In the Matter of: The Rita P. Catalano Trust of 2000

1 Because several individuals involved in this case share the same last name, some of them will be referred to by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

Property, for order directing its transfer to estate and for related claims for: 1. Financial Elder Abuse, 2. Promissory Fraud.

3. Conversion 4. Accounting and 5. Declaratory Relief.” That petition alleged that Objector induced Rita to loan her approximately $450,000, failed to repay the loans, and made misrepresentations about same. Motions Before the Court Currently before the court in docket 22PR191805 is Objector’s motion to quash a subpoena directed to Larry Stewart (“Stewart”), who conducted a forensic examination of certain trust documents. Trustee opposed the motion and Objector filed a reply. Trustee has also filed a sur-reply.

Currently before the court in docket 22PR193527 is Trustee’s motion to compel further responses to certain special interrogatories and requests for production of documents served on Objector and production of the documents. Objector has opposed the motion and Trustee has filed a reply. DISCUSSION I. Motion to Quash in Docket 22PR191805 Objector moves to quash a subpoena directed to Stewart, who conducted a forensic examination of certain trust documents. A. Trustee’s Request for Judicial Notice Trustee requests judicial notice of multiple court documents in connection with her claims that the court has already ordered Objector to produce the documents sought by the subpoena and that Objector has placed Stewart’s opinion at issue by raising it in filings with the court.

The request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). B. Legal Background The court may, “upon motion reasonably made by a [party] ... make an order quashing [a] subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subds. (a) & (b)(1).)2 In addition, the court may make “any other order as may be appropriate

2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1140-1141; Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 263, 274.) The motion to quash is DENIED. Both parties request sanctions in connection with the instant motion. “Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).) As Objector did not prevail, her request for sanctions is DENIED. Trustee requests her fees but she does not state the amount of the fees requested. Accordingly, her request is DENIED without prejudice to making a noticed motion for same. II. Motion to Compel in Docket 22PR193527 Co-Trustees move to compel Objector to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set three, numbers 10 through 31 and requests for production of documents, set five, numbers 19 through 35 and production of the requested documents.

A. Legal Background i. Interrogatories A responding party must provide non-evasive answers to interrogatories that are “as complete and straightforward...to the extent possible,” and, if after a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information they still cannot respond fully to an interrogatory, the responding party must so state in its response. (§ 2030.220.) If the responding party provides incomplete or evasive answers, or objections without merit, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling a further response to the interrogatories. (§ 2030.300, subd. (a).) ii.

Requests for Production of Documents A responding party to an inspection demand must respond separately to each item in the demand by stating one of the following: (1) an agreement to comply, (2) a representation of

inability to comply, or (3) objections. (§ 2031.210.) Additionally, section 2031.230 requires that a representation of an inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection must also “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the demand.” If a party demanding a response to an inspection demand deems: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand. (§ 2031.310, subd. (a).)

In general, a motion for an order compelling further responses to the request for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) In order to establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to show relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying the discovery. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once a showing of good cause is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to justify his or her objections. (See Kirkland v.

Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) B. Merits of the Motion Co-Trustees move to compel further responses to her special interrogatories, set three, numbers 10 through 31 and her requests for production of documents, set five, numbers 19 through 35 and production of the requested documents. As to each of these discovery requests, Objector made a blanket objection based on relevance. Co-Trustees contend that the responses are not code-compliant because they consist of the blanket objection.

Objector stands on her relevance objection. The main thrust of the claims in the petition is that Objector sought two loans in the total amount of $450,000 from Rita and then failed to repay them. The petition also alleges that Objector made misrepresentations regarding the repayment. The discovery requests at issue can be generally separated into two main categories: (1) requests seeking information regarding RPC Realty Trust, which allegedly held the home sold by Rita, the proceeds of which were used to fund the loans to Objector and requests regarding the home itself (the

Marstons Mills property) and (2) requests regarding a petition Objector filed in San Luis Obispo to appoint a successor trustee for the RPC Realty Trust and the allegations of fraudulent transfers Objector made in that petition. As to the first category of information sought, Co-Trustees argue that the petition in this docket pleads that Objector induced Rita to loan her approximately $450,000 “in connection with the anticipated availability of sale proceeds at the January 2010 closing, and then made misrepresentations regarding repayment and interest.”

Therefore, they contend, the “existence, depletion, and disposition of assets held in (or transferred out of) the RPC Realty Trust is reasonably calculated to lead to evidence concerning the source and movement of funds connected to the pleaded loan transactions, as well as [Objector’s] knowledge and credibility concerning those transactions.” The court notes that the petition does plead that Objector knew that Rita would be receiving approximately $500,000 from the sale of a Cape Cod home and that she took advantage of the situation to secure the loans. (Petition to Establish Estate’s Claim of Ownership [], filed October 25, 2022, ¶ 6.)

Co-Trustees argue that information regarding the assets currently held in the RPC Realty Trust “will lead to discoverable evidence regarding the source, transfers, and current location of property and funds connected to the pleaded loan transactions and alleged misrepresentations.” As to the second category, Co-Trustees assert that the San Luis Obispo action to appoint a successor trustee for the RPC Realty Trust is relevant because the petition in the instant case “necessarily “ involves Objector’s “understanding of the trust’s status, its assets, and the disposition of the Marstons Mills property.”

Co-Trustees claim that documents related to trustee succession will show who had authority over the Marstons Mills property at the time of its sale. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides, “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 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.

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 location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” Here, the court simply does not see the relevance of the RPC Realty Trust and, thus, the remaining items sought, to the instant proceedings. As discussed above, the petition pleads that Objector induced Rita to loan her money, failed to repay that money, and made misrepresentations about same.

It is not clear how the source of the funds that Rita loaned Objector is relevant to the outcome of the petition. The injury to Rita and, therefore to the trust, if any occurred, is the failure to repay the loans. Co-Trustees contend that this information will shed light on Objector’s knowledge and intent regarding the loan transactions but it is unclear how. Objector contends that she was not aware of the RPC Realty Trust in 2010 at the time the loans were made. But, even assuming she had such knowledge, it is not clear how that knowledge is relevant to the claims made in this case.

Co-Trustees argue that because Objector claims not to have known of the RPC Realty Trust at the time the loans were made, evidence proving that she did know about the trust would speak to her credibility. But, the discovery requests at issue go far beyond Objector’s knowledge of the trust to, for example, the current assets of the trust and trustee successorship. Co-Trustees also assert that Objector’s own filings demonstrate the relevance of the discovery sought because Objector commissioned a forensic document examination of the RPC Realty Trust instruments and filed that report with a recent declaration in support of her anti- SLAPP motion in docket 22PR191805.

To the extent the RPC Realty Trust documents might be relevant in docket 22PR191805, it would not necessarily make them relevant in docket 22PR193527. Notably, the only petition filed in docket 22PR193527 is Co-Trustees’ petition claiming non-payment of the loans. The relevance objections are sustained. The motion to compel is DENIED. Both parties request sanctions. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories,

unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2030.300, subd. (d).) Section 2031.310, subdivision (h) similarly provides, “Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Co-Trustees’ request for sanctions is DENIED as the motion has been denied. As to Objector’s request, she fails to indicate the amount of sanctions sought and requests sanctions according to proof. Accordingly, Objector’s request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to filing a noticed motion for same. CONCLUSION The motion to quash is DENIED. Objector’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Trustee’s request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to filing a noticed motion for same. The motion to compel is DENIED.

Co-Trustees’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Objector’s request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to filing a noticed motion for same. The Court will prepare the final order.