Você está na página 1de 21

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

2006 WL 2542148 (Cal.Superior) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) Superior Court of California. Central District Los Angeles County

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the Estate of Bartek Frykowski, Plaintiff,

v.

Nathaniel J. FRIEDMAN, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.

No. BC 339935.

September 15, 2005. August 3, 2006. July 13, 2006.

Motion in Limine # 3 to Preclude Admission of Evidence of Damages Not Disclosed During Discovery; Declaration of Matthew J. Hafey in Support

Michael McCarthy (SB # 89588), Matthew J. Hafey (SB # 167122), Nemecek & Cole, A Professional Corporation, 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 920, Sherman Oaks, California 91403, Telephone: 818-788-9500, Facsimile: 818-501-0328, Attorneys for Defendants, Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation.

Honorable Gregory Alarcon.

Complaint Filed: September 15, 2005

[DECLARATION OF MATTHEW HAFEY RE “MEET AND CONFER” AND PROPOSED ORDER FILED SEPARATELY]

Date: August 3, 2006

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 36

TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 3, 2006, at 8:30 a.m., in Department “36” of the above-captioned court, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, defendants Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; and Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation (“Friedman”), before trial and prior to the selection of a jury, will move this court, in limine, for an order precluding plaintiffs from introducing any evidence or contentions not disclosed by them in heir responses to discovery.

The instant Motion is based upon this Notice, upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, upon the pleadings and papers on file herein, the Declaration of Matthew Hafey and upon any such other and further oral or documentary evidence that may be presented at the time of the hearing on this Motion.

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

DATED: July 12, 2006

NEMECEK & COLE

<<signature>>

MICHAEL McCARTHY

MATTHEW J. HAFEY

Attorneys for Defendants

Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. INTRODUCTION

By way of this instant Motion, defendants Nathaniel J. Friedman and Nathaniel J, Friedman, a professional Corporation, seek an order, in limine, precluding plaintiffs from introducing any evidence or contentions not disclosed by plaintiffs in their responses to discovery propounded in this action.

2. THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE DISCOVERY ACT IS TO AVOID TRIAL BY SURPRISE

Our system of justice seeks to avoid trial by surprise, so that the outcome of a trial will be determined by fair balancing of all the facts, rather than the happenstance of which party is better able to keep the other guessing as to its intentions. To accomplish this goal, we have the mechanism of discovery, whereby one party can ask the other to reveal all of the facts in its possession relevant to the issues in the case. The parties to the present action have vigorously engaged in discovery since litigation commenced, and by this motion in limine, defendants seek to ensure that this effort will not have been in vain.

The Court has the discretion to exclude evidence if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability

that its admission will

(b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the

... jury.” California Evidence Code Section 352. Discovery rules are imposed to “make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” United States of America v. Proctor & Gamble Co. 356 U.S. 677 (1956). See Chronicle Pub. Co. v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548,

561 (a principal purpose of discovery is to do away with “the sporting theory of litigation -- namely surprise at trial”).

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject

matter involved in the pending action

,

if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears

... reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and locations of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

In Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d. 355, 376, the California Supreme Court held that California's comprehensive discovery system was intended to achieve the following results:

“(1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial.”

Obviously, the purposes outlined by the California Supreme Court will be frustrated if a party is free at any time to change or add to its previously served responses to discovery. And so the Legislature has provided, within the discovery statutes, methods and deadlines by which a party can modify its discovery responses. For example, a deponent is free to change his or her answers to deposition questions within 30 days of the transcript being made available to him or her. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.520(b)). Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.310 provides that a party may serve an amended response to an interrogatory which “contains information subsequently discovered, inadvertently omitted, or mistakenly stated.” However, the propounding party can move for an order that the initial answer be deemed binding on the responding party, And “[a] party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties.” Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.300.

As this case has progressed, the defendants have served various discovery requests on plaintiff. Plaintiff has responded, objected and provided (as permitted by Code) amended responses to these discovery requests. Defendants have prepared their case to a substantial degree based on the information plaintiffs have disclosed in these responses. Thus, introduction of previously undisclosed evidence or the assertion of disavowed contention would incurably prejudice the defendants since it would be virtually impossible for the defendant, in the midst of trial, to adequately respond to this new and unexpected evidence.

The courts of appeal have upheld the right of trial courts to exclude evidence because of failure to reveal the information in a deposition (Campain v. Safeway Stores (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 62), in response to a demand for production of documents (Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 241, or in an answer to an interrogatory (Thoren v. Johnston and Washer (1972)

  • 29 Cal. App. 3d 270). A trial court also has the power to exclude contentions if they are not disclosed in discovery. See

order precluding plaintiffs from introducing evidence or contentions not previously disclosed during discovery.

Specifically, defendants have identified the following discovery responses to which plaintiffs gave incomplete, evasive, or no responses at all:

• Plaintiffs were asked to admit that Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and/or

Linda
Linda
  • have no assets which could be levied upon to satisfy the judgment originally obtained by defendants on behalf

of Mr. Frykowski. Plaintiffs denied this Request as to Manson and Atkins, and otherwise answered that they “ha[ve] not yet concluded [their] investigation and [do] not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.” See Response of Piotr Kona to Friedman's Request for Admissions, Set One Nos. 1, 4, served January 3, 2006 (attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. “A”); Response of Piotr Kona to Friedman, APC's Request for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 4, 10,

  • 13 served July 3, 2006 (attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. “B”). 1

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

• Plaintiffs were asked to admit that Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and/or

Linda
Linda
  • have no incomes which could be levied upon to satisfy the judgment originally obtained by defendants on behalf

of Mr. Frykowski. Plaintiffs answered that they “ha[ve] not yet concluded [their] investigation and [do] not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.” See Response of Piotr Kona to Friedman, APC's Request for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 served July 3, 2006 (Hafey Decl. Exh. “B”).

• As to Manson, the only “assets” identified were royalties from a book entitled Manson: In His Own Words (but fail to mention that Mr. Frykowski obtained a $25,000 lump sum payment from the publisher in exchange for a release of all future royalties -- see Release, attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. “E”). See Piotr Kona's Response to Special Interrogatories Set One, Interrogatory No. 6 (attached to Hafey Decl. As Exh. “C”). No amount of such royalties was disclosed in Plaintiffs' Response or in documents produced by Plaintiffs, other than the $25,000 settlement. Hafey Decl. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs assert that Manson will have income from exploitation of his likeness in the future, but “the precise nature of the property right or asset is unknown at this time,” See Response of Piotr Kona to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 served January 3,

2006 (Hafey Decl. Exh. “F”). 2

• As to Atkins, the only “assets” identified were royalties from a book entitled Child of Satan, Child of God. See Piotr Kona's Response to Special Interrogatories Set One, Interrogatory No. 7 (attached to Hafey Decl. As Exh. “C”). Plaintiffs assert that Susan Atkins will have income from a forthcoming book, but have not identified the name of the book, whether anyone has agreed to distribute it, or even if it has been (or ever will be) written. See Response of Piotr Kona to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 served January 3, 2006 (Hafey Decl. Exh. “F”). No amount of royalties from any source was disclosed in Plaintiffs' Response or in documents produced by Plaintiffs. Hafey Decl. 112.

• Finally, in response to Form Interrogatory 9.1 (c), which asks Plaintiffs to identify the amount of damages they allegedly suffered as a result of defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs provided the following answer:

“Specific amounts of damages prior to the judgment lapsing are unknown. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs. As to damages occurring since the judgment lapsed the precise amounts are unknown at present, but it is estimated they may be $500,000 or more.”

Again, Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to “update” their Responses when Friedman APC served its Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions and Friedman served his Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents on June 2, 2006. Plaintiffs did not provide a Response to the Supplemental Interrogatory, and responded to Friedman, APC's Form interrogatory 9.1 as follows:

“Objection, repetitive (see Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Form Interrogatories, Set One, dated November 14, 2005.”

Piotr Kona's Response to Friedman, APC's Form Interrogatories, Set One; Hafey Decl. ¶ 14 and Exh. “G.” Plaintiffs obviously overlooked the fact that Friedman the individual served his First Set of Form Interrogatories on November 14, 2005, and that a different defendant, Friedman APC was the proponent of the Form Interrogatories served on June 2, 2006. Hafey Decl. ¶ 15. Regardless, if Plaintiffs had any new information to impart, they should have provided it in response to the Supplemental Interrogatory.

In short, Plaintiffs either refused or were unable to respond to basic discovery regarding assets and income belonging to

Manson, Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkle and

Kasabian
Kasabian

, without which Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case against

defendants, as Plaintiffs must prove that had defendants timely renewed the judgment, it would have been collectible.

Garretson v. Miller (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 563, 568-69. Moreover, Plaintiffs have steadfastly refused to produce any

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

evidence of the amount of damages suffered, or even a method of calculating such damage. Accordingly, Plaintiffs should be precluded from offering any evidence of such damages at trial.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, defendants respectfully request that this court issue an order precluding plaintiffs and their counsel from introducing at trial any evidence or contentions not disclosed by plaintiffs in their responses to discovery propounded in this action.

DATED: July 12, 2006

NEMECEK & COLE

<<signature>>

MICHAEL McCARTHY

MATTHEW J. HAFEY

Attorneys for Defendants

Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation

WILLIAM GWIRE, ESQ., SBN 59451

TIA POLLASTRINI, ESQ., SBN 124873

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

235 Pine Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, California 94104

TEL: (415) 296-8880

FAX: (415) 296-8029

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Piotr Kona and Jerzy Szczepaniak as co-executors of the Estate of Bartek Frykowski

RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFF PIOTR KONA TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE

Complaint Filed: September 15, 2005

[Assigned to the Honorable Gregory Alarcon, Department 36]

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

RESPONDING PARTY:

NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN

PIOTR KONA, CO-EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

SET NO.:

BARTER FRYKOWSKI

ONE

Plaintiff PIOTR KONA, as Co-Executor of the Estate of the Bartek Frykowski responds to the Request for Admissions propounded by Defendant NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN as follows:

REQUEST NUMBER 1

1. Assuming that the JUDGMENT (as used herein, the term “JUDGMENT” shall mean and refer to the Judgment first entered on August 3, 1971 in favor of Bartek Frykowski, a Minor, by and through Hanna Prominska, his Guardian Ad Litem, in Frykowski v. Charles Manson et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 70-1664-JWC) were enforceable, Charles Manson has no ASSETS (as used herein, the term “ASSET” shall mean and include real property, personal property, cash, stocks, shares in corporation, bonds, limited partnership interests, partnership interests, ownership interests in real property, ownership interests in personal property, securities, commodities, precious metals, jewelry, intellectual property, insurance policies, club memberships, art, automobiles, furnishings, collectibles, choses in action, intellectual property or any other tangible or intangible asset worth more than $100) which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 1

Denied.

REQUEST NUMBER 2

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles Manson or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 2

Admitted.

REQUEST NUMBER 3

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles “Tex” Watson has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT,

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 3

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 4

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles “Tex” Watson has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 4

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 5

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles “Tex” Watson or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 5

Admitted

REQUEST NUMBER 6

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 6

Denied.

REQUEST NUMBER 7

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 7

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 8

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Susan Atkins or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 8

Admitted.

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

REQUEST NUMBER 9

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 9

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 10

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 10

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 11

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Patricia Krenwinkle or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 11

Admitted.

REQUEST NUMBER 12

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 12

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 13

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

, 2006 WL 2542148

...

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 13

Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.

REQUEST NUMBER 14

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify satisfy the JUDGMENT,

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

or to satisfy or partially

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 14

Admitted.

Dated: January 3, 2006

WILLIAM GWIRE, ESQ., SBN 59451

TIA POLLASTRINI, ESQ., SBN 124873

LARA SHAPRIO, ESQ. SBN 227194

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

235 Pine Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, California 94104

TEL: (415) 296-8880

FAX: (415) 296-8029

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

<<signature>>

William Gwire, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Piotr Kona and Jerzy Szczepaniak as co-executors of the Estate of Bartek Frykowski

RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFF PIOTR KONA TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE

Complaint Filed: September 15, 2005

[Assigned to the Honorable Gregory Alarcon, Department 36]

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

RESPONDING PARTY:

SET NO.:

PIOTR KONA, CO-EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF

BARTEK FRYKOWSKI

ONE (SIC)

Plaintiff PIOTR KONA, as Co-Executor of the Estate of the Bartek Frykowski responds to the Request for Admissions erroneously propounded as Set One by Defendant NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN as follows:

REQUEST NUMBER 1

1. Assuming that the JUDGMENT (as used herein, the term “JUDGMENT” shall mean and refer to the Judgment first entered on August 3, 1971 in favor of Bartek Frykowski, a Minor, by and through Hanna Prominska, his Guardian Ad Litem, in Frykowski v. Charles Manson et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 70-1664-JWC) were enforceable, Charles Manson has no ASSETS (as used herein, the term “ASSET” shall mean and include real property, personal property, cash, stocks, shares in corporation, bonds, limited partnership interests, partnership interests, ownership interests in real property, ownership interests in personal property, securities, commodities, precious metals, jewelry, intellectual property, insurance policies, club memberships, art, automobiles, furnishings, collectibles, choses in action, intellectual property or any other tangible or intangible asset worth more than $100) which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 1

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403,1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 1, No. 1, dated November 14, 2005.

REQUEST NUMBER 2

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles Manson has no INCOME (as used herein, the term “INCOME” shall mean and refer to money or other real or personal property earned as wages, royalties, residuals, interest, or capital gains of any kind) which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 2

Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 3

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles Manson or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 3

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 2, dated November 14, 2005.

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

REQUEST NUMBER 4

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles “Tex” Watson has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 4

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 3, dated November 14, 2005, Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 5

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles “Tex” Watson has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 5

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 4, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 6

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles “Tex” Watson or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 6

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 5, dated November 14, 2005.

REQUEST NUMBER 7

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 7

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403,1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No, 6, dated November 14, 2005.

REQUEST NUMBER 8

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 8

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 7, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 9

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Susan Atkins or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 9

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 8, dated November 14, 2005.

REQUEST NUMBER 10

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 10

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 9, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 11

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 11

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 10, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 12

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Patricia Krenwinkle or to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

, 2006 WL 2542148

...

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 12

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct (1997) 58 CA4th 1403,1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 11, dated November 14, 2005.

REQUEST NUMBER 13

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 13

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v, Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 12, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 14

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 14

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403,1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 13, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.

REQUEST NUMBER 15

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify satisfy the JUDGMENT.

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

or to satisfy or partially

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 15

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions, Set One, No. 14, dated November 14, 2005.

Dated: July 3, 2006

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

<<signature>>

Lara Shapiro, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFF PIOTR KONA TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

RESPONDING PARTY:

SET NO.:

NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN

PIOTR KONA, CO-EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF

BARTEK FRYKOWSKI

ONE

Plaintiff PIOTR KONA, as Co-Executor of the Estate of the Bartek Frykowski, responds to the Special Interrogatories propounded by Defendant NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN as follows:

GENERAL RESPONSE

Discovery and investigation in this litigation are continuing. All answers contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available. Plaintiff is pursuing his investigation and analysis of the facts and law relating to this case and has not yet initiated, let alone completed discovery in preparation for trial. Further independent discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis may supply additional facts and/or add meaning to the known facts. These responses are therefore given without prejudice to Plaintiff's rights to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts or to add, modify or otherwise change or amend the responses set forth below.

These responses are made in a good faith effort to respond to the extent of the factual information presently known to Plaintiff but in no way should be considered to prejudice Plaintiff relation to further discovery of facts, research or analysis. The information hereafter set forth is true and correct to the best knowledge of Plaintiff as of this date and is based on information presently available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to present additional facts that may come to his attention as this litigation proceeds. Reference in a response to a preceding or subsequent response incorporates the information and objections set forth in the referenced response.

Objection is made to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information within the attorney/client and work- product privileges.

Without waiving these general or specific objections, each of which is expressly incorporated into each answer below, Plaintiff answers as follows:

RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Set forth the home address and home telephone number of Piotr Kona.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Piotr Kona

91-493 Łód#'

Koronna 4

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

Tel: +48 42 7179443

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Set forth the home address and home telephone number of Jerzy Szczepaniak.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Jerzy Szczepaniak Kolonia Bruzyca 21a

95-070 Aleksandrow Łód#ki

Tel. 0048 42 2760740

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Set forth the home address and home telephone number of Hanna Prominska.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

I do not know Hanna Prominska.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Set forth the amount and date of each and every disbursement of money sent to the Estate of Bartek Frykowski by Nathaniel J. Friedman, A Professional Corporation.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

December 1999

$ 3,610.45

April 2000

$ 452.80

July 2000

$ 607.53

September 2000

$ 636.67

October 2000

$ 1,303.34

November 2002

$ 34,799.32

The $34,799.32 disbursement made to the Estate of Bartek Frykowski by Nathaniel J. Friedman in November 2002 represented a portion of a disbursement made in error by the United States Marshall to Nathaniel J. Friedman. When the Estate accepted the disbusement in November 2002, it had no knowledge that the judgment had lapsed or that the monies had been paid out by the U.S. Marshall in error. Thereafter, Nathaniel Friedman and the Estate of Bartek Frykowski

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

were named as defendants in an action by the United States of America to recapture the monies. The Estate was never served in that action, nor advised by Mr. Friedman that the action was pending. The Estate learned of the matter in or about the Fall of 2004 and has offered to repay to the United States Marshall the monies it received in error.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Charles Manson which YOU contend could have been attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Plaintiffs construe this interrogatory as referring to assets which could have been attached or levied upon, meaning “in the past”, and not assets which, in the future, could have been available for attachment (or levying) but for Defendant's negligence. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs are informed and believe that assets “which might have been attached” include income generated from the licensing or other use of Manson's likeness, story, music or other intellectual property or property rights owned by Manson. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the income and royalty rights to Manson's book, Manson: In His Own Words could have been attached.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Charles “Tex” Watson which YOU contend could have been attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Plaintiffs construe this interrogatory as referring to assets which could have been attached or levied upon, meaning “in the past”, and not assets which, in the future, could have been available for attachment (or levying) but for Defendant's negligence. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs are informed and believe that assets “which might have been attached” include income generated from the licensing or other use of Watson's likeness, story or other intellectual property or property rights owned by Watson. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the income and royalty rights to Watson book, Will You Die For Me? could have been attached.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Susan Atkins which YOU contend could have been attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Plaintiffs construe this interrogatory as referring to assets which could have been attached or levied upon, meaning “in the past”, and not assets which, in the future, could have been available for attachment (or levying) but for Defendant's negligence. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs are informed and believe that assets “which might have been attached” include income generated from the licensing or other use of Atkins's likeness, story or other intellectual property or property rights owned by Atkins. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the income and royalty rights to Atkins book, Child of Satan, Child of God, could have been attached.

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

, 2006 WL 2542148

...

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Patricia Krenwinkle which YOU contend could have been attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Plaintiffs construe this interrogatory as referring to assets which could have been attached or levied upon, meaning “in the past”, and not assets which, in the future, could have been available for attachment (or levying) but for Defendant's negligence. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs are informed and believe that assets “which might have been attached” include income generated from the licensing or other use of Krenwinkle's likeness, story or other intellectual property or property rights owned by Krenwinkle.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

which YOU contend could have been

attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Plaintiffs construe this interrogatory as referring to assets which could have been attached or levied upon, meaning “in

the past”, and not assets which, in the future, could have been available for attachment (or levying) but for Defendant's negligence. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs are informed and believe that assets “which

might have been attached” include income generated from the licensing or other use of

Kasabian's
Kasabian's

likeness, story or other

intellectual property or property rights owned by

Kasabian .
Kasabian .

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Charles Manson.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10.

Responding party is informed and believes that Charles Manson is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison - Corcoran, B-33920, P. O. Box 3476, Corcoran, CA 93212.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Do YOU contend that Charles Manson is likely to be released from prison prior to his death?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. It is unlikely, but Plaintiffs have no idea.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Charles Manson should be released from prison prior to his death.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Plaintiffs have no position on this issue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Charles “Tex” Watson.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Responding Party is informed and believes that Charles Watson is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison; B-37999, Box 409000, lone, CA 95640-9000.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Do YOU contend that Charles “Tex” Watson is likely to be released from prison prior to his death?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. It is unlikely, but Plaintiffs have no idea.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Charles “Tex” Watson should be released from prison prior to his death.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 15:

Plaintiffs have no position on this issue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Susan Atkins.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Responding Party is informed and believes that Susan Atkins is currently incarcerated at The California Institution for Women, 08304 MA - 55 - L, 16756 Chino-Corona Road, Corona, CA 92880-9508.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Do YOU contend that Susan Atkins is likely to be released from prison prior to her death?

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

,

2006 WL 2542148

...

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. This issue is not within Plaintiffs knowledge.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Susan Atkins should be released from prison prior to her death.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Plaintiffs have no position on this issue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Patricia Krenwinkle.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Responding Party is informed and believes that Patricia Krenwinkle is currently incarcerated at The California Institution for Women, 16756 Chino-Corona Road, Corona, CA 92880-9508.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Do YOU contend that Patricia Krenwinkle is likely to be released from prison prior to her death?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. This issue is not within Plaintiffs knowledge.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Patricia Krenwinkle should be released from prison prior to her death.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Plaintiffs have no position on this issue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of

Linda Kasabian .
Linda Kasabian .

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

, 2006 WL 2542148

...

Responding Party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to this interrogatory and has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons and by inquiries on the internet.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

Do YOU contend that

Linda Kasabian
Linda Kasabian

has the financial means to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT?

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

Discovery has not yet been initiated; Plaintiffs have no information on this issue.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

If YOUR response to the previous interrogatory is in the affirmative, set forth each and every reason why YOU believe

Linda Kasabian

would have the financial means to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

Not applicable.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Christian Schrobsdorff.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Plaintiffs do not know the “current” whereabouts of Christian Schrobsdorff, but are informed that he maintains his business at: Blvd. Vitosha No. 36, Et 4, Sofia 1000, Bulgaria.

Dated: January 3, 2006

Footnotes

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

<<signature>>

William Gwire, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Appendix not available.

  • 1 Inconsistent with their Response to Request for Admission No. 4, Plaintiffs assert that royalty income from a book about Tex Watson entitled Will You Die for Me? should be available to satisfy the judgment. See Piotr Kona's Response to Special Interrogatory No. 6 (attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. “C”). However, the amount of such royalties is not disclosed, and documents produced by Plaintiffs conclusively show that all royalties went to “Chaplain Ray,” the author and copyright holder of the book, not Tex Watson. See May 16, 2006 letter from Baker Publishing Group to Plaintiff's counsel Laura Van

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the

...

, 2006 WL 2542148

...

Hoff (“On the contract it was stated that the royalties be paid to Chaplain Ray Hoekstra for his International Prison Ministry. No money for this book was paid to Tex Watson”); Hafey Decl. ¶ 6 and Exh. “D.”

  • 2 Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to “update” their answers to Form and Special Interrogatories when defendant Friedman, APC served Form Interrogatories, Set One on June 2, 2006 and defendant Friedman served a Supplemental Interrogatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.070. Hafey Decl. ¶ 16 and Exh. “H.” No new information was provided in response to these interrogatories. Hafey Decl. ¶ 15.

End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.