Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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
10
11
12
)
)
)
TWILA MARKHAM,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
and
)
)
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM,
)
Respondent. )
)
In re:
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
22
23
24
25
1of 5
1
2
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
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
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
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
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
ttorney a t la w
Page- 3
Page- 4
Page-14
EXHIBIT 2
11300 R oosevelt
S eattle,Washington98125
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
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