Date post: | 05-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | george-sharp |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
1/36
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
George Sharp 3525 Del Mar Heights Road, #620
San Diego, CA 92130(310) 498-4455(619) 446-6717 fax
In Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION
GEORGE A. SHARP,
Plaintiff,
v.
STOCKTIPS.COM, AMERADA CORP.,LALUNA SERVICES, INC., TELUPAYINTERNATIONAL, INC., ECRYPTTECHNOLOGIES, INC., ALKAMEHOLDINGS, INC., WELL POWER, INC.,
TIGER OIL AND ENERGY, INC.,COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.,EMPIRE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.,QUICKSILVER STOCK TRANSFER, INC.,ROBERT BANDFIELD, AWEBERSYSTEMS, INC. ADRIAN HERMANTHOMAS, HAROLD GEWERTER andDOES 8 through 500, inclusive,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
))))
))))))))))
)))))))))
)))))
Case No. 37-2015-0008210-CU-NP-CTL
(Assigned for all purposes to Hon. TimothyTaylor )
PLAINTIFF GEORGE SHARP’S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET TWO FROM
DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED
SERVICES; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF GEORGE SHARP
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Date: August 5, 2016Time: 1:30 p.m.Dept: C-72:
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
2/36
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Court for an order compelling further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two,
Pro pounded to Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter “RPDs”),Requests Nos. 2 through 16 as set forth in the separate Statement of RPDs and Responses in
Dispute. Plaintiff further moves the Court for an order that Defendant and its counsel, Robert
Huston, pay the sum of $60 as the reasonable costs incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the
filing of this motion to compel further responses.
This motion is made on the grounds that the discovery sought is relevant to the
subject matter of this action. Defendant’s refusal to respond to the discovery requests at issue
herein is without substantial justification and in bad faith. The motion is based on this notice, the
following memorandum of points and authorities and declaration of George Sharp and the
attached exhibits, the separate statements filed concurrently herewith, the papers and records on
file with the court herein, and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented at
the time of hearing.
Dated: May 24, 2016
By. ______________________________George SharpIn Propria Persona
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
3/36
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1.
INTRODUCTIONPlaintiff served a round of document discovery requests on Defendant, to which
Defendant made identical blanket objections to each request.
Upon receipt of the Defendant’s responses, Plaintiff immediately attempted to meet and
confer to resolve this issue informally. Defendant did not respond to the Meet and Confer effort.
No agreement has been reached and no supplemental responses have been provided.
Defendant’s failure to properly respond to discovery requests was done in bad faith and is
sanctionable conduct. Defendant and its counsel’s actions are flouting the discovery process
and the integrity of the judicial system in general. Defendant should be compelled to provide
further responses (and documents) and sanctioned for the necessity of this motion.
2. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
This action arises out of Plaintiff’s Complaint for violation of Business and Professions
Code § 17529.5 based on Defendant’s participation to defraud the public through a spam email
pump and dump scheme. The Plaintiff contends that this Defendant participated in the scheme to
defraud by providing cheap stock to all of the Defendants in exchange for little or no value and
for the divesture by the Defendants at over inflated prices.
On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff served its second set of Requests for Production. On
April 12, 2016, Defendant served its blanket objections in the form of responses to the RPDs.
Not a single document was produced. Defendant claimed to have no documents responsive to
Requests 6 and 7, but issues the same objection to Request 2 through 5 and 8 through 15; to whit:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
4/36
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff emailed a request to Meet and Confer to Defendant’s
counsel. (Decl. Sharp ¶ 4; Exhibit “C” April 12, 2016 Request to Meet and Confer) Thecourtesy of a response was not received.
On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff initiated a second attempt to Meet and Confer with
Defendant’s Counsel. (Decl. Sharp ¶ 6; Exhibit “D” April 12, 2016 Request to Meet and
Confer).
On May 24, 2016, Defendant’s Counsel provided a glib response to the Plaintiff’s second
Meet and Confer attempt . (Decl. Sharp ¶ 7; Exhibit “E” April 12, 2016 Request to Meet And
Confer), but did not provide any assurances that documents would be forthcoming.
Because defense counsel has failed to provide sufficient responses or to produce the
requested documents, this motion to compel further responses was necessary.
3. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Because Defendant has failed to provide sufficient responses to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests and is withholding documents, and instead provided baseless blanket objections, this
Motion should be granted.
A. Plaintiff Has a Right to Discovery from Defendant
Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 states, in part:
“…any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made
in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence .” (Emphasis added.)
In Fuss v. Superior Court , the Court of Appeals stated, in part, as follows:
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
5/36
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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 settlement; (5) toexpedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against a surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and
narrow the issues; and (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. 273 Cal.App.2d,
807, 815-16 (1969) (citing Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct., 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376).
California’s discovery procedures “are designed to minimize the opportunities for
fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side’s
evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.” Glenfed Dev.
Corp. v. Super. Ct ., 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 (1997). “The purpose of pretrial discovery is to
obtain all of the facts relative to a claim or defense.” Hernandez v. Super. Ct., 112 Cal.App.4th
285, 301 (2003). For discovery purposes, information sought is “relevant to the subject matter”
if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial or facilitating
settlement thereof. Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2001).
Plaintiff’s discovery efforts have been thwarted by Defendant as a result of its bad faith
responses and refusal to provide further responses, despite Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort. As
set forth below, Defendant has failed to make a good faith effort to respond to the requests, and
good cause exists to justify an order compelling the discovery sought.
B. Defendant Has Failed to Sufficiently Respond to Plaintiff’s RPDs
The party to whom a demand for documents is directed must respond separately to each
item in the demand by one of the following: (a) a statement that the party will comply by the date
set for inspection with the particular demand for inspection; (b) a statement that the party lacks
the ability to comply with the particular demand; or (c) an objection to all or part of the demand.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
6/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
of business or sorted and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand. Id.
at 2031.280(a). An inability to comply “shall” state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry
has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded, as well as the reason the party is unable
to comply (e.g., the document never existed, has been lost or stolen, was inadvertently destroyed,
or is not in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party). Id. at 2031.230. With
respect to objections, the objection must identify with particularity the specific document or
evidence to which the objection is made. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b). Objections constitute
implicit refusals to produce documents. Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct ., 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901
(1990).
With respect to Defendant’s responses to the RPDs, Defendant refused to produce
documents in response to RPD No. 2 through 5 and 8 through 16 and represented it “has no non-
privileged responsive documents” in response to RPD Nos. 6 and 7.
These responses and the refusal to produce documents are insufficient and require an
order compelling further responses and documents.
Moreover, none of Defendant’s written responses to the RPDs at issue comply with the
requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, as discussed in more detail in the concurrently filed
Statement. Thus, further written responses withdrawing the objection and agreeing to comply
with the RPDs must be provided.
C. The Imposition of Sanctions against Defendant and Its Counsel Is
Warranted
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 defines discovery misuse as follows:
Misuses of the discovery processes include, but are not limited to the
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
7/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
8/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
bad faith actions, sanctions in the amount of $60 should be imposed against Defendant and its
counsel.
4. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff George Sharp respectfully requests that the Court
order Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. to provide complete substantive responses to
the RPDs 2 through 15 at issue in this Motion. Plaintiff further requests that the Court impose
sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, Robert Huston, in the amount of $60.
Dated: May 24, 2016
By. ______________________________George SharpIn Propria Persona
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
9/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
10/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP. 1013A, CG 002015.5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I, the undersigned, reside in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the
age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3525 Del
Mar Heights Road, Suite 620, San Diego, California 92130. My email address is
On May 24, 2016, at approximately 5:30 p.m., I served true copies of the foregoing
documents described as PLAINTIFF GEORGE SHARP’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO FROM DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED
SERVICES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
GEORGE SHARP IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action,
addressed as follows:
Kenneth Stone
THE STONE LAW GROUP
Robert Huston
BY EMAIL: The documents were scanned and uploaded to the One Legal internetwebsite with the instruction to forward the documents to the interested parties. I am "readily
familiar" with the practice of uploading to One Legal for email forwarding.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
11/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
12/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
George Sharp3525 Del Mar Heights Road, #620San Diego, CA 92130
(310) 498-4455(619) 446-6717 fax
In Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION
GEORGE SHARP,
Plaintiff,
v.
STOCKTIPS.COM, AMERADA CORP.,
LALUNA SERVICES, INC., TELUPAY
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ECRYPT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ALKAMEHOLDINGS, INC., WELL POWER, INC.,
COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
Defendants.
___________________________________
))))))
)))))))))))))))
Case No.: 37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL
(Assigned for all purposes to Hon. TimothyTaylor )
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANTCOASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES,
INC., SET TWO
Trial Date: none
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff George Sharp
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
SET NUMBER: Two
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
13/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
produce the following documents for copying and inspection at 3525 Del Mar Heights Road,
Suite 620, at 10:00 a.m. on April 29, 2016
DEFINITIONS
1. “YOU” or “YOUR” means Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC., its employees, agents, attorneys, accountants, transfer agents, officers,
directors, affiliates, successors, assigns, partners, representatives, any person or entity acting on
its behalf, at his request or with his authorization.
2. “PERSON” or “PERSONS” mean any natural person, association,
partnership, corporation, organization, business, trust, joint venture, receiver, estate, syndicate or
any other entity or combination acting as a unit or acting as a form of legal entity, including the
parties to this suit and their members, officers, directors, partners, agents, contractors,
subcontractors, employees, representatives and affiliates.
5. “REGARDING,” “RELATING TO” or “RELATE TO” means
mentioning, discussing, summarizing, describing, regarding, referring to, relating to, evidencing,
depicting, embodying, constituting or reporting.
6. “COMMUNICATION” means any meeting, conversation, discussion,
correspondence, message or other occurrence where thoughts, opinions or data are transmitted
between two or more PERSONS.
7. The terms “DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” are used in their
broadest possible sense and mean, without limitation, any kind of written, printed, typed,
photostatic, photographed, recorded or otherwise reproduced communication or representation,
whether comprised of letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds, syllables or any combination
thereof, regardless of whether the same is an original, a copy, a reproduction, a facsimile or draft,
and regardless of the source or author thereof. This definition includes copies or duplicates of
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
14/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
working papers, summaries, statistical statements, financial statements or work papers, accounts,
invoices, receipts, payment records, analytical records, reports and/or summaries of
investigations, trade letters, press releases, comparisons, books, calendars, diaries, articles,
magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, notices, drawings,
diagrams, instructions, notes or minutes of meetings or other communications of any type,
including inter- and intra-office communications, faxed materials (including fax cover sheets),
questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, photographs, phonograph recordings, electronic mail,
film, tapes, disks, diskettes, data cells, tape back-ups, drums, print-outs, all other data
compilations from which information can be obtained (translated, if necessary, by YOU into
usable form), and any preliminary versions, drafts or revisions of any of the foregoing, whether
used or not, and any writings as defined by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
8. If any DOCUMENT is withheld under a claim of privilege, to assist theCourt and the parties hereto in determining the validity of the claim of privilege, you are asked to
furnish a list (“Privilege Log”) signed by the person supervising the response to this request for
production of DOCUMENTS, which identifies each DOCUMENT for which the privilege is
claimed, together with the following information regarding said document:
a) the date of the DOCUMENT;
b) the identity of the PERSON who signed said DOCUMENT or on whose
behalf it was sent or issued, including said PERSON’S last known
business and home addresses and telephone numbers;
c) the identity of the PERSON to whom said DOCUMENT was directed,
including said PERSON’S last known business and home addresses and
telephone numbers;
d) the nature and substance of said DOCUMENT set forth with sufficient
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
15/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
f) the number of pages in the DOCUMENT;
g) the basis upon which any privilege is claimed;
h) whether or not any non-privileged matter is included within the document;
and
i) the number of the document request to which such DOCUMENT relates
or corresponds.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
All documents relating to the formation of the corporation currently known as Coastal
Integrated Services, Inc, its predecessors, affiliates and subsidiaries.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3All documents relating to the assignments and resignations of any officers and directors
of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. or its predecessor company(s) since May 2, 2009.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4
All documents relating to general meetings of the shareholders of Coastal Integrated
Services, Inc. and its predecessors, including minutes of those meetings, since May 2, 2009.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5
All minutes of meetings of the directors of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. and its
predecessors since May 2, 2009.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6
All written communications, including letters, emails and contracts regarding investor
relations programs on behalf of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
16/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8
All documentation referencing the transfer of ownership of common stock, preferred
stock, stock options, and warrants in Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9
All documentation referencing the issuance of common stock, preferred stock, stock
options, and warrants in Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
All written communications, including letters, emails and contracts between Coastal
Integrated Services, Inc. or its predecessors and its transfer agents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
All documentation referring to contracts or letters of intent or business agreements
between Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., or its predecessors and any other entity.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12
All press releases issued on behalf of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc and its
predecessors.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13
All SEC filings on behalf of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc and its predecessors.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14
All disclosures and/or filings to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA),
OTC Markets or other market facilitators or regulators.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15
All documentation referencing financing of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., or its
predecessors, including but not limited to equity financing, notes and debentures (convertible or
not).
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
17/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Dated: March 25, 2016
By. ______________________________George Sharp
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
18/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP. 1013A, CG 002015.5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I, the undersigned, reside in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over theage of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3525 Del
Mar Heights Road, Suite 620, San Diego, California 92130. My email address is
On March 25, 2016, at approximately 8:45 a.m., I served true copies of the foregoing
documents described as REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY
DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., SET TWO on the interested
parties in this action, addressed as follows:
Kenneth Stone
THE STONE LAW GROUP
Robert Huston
BY EMAIL: The documents were scanned and uploaded to the One Legal internet
website with the instruction to forward the documents to the interested parties. I am "readily
familiar" with the practice of uploading to One Legal for email forwarding.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed March 25, 2016.
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
19/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
20/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
21/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is
subject to all appropriate objections, including competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety
and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any response set forth herein if the
question were asked of, or any response were made by, a witness present and testifying
in court. All such objections are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
Responding Party has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this
action and has not yet completed its discovery in this action. Responding Party has not
yet consulted all intended expert witnesses and has not yet completed its preparation for
trial. Consequently, the following responses are given without prejudice to the plaintiff's
right to produce, at time of trial, subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of
presently known material facts and to produce all evidence whenever discovered, relating
to the proof of subsequently discovered material facts.
This preliminary statement is, by reference hereto, incorporated into each of the
responses herein.
Response to Request for Production No. 2:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
22/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Response to Request for Production No. 3:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of responding to such
requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
Responding Party declines the request.
Response to Request for Production No. 4:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
request.
Response to Request for Production No. 5:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
23/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Response to Request for Production No. 6:
Responding Party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry as to the
whereabouts of the documents, but is unable to comply with the Request because
Responding Party does not believe that the documents ever existed, and are not in its
possession, custody or control.
Response to Request for Production No. 7:
Responding Party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry as to the
whereabouts of the documents, but is unable to comply with the Request because
Responding Party does not believe that the documents ever existed, and are not in its
possession, custody or control.
Response to Request for Production No. 8:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
request.
Response to Request for Production No. 9:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
24/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
25/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
request.
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of responding to such
requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
Responding Party declines the request.
Response to Request for Production No. 14:
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
request.
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad
and thus places an undue burden on this Defendant to respond.
To the extent that this request requires production of Responding Party’s filings with
OTC Markets or the Securities and Exchange Commission, Responding Party further
objects to this request on the basis that this request for production of documents is unduly
burdensome in that it seeks documents that are publicly available on the Internet.
Responding to this request would be oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily
expensive, and the burden of responding to such requests is substantially the same or less
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
26/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
27/36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VERIFICATION BY PARTY(C.C.P. §2015.5)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
I, John Newman am the president of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., a defendantin the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof, and
I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which aretherein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters which I believe it tobe true.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that theforegoing is true and correct.
Executed this 12th day of April, 2016, at Thousand Palms, California.
_____________________________________ JOHN NEWMAN
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
28/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
29/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
30/36
1
George Sharp
From: George Sharp
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:11 !
To: "#o$er% &us%o'"Subject: #(: )*+ #espo'se %o #eues% or roduc%io' o /ocume'%s, Se% 2
Mr. Huston:
This email shall be construed as an attempt to meet and confer on your response to my Request for Production, Set Two. Your responses contain blanet
ob!ections intended to obfuscate documents and deny my ri"ht to disco#ery. You ha#e not produced a sin"le document.
$urthermore, you continue to be la% in your response to the first set of Requests for Production and ha#e not e#en pro#ided the courtesy of my pre#ious Meet
and &onfer emails.
This is my final attempt to obtain the responsi#e documents before ' file a Motion to &ompel and see sanctions.
Respectfully,
(eor"e Sharp)*+-/--00
From: Robert Huston [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 21! 12:"2 #$To: %eor&e 'harp( )enneth 'tone, *s+.Subject: -/ Response to Re+uest 0or #roduction o0 ocuments, 'et 2
Attached.
Robert J. Huston III
Attorney at Law
"We must reject the idea that every time that a law is broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept
that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
31/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
32/36
GEORGE A. SHARP
3525 Del Mar Heights Road, #620
San Diego, CA 92130310-498-4455
Fax: 619-446-6717Email: [email protected]
Re: Sharp v StockTips - SD Sup Court Case. No. 37-2015-00008210
ATTTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER
Mr. Huston:
This is email is written in a second attempt to Meet and Confer with respect to your
blanket objections to the Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.
It appears that your client wishes to assert boilerplate objections in violation of the spiritof the Discovery Act. Indeed, one court held such boilerplate objections sanctionable.
Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (Aamazing Technologies Corp.), 51 Cal. App.4th 1513, 1516 (1997).
With respect to your repeated objections based on “scope and issues of lawsuit”, I refer
you to Code of Civil Procedure § 2017(a) [CCP § 2017.010] which clearly states: “any
party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to thesubject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made
in that action . . .”
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010,
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party
may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subjectmatter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that
action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . . .” [Emphasis Added].
Discovery is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a
party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.
Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial WesternAgency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013. Further, the relevancy to the subject
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
33/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
34/36
expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery. See
Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
Further, an objection on the grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results ininjustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 272 Cal App 2d
499.
This is my final attempt to get a commitment from you on providing me with complete
and appropriate responses to my document requests. If I do not hear from you by the end
of business tomorrow with assurances that documents are forthcoming, I will file a
Motion to Compel and seek sanctions.
Respectfully,
George A. Sharp310-498-4455
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
35/36
8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to Request for Second Set of Documents
36/36
1
George Sharp
From: Robert Huston
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:0 !M
To: "eor#e $har%Cc: &enneth $tone
Subject: Re: $har% ' $toc(T)%s * +our -)ent: oasta- nte#rated $er')ces, nc. M//T 3/R TT/M!T 5M/R T73
Mr. Sharp:
Thank you for the recitation of hornbook California discovery law. Given the state of the pleadings when my client's discovery responses were
prepared (my client's name not mentioned and no specific facts alleged re my client's purported conduct) the responses were entirely appropriate.Now that you have at long last amended your pleading to directly name my client and to allege a small quantum of fact concerning its alleged
statutory violations, I will review the previous responses in that light and will give you a written conclusion by Monday, which may or may not
include some modified responses.
Robert J. Huston III
Attorney at Law
"We must reject the idea that every time that a law is broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American preceptthat each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan
On Monday, May 23, 2016 3:04 PM, George Sharp wrote:
Please see attached