Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to First Document Production Requests

8/15/2019 Motion to Compel COLV to Respond to First Document Production Requests

1/19

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

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’SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONTO COMPEL RESPONSES TOREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS, SET ONE FROMDEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATEDSERVICES; MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF GEORGE SHARPIN SUPPORT THEREOF

Date: August 5, 2016Time: 1:30 p.m.Dept: C-72:


2/19

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

Court for an order compelling responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Propounded to

Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC . (hereinafter “RPDs”), Request No. 1.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 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


3/19

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1.

INTRODUCTIONPlaintiff served a first round of document discovery requests on Defendant, to which

Defendant has not responded in any way.

Plaintiff has twice attempted to meet and confer to resolve this issue informally.

Defendant did not respond to either Meet and Confer effort. 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 February 10, 2016, the Plaintiff served its first set of Requests for Production. Not a

single document was produced nor was an objection lodged in response.

On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff emailed a request to Meet and Confer to Defendant’s

counsel. (Decl. Sharp ¶ 4 ; Exhibit “ B” March 24, 2016 Request to Meet and Confer) Thecourtesy of a response was not received.

On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff initiated a second attempt to Meet and Confer with

Defendant’s Counsel. (Decl. Sharp ¶ 6; Exhibit “ C” March 29, 2016 Request to Meet and


4/19

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

3. LEGAL DISCUSSION

Because Defendant has failed to provi de sufficient responses to Plaintiff’s discoveryrequests 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:

“The civil discovery statutes are ‘intended to accomplish 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 and exposing 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 settlement; (5) to

expedite 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.


5/19

1

23

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

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 Pla intiff’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).

An agreement to comply must state that the production and inspection demanded will be

allowed (in whole or in part) and that the documents or things in the respondi ng party’s

possession, custody, or control will be produced. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220. In addition,

“compliance” is satisfied by producing the documents either as they are kept in the usual course

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


6/19

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

C. The Imposition of Sanctions against Defendant and Its Counsel Is

WarrantedCode of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 defines discovery misuse as follows:

Misuses of the discovery processes include, but are not limited to the

following: . . .

(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes

unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden

expense.

(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to

discovery.

(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 states, in pertinent part:

To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular

discovery method or any other provision of this title, the Court, after notice to any

affected party, person or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose

the following sanctions against any one engaging in conduct that is a misuse of

the discovery process:

(a) The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that (1)engaging i n the misuse of the discovery process , or any attorney advising that

conduct, or both, pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred

by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Emphasis added.)


7/19

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction

unjust.

In this case, Defendant’s patently refused to respond to the discovery requests.

The discovery propounded on Defendant were authorized methods of discovery, and its

and its counsel’s actions in failing to provide proper responses constitute a misuse of the

discovery process, as do the failures to substantively meet and confer. As a result of

Defendant’s action, Plaintiff has been forced to file the instant motion. Based on Defendant’s

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 RPD 1 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


8/19

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

DECLARATION OF GEORGE SHARP

I, George Sharp, declare as follows:

1. I am over 18 years of age and am the Plaintiff in this case. I have personal

knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called as a witness would truthfully and competently

testify to the following.

2. On February 10, 2016, I served Request for Production of Documents, Set One on

the Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. A ttached as Exhibit “ A” is a true and correctcopy of this discovery request.

3. On March 24 , 2016, I sent a Meet and Confer request to Defendant’s Counsel,

Robert Huston, regarding responses to the document requests. Attached as Exhibit “ B” is a true

copy of this Meet and Confer letter.

4. On March 29, 2016, I sent a second Meet and Confer request to Defendant’s

Counsel, Robert Huston, regarding responses to the document requests. Attached as Exhibit “ C”

is a true copy of this Meet and Confer letter.

5. I have not received any response to my efforts to Meet and Confer.

6. I have not received any responses to the Request for Production of Documents,

Set One.

7. I have advanced $60 as a filing fee for this motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct. This declaration was executed on May 24, 2016 in San Diego,California.

____________________________


9/19

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

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

[email protected].

On May 24, 2016, at approximately 8:30 p.m., I served true copies of the foregoingdocuments described as PLAINTIFF GEORGE SHARP’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 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

[email protected]

Robert Huston

[email protected]

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


10/19


11/19

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., TELUPAYINTERNATIONAL, INC., ECRYPTTECHNOLOGIES, 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 ONE

Trial Date: none

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff George Sharp

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.

SET NUMBER: One


12/19

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 March 21, 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, discuss ion,

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


13/19

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 requ est 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 address es and

telephone numbers;

d) the nature and substance of said DOCUMENT set forth with sufficient


14/19

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. 1

Copies of all Opinion Letters and other documents which recommended directed or

enabled the removal of legends on previously restricted stock certificates for the period January

1, 2014 to the present.

Dated: February 10, 2016

By. ______________________________George S harp


15/19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP. 1013A, CG 002015.5STATE 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

[email protected].

On February 10, 2016, at approximately 12:30 p.m., I served true copies of the foregoing

documents described as REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY

DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., SET ONE on the interested

parties in this action, addressed as follows:

Kenneth Stone

THE STONE LAW GROUP

[email protected]

Robert Huston

[email protected]

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 thisdeclaration was executed February 10, 2016.


16/19


17/19

1

George Sharp

From: George Sharp Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:08 M

To: !o!"hus#[email protected]: %e$$e#h S#o$e &'hs#o$e@ho#ma().com*Subject: Sharp + S#oc'T(ps.com - our c)(e$#: oas#a) $#egra#ed Ser+(ces, $c.

Dear. Mr. Huston:

This letter shall be considered an attempt to Meet and Confer with respect to a Request For Production of Documents, et !ne propounded on "our client on

Februar" #$, %$#&. To date, ' ha(e not recei(ed an" responses to these requests and as the allowed b" code has lapsed, "our client has wai(ed all ob)ections andmust produce the responsi(e documents.

*indl" let me +now when ' ma" e pect these documents so that ' ma" a(oid ha(in- to file a Motion to Compel. ' am prepared to dela" such a filin- until pril /,%$#&.

Re-ards,

0eor-e harp1#$234/23355


18/19


19/19