
current "bank accounts" (and may have been others
in the period you requested) with Seattle banks that
your client has managed virtually exclusively and has
virtual total control of. The first of these was with Bank
of America but on information and belief she closed or
took most of the money from that account and
transferred it to a branch of Union Bank. There were
also accounts at Key Bank on Ravenna and US Bank
Page-10

(Mr. Markham believes on Roosevelt) at one time.


Whether she took steps to put Mr. Markham's name
on those accounts he is uncertain. Suffice it to say he
doesn't have custody of any the statements
in Friday Harbor and if he has any control of them
he's unaware of it. The same goes for the "bank
statement" regarding charges for any and all safe
deposit box which Mrs. Markham has maintained in
the past. Since we have requested she identify and
likewise produce all bank statements in our recent
request we assume you will be similarly forthcoming
as to these regarding any safe deposit boxes she
controls in your responses to our requests?
Finally although your discovery requests didn't seek
them and hence theyre not addressed in our
responses, there is the matter of our pending request
for the parties substantial "brokerage" accounts and
which we anticipate in light of our discovery requests
you might likewise serve discovery requests on us to
acquire. Let us save you that effort by seeing if we
can agree to mutually exchange these? So far as Mr.
Markham is aware the parties each had two DA
Davidson accounts (one personal and one IRA each)
and one each at TD Ameritrade.
Prior to filing her petition, Mr. Markham believes Mrs.
Markham had hard copies of the DA Davidson
accounts coming to Seattle. But whether she had two
statements being printed one of which went to Seattle
or had the Kodiak statement forwarded to Seattle he's
not clear. Regardless she should have all of these up
Page-11

to that point. Following service of her petition, since


arriving in Kodiak in late June, Mr. Markham learned
that copies of these statements were coming to
Kodiak so he took possession of those that thereafter
arrived and since he left Kodiak has had those that
have arrived in the mail since forward these on to him.
However shortly after he left Kodiak, Mrs. Markham
also had another person (without Mr. Markhams
knowledge or authority) enter this house (which he
owned before the parties were married, is titled in his
sole name and which her April 15, 2013 affidavit
acknowledgers she has no interest in) and take some
cash for a rent payment on another Kodiak property
(on Kashavaroff St.) which that affidavit also admits
was not titled in her name and likewise has no interest
in and had that mailed directly on to her! So whether
when that occurred that person also forwarded her
the DA Davidson statement and he has all of the DA
Davidson statements for this period is unclear.
However Mrs. Markham also has access to her
statements for the accounts in her sole name online.
In our desire to acquire a complete copy of all of
these statements going back to the inception of these
account (as well as copies of her earlier brokers
statements) if you will produce all of those (going
back as far as Mrs. Markham has) without a demand
for prepayment of costs, we will produce those recent
ones that he has acquired in the same fashion. After
that I propose any statements that are then missing
Page-12

be either printed offline by the party that controls that


account or request it from DA Davidson.
Mr. Markham also has no copies of TD Ameritrade
statement for that brokerage house for account in her
sole name and requests all of those since she opened
that account. If Mrs. Markham advises that copies of
those earlier statements are also in Kodiak (and
where they are located), he would likewise agree to
provide copies of those without prepayment of costs if
she will do likewise as to those she has in Seattle.
There is also the matter of the records of several
Bank CDs and US Treasury Bond funds that were
liquidated in 2008 that Mr. Markham believes are no
longer active but which explain how some funds came
to be in accounts in Mrs. Markham's name Those
records are in Seattle and we seek she produce them.
Also there is a 401K account and a 457 account that
Mr. Markham funded while working at the City of
Anchorage totaling about $100K, and some stock
held by ALPS (Alaska's Legal E&O carrier which have
been forwarded quarterly to Seattle the records of
which she has. Also her life insurance policy. He also
has the records to a whole life policy begun before
their marriage.
Also she has in Seattle the records pertaining to the
ongoing sale of the property on Mill Bay Road that
was his mothers house and some surrounding rentals
to Kevin and Jerry Arndt. She also has in Seattle, the
Page-13

records of an earlier substantial sale of the


commercial Straut building as well as a two Alaska
liqueur licenses and two other houses (the wagon
wheel houses) nearby on Larch St. in Kodiak. These
properties were all left to Mr. Markham in his mothers
will and the proceeds from them where thereafter
deposited in separate accounts maintained in his own
name.
Mrs. Markham also has in Seattle the records of an
earlier sale of a house at 4001 Borland, Anchorage
that Mr. Markham had before the parties married. All
of the funds from its sale was likewise deposited in
separate accounts maintained in his own name.
If your client thinks there is anything else weve
inadvertently overlooked (and that is certainly
possible) please advise.

Page-14

EXHIBIT 2

11300 R oosevelt

Way Northeast, Suite 300

S eattle,Washington98125

of MICHAELW. BUGNI &ASSOCIATES, PI I.C

Attorneys
MiciiaelW. B ugni
Laura Christensen Colberg
Daria J. Goodwih
Margaret DoYUsFnawmicK
J ennieLaird
KristynaM .I arch
Ciirjsive AM ayoie
Yvetie S mith O'C oisnbll
T.uAnb P erry
BnASOLTAN-QuRRAlE
Karma L. Zaike
N atalie M. B eckmann

P:206.365.5500 F:2O6.363.8067
info@lawgate.net

November 18,2013
Mr. Anthony Urie
Mr. Dice Takahashi
Attorneys at Law
18130 Midvale Ave. N Ste. A
Shoreline, WA 98133
Re:

Markham v. Markham

Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:


I am writing in response to the Requests for Production served on October 28,2013. Ms.
Markhams objections to said discovery are asserted below. Please note, however, that
Ms. Markham will work with you in good faith to attempt to reach mutual agreement
regarding the appropriate scope of, and response to, the requests.
The purpose of discovery is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff
and more a fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent practicable.
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993). Mr.
Markhams discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery that will be
admissible evidence at trial. In fact, it is a poorly disguised attempt to obtain unnecessary
access to the parties home over Ms. Markhams objections. That is not acceptable.
Without limitation, Ms. Markham objects to the Requests for Production to the extent
that it seeks to impose obligations on Ms. Markham beyond those allowed by any
applicable Local Rules or governing case law. Ms. Markham responds and objects as set
forth in detail below:
REQUEST NO. 1: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is overly broad in
temporal scope and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that has no
relevance to any pending action. The propounded discovery purports to require Ms.
Markham to conduct a search of all files in her custody or control in an attempt to locate
any documents that might be responsive, and requires Ms. Markham to produce all emails sent to anyone over the entire course of the parties relationship. To the extent that
the request calls for Ms. Markham to produce documents located at 808 NE 59th St., Ms.
Markham objects on the ground that the parties have no control or ownership rights over
the property.
REQUEST NO. 2: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request improperly
demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence and to the extent that it is overly
broad and unduly burdensome. The criminal No Contact Order prohibits Mr. Markham

Mr. Urie
Mr. Takahashi
November 18,2013
Page 2
from entering Ms. Markhams home. Attempting to improperly use the discovery
process to obtain entry is unacceptable. If Mr. Markham truly wants an inventory and/or
appraise items in the family home, he may hire an independent appraiser. His request to
require Ms. Markham to produce all tangible personal property in her custody or control
for inspection, without designating any limitation as to the extent or value of such
property is unreasonable.
Without waiving said objection, Ms. Markham will produce a list of all personal property
to the extent that she is aware that the property has a value of $1000 or more.
Alternatively, as stated above, she will cooperate with a neutral third party hired by the
respondent to conduct an inventory of personal property valued at $1000 or more.
REQUEST NO. 3: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is invasive and
improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence, and to the extent that
it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Furthermore, the parties
have no ownership or control over real property located at 808 NE 59th Street. Ms.
Markham will provide a list of vehicles in her custody or control and she will cooperate
with a neutral third party hired by the respondent to inspect real property owned by the
parties.
REQUEST NO. 4: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is invasive and
improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence, and to the extent that
it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham objects to
the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and is unduly burdensome.
The request purports to require Ms. Markham to produce all of the computers and their
hard drives, including old or retired computers, that have ever been located at 810 NE
58th Street. The parties have no ownership or control over any computers owned by Ms.
Markhams son.
REQUEST NO. 5: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in
temporal scope and unduly burdensome.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will produce statements of accounts to which
she has access for two years. These statements cannot be produced immediately. It is
expected that these documents will be available for review by December 15, 2013, but
will be produced sooner if possible.
REQUEST NO. 6-7: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the requests are harassing
and invasive; they seek information relating to medical, physical, and mental health,
which are privileged under various provisions of state and federal law; and they seek

Mr. Urie
Mr. Takahashi
November 18, 2013
Page 3
information that has no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham will not produce
privileged documents.
REQUEST NO. 8: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is harassing and
invasive; it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action; and it seeks
information relating to mental health, which is privileged under various provisions of
state and federal law. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.
REQUEST NO. 9: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request seeks information
that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine (referred to respectively as
privileged documents and privileges). Ms. Markham will not produce privileged
documents.
REQUEST NO. 10: . Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad
in temporal scope, is unduly burdensome and requests infoimation which is not in Ms.
Markhams possession.
Without waiving objection, documentation in Ms. Markhams possession is available for
inspection at the Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC, 11300
Roosevelt Way NE, Third Floor, Seattle, WA. Please schedule an appointment.
REQUEST NO. 11: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request has no
relevance to any pending action.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a photograph of Phinney for Mr.
Markham.
REQUEST NO. 12: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in
temporal scope and unduly burdensome.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a list of tangible items which
were personal to Mr. Markham or which have a value over $1,000 (see RFP #2) that were
removed from the parties real property located in Friday Harbor, Alaska or Arizona
within the past two years.
REQUEST NO. 13: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad
and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence. The discovery
requests production of photos, wall art, and other personal items, without any

Mr. Urie
Mr. Takahashi
November 18, 2013
Page 4
specificity.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham believes she knows the items to which Jerry
refers. The items have been packaged and are ready to be delivered. Please provide a
time you are available in your office when Mr. Markham will not be present and Ms.
Markham will have the items delivered.
REQUEST NO. 14: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in
temporal scope and unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. Markham to
produce passwords and statements for any and all accounts which have ever been
paid for out of funds held in the names of the parties.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will disclose passwords she currently uses for
access to current asset and liability accounts, as well as those paid for out of funds held
by the parties within the two years preceding this action, ft should be noted that Mr.
Markham already has access to these passwords and accounts. He does not have
permission to change the passwords or make unauthorized transfers to/from any account.
REQUEST NO. 16: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is beyond the
scope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a nonparty. Mr. Markhams RFP seeks information with no relevance to any pending action
by seeking the production of information relating to property over which the parties have
no ownership rights or control.
REQUEST NO. 17: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in
temporal scope and unduly burdensome. Ms. Markham also objects on the ground that
the request seeks materials that are obtainable from other sources, including but not
limited to party discovery and/or other non-party sources. Ms. Markham is not going to
be executing a waiver.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham has already delivered to Mr. Markham 2010 2012; To the best of Ms. Markhams knowledge, there are no tax returns in her home.
She believes Jerry kept copies in Friday Harbor and there may be older returns in Kodiak.
REQUEST NO. 18: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request has no
relevance to any pending action and on the ground that the request is beyond the scope of
CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non-party.
REQUEST NO. 19: This Request for Production does not make sense.

Mr. Urie
Mr. Takahashi
November 18, 2013
Page 5
Ms. Markham specifically reserves the right to modify and supplement these objections
and responses. Ms. Markham assumes no obligation to supplement her responses beyond
those imposed by the Civil Rules, if any. By agreeing to search for documents
responsive to the Requests for Production, Ms. Markham does not represent that such
documents do in fact exist.
Ms. Markham has not completed her investigation into the subject matter of the action or
the underlying facts, evidence or allegations. This response is made to the best of her
current knowledge, information and belief. Ms. Markham makes no representation that
any responsive documents exist or will be produced. Ms. Markham reserves the right to
conduct additional investigation and to assert additional objections.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ms. Markham will produce
responsive documents by sending copies of the same addressed to counsel. Please
immediately confirm that neither Mr. Markham nor counsel on his behalf will be
appearing at Ms. Markhams home. If Mr. Markham or his agents appear, it will
be a violation of the criminal No Contact Order currently in effect and law
enforcement will be immediately contacted.
I am out of the office between November 25 and December 9. If I do not have
correspondence from you limiting the scope of discovery prior to my return, then I will
be forced to seek a protective order on Ms. Markhams behalf. Please advise.
Yours truly,
Karma L. Zaike
KLZ:esr
Cc: Client