SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ONE

Similar documents
a. Name of person served:

Please reply to: Joyia Z. Greenfield Zachariah R. Tomlin May 6, 2016

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

a Delaware limited liability company CK $ $ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF v;.r1l,~ FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Location (address): 1138 Howard Street, San Francisco CA (877)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. CASE NO. 113CV Plaintiff,

E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G-84481

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA * * *

Case 3:17-cv VC Document 88-1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:07-cv SI Document 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

Plaintiff, Defendant. GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1. The following responses are without in any way waiving or intending to waive:

If You Purchased a Power Pressure Cooker between March 1, 2013 and January 19, 2018, You Could Get Benefits from a Proposed Class Action Settlement

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Attorney for Defendant LAGUNA WHOLESALE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701

Submit a Claim Exclude Yourself Object Go to a Hearing Do Nothing

QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES

1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.

Case 1:13-cv DLH-CSM Document 172 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:14-cv RJS Document 67 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

11/16/2017 1:46 PM 17CV10996

Case 3:07-cv SI Document Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2017. Exhibit D

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANSWER WITH CROSS-CLAIM

COMES NOW San Juan County and moves the Court to defer consideration

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST AND CONTINUING INTERROGATORIES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:11-cv NLH-KMW Document 19 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 196 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:17-cv JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 5:07-cv RMW Document 1 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

Case 3:16-cv SI Document 39 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 5

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 576 Filed: 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:22601

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2012 INDEX NO /2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2012

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 133 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:13-cv TSC Document 41-2 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 82 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 7

Case3:14-cv VC Document45 Filed01/12/15 Page1 of 43

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION CASE NO. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case5:10-cv RMW Document207 Filed03/11/14 Page1 of 7

Case 3:07-cv TEH Document 32 Filed 08/06/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:16-cv AJN Document 176 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

Case 1:16-cv TSE-TCB Document 114 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 1372

being preempted by the court's criminal calendar.

Investigations and Enforcement

Filing # E-Filed 09/14/ :37:55 PM

JUSTICE COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Case 3:17-cv AJB-KSC Document 1 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8

Case3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8

Case3:15-cv Document1 Filed01/09/15 Page1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 214 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION [Required For Bench Trials over two (2) hours]

CAUSE NO. INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DEVELOPMENT, IX, LTD., VS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Purpose of Mandatory Fee Arbitration

Attorneys for BERKES CRANE ROBINSON & SEAL, LLP and the class of similarly situated persons SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1

Case: 1:08-cv Document #: 679 Filed: 02/16/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:29342

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIRST DISTRICT

Legal 145b FINAL EXAMINATION. Prepare a Motion to Quash Subpoena.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Case 3:15-cr BAS Document 166 Filed 03/02/17 PageID.752 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:13-cv JST Document 879 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 7

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 11

SUPERIOR COURT OF TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMI'I'ED CIVIL JURISDICTION

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION (CPS Trial)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. [Complaint Filed 11/24/2010] [Alameda County Case No.

Case 2:18-cv KJD-CWH Document 7 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 7

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIMS

Plaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Roger T. Castle 1888 Sherman Street, Suite 415 Denver, CO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO COMPEL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) Defendants. )

Case 2:14-cv SJO-FFM Document 27 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:773

Transcription:

EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 7

1 JON B. ZIMMERMAN [SBN. 1121] GREGORY B. COHEN [SBN. 225510] 2 ROBINSON & WOOD, INC. 227 N 1st Street 3 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 298-7120 4 Facsimile: (408) 298-0477 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 WESTERN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, MCLARLAND, V ARQUEZ & PARTNERS, 15 GROUP M ENGINEERS, GENTRY ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION 16 CONSULTANTS, LARCO INDUSTRIES, FITCH PLASTERING, COURTNEY 17 WATERPROOFING, CELL CRETE, LOS NIETOS CONSTRUCTION, MADERA 18 FRAMING, KELLY DOOR, TARA COATINGS, LDI, and DOES 1-100, 19 inclusive, Case No. 113CV2581 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR 20 21 22 Defendant. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 23 24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: 25 RESPONDING PARTY: 26 SET NO.: Defendant and Cross-Defendant, TARA COATINGS, INC. Plaintiff, CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC ONE 1041151 27 ~~==~~~~~~~~~~==~~1~~~~~ ~ PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC'S REQUESTS FOR

U z... ~ 3:: Q «0...:1 o f- ~~ ~G:; z Z 0:: o 0 rjl f- Z f- -< Q:I 0 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PREFATORY STATEMENT This Responding Party has not fully completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery, and has not completed its preparation for trial or arbitration. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information documents as are presently available to and specifically known to this Responding Party and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to such Responding Party. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the contentions herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered act or fact which this Responding Party may later recall. This Responding Party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein set forth as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, and contentions are made. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as are presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this Responding Party in relation to further 18 discovery, research or analysis. 19 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: 21 Admit that the Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the 22 Settlement Agreement and Release between Cilker Apartments, LLC, William H. Cilker, Sr., Carl 23 A. Cilker, and Elizabeth Cilker Smith and Michael K. Hayde the Non-Exempt QTIP Marital Trust 24 of the Glass Family Trust Dated February 18, 1982 and Western National Construction, a 25 California Corporation. 26 / / / 27 / / / / / / 1041151 2 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: 2 Objection. This request is seeks a response based on information protected from 3 disclosure by the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges. This request is also vague 4 and ambiguous. 5 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 6 Admit that this appears to be a copy of the limited settlement agreement. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2: 8 Admit that YOU made claims against Western National Construction related to 9 construction defects at THE PROPERTY in 2006. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2: 11 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 12 terms "claims" and "construction defects" as they are not defined herein. Additionally, this 13 request is improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure by the 14 attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges. 15 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 16 Responding party cannot admit or deny the request as phrased, but it is nevertheless 17 denied. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3: 19 Admit that the defects that YOU alleged in 2006 related to THE PROJECT encompass the 20 same defects that YOU are claiming against Western National Construction in the current 21 litigation. 22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3: 23 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 24 term "defects" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as it seeks a 25 response based on information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and attorney-work 26 product privileges. 27 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 1041151 3 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR

1 Responding party cannot admit or deny the request as phrased, but it is nevertheless 2 denied. 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4: 4 Admit that the Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" refers to claims of defective work 5 on THE PROJECT which YOU were aware of in 2006. 6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4: 7 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 8 terms "claims" and "defective" as they are not defined herein. Further, this request is improper as 9 it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and 10 attorney-work product privileges. Additionally, the document speaks for itself. 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: 12 Admit that the defective work referred to in the Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 13 resulted in a written estimate of repair prior to YOU entering into the Settlement Agreement & 14 Release attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: 16 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous and unintelligible. It is 17 further vague as to the terms "defective" and "written estimate of repair" as they are not defined 18 herein. Additionally, this request is improper as it seeks a response based on information 19 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges. Finally, the 20 document speaks for itself. 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: 22 Admit that the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A" limits 23 YOUR recovery for any claims against any subcontractor on THE PROJECT to the insurance 24 policy limits that they may have. 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: 26 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 27 terms "claims" as it is not defined herein. Calls for a legal conclusion. Additionally, this request 1041151 4 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC'S REQUESTS FOR

1 is improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure by the attorney- 2 client and attorney-work product privileges. Finally, the document speaks for itself. 3 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 4 Responding party cannot admit or deny the request as phrased, but it is nevertheless 5 denied. 6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7: 7 Admit that YOU were aware of water intrusion issues on THE PROJECT at the time of 8 execution ofthe Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7: 10 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 11 term "water intrusion issues" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as it 12 seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and 13 attorney-work product privileges. 14 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 15 Responding party cannot admit or deny the request as phrased, but it is nevertheless 16 denied. 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8: 18 Admit that YOU submitted a defective work claim to Western National Construction 19 related to THE PROJECT in 2006. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8: 21 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 22 term "defective work claim" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as it 23 seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney-client and 24 attorney-work product privileges. 25 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 26 Responding party cannot admit or deny the request as phrased, but it is nevertheless 27 denied. I0411S1 5 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC'S REQUESTS FOR

1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: 2 Admit that the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A" does not 3 contain any agreement to toll any statute of limitations related to any claims for defective work 4 related to THE PROJECT. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: 6 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. Additionally, this request is 7 improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney- 8 client and attorney-work product privileges. Further, this request is improper as it seeks a legal 9 conclusion. Finally, the document speaks for itself. Accordingly, this request is improper, and a 10 response cannot be provided thereto. u z -~ ~ ~ «0...:1 o r- ~;;; ~~ z z e<: o 0 rfj r- Z r- -< CQ 0 ~ 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: 12 Admit that the lack of slope on the podium deck was part of the "defective work" claims as 13 referenced in the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: 15 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 16 term "defective work claims" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as 17 it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney-client and 18 attorney-work product privileges. 19 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 20 Denied. 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: 22 Admit that thc lack of slope on the private balconies was pati of the "defective work" 23 claims as referenced in the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: 25 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 26 term "defective work claims" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as 27 it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges. 1041151 6 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC'S REQUESTS FOR

1 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 2 Denied. 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: 4 Admit that the lack of slope on THE PROJECT substrates was part of the "defective work" 5 claims as referenced in the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: 7 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 8 term "defective work claims" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as 9 it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney-client and 10 attorney-work product privileges. 11 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 12 Denied. 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 14 Admit that improper installation of waterproofing materials on THE PROJECT was part of 15 the "defective work" claims as referenced in the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto 16 as Exhibit "A". 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 18 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 19 term "defective work claims" as it is not defined herein. Additionally, this request is improper as 20 it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney-client and 21 attorney-work product privileges. 22 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 23 Denied. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: 25 Admit that at the time of signing the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as 26 Exhibit "A" there was no ongoing repair work related to the "defective work" as referenced in the 27 signing the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "AI!. 1041151 7 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: 2 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 3 terms "defective work claims" and "ongoing repair work" as they are not defined herein. 4 Additionally, this request is improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from 5 disclosure from the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges. Finally, given the 6 manner in which this request was drafted, it is unintelligible as it is not clear as to what the 7 Propounding Party is requesting that the Responding Party admit or deny. Accordingly, no 8 response to this request can be provided. 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: 10 Admit that at the time of signing the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as 11 Exhibit "A" YOU were contemplating filing a lawsuit for construction defects against Western 12 National Construction. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: 14 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. Additionally, this request is 15 improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney- 16 client and attorney-work product privileges. 17 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: 18 Responding party cannot admit or deny the request as phrased, but it is nevertheless 19 denied. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 21 Admit that at the time of signing the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as 22 Exhibit "A" YOU knew that Tara Coatings, Inc. performed the above grade waterproofing work 23 on THE PROJECT. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 25 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. It is further vague as to the 26 term "performed" as it is not defined herein. 27 Without waiving said objections, this Responding Party answers as follows: Responding Party is unable to admit or deny this request at this time. 1041151 8 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC,'S REQUESTS FOR

1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: 2 Admit that the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A" bars YOU 3 from prosecuting this case against Western National Construction. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: 5 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. Additionally, this request is 6 improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney- 7 client and attorney-work product privileges. Finally, this request improperly seeks a legal 8 conclusion. 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 10 Admit that the Settlement Agreement & Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A" bars YOU 11 from prosecuting this case against Tara Coatings, Inc. 12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 13 Objection. This request is compound, vague and ambiguous. Additionally, this request is 14 improper as it seeks a response based on information protected from disclosure from the attorney- 15 client and attorney-work product privileges. Finally, this request improperly seeks a legal 16 conclusion. 17 Dated: December 21, 2015 ROBINSON & WOOD, INC. 18 19 20 21 22 By: JON B. ZIMMERMAN GREGORY B. COHEN Attorneys for Plaintiff, CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC 23 24 25 26 27 1041151 9 PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 c,) ~ 12 ~ i3: j o 13 f- ~~ 14 ~~ Zo ~ ~ :5< 15 IXl 16 0 ~ 17 18 19 20 VERIFICATION Cilker Apartments, LLC v. Western National Construction, et at., Case No. 113CV2581 I have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLGS RESPONSES TO TARA COATINGS, INC.'S REQUESTS FOR and know its contents. I am an Authorized Representative of Cilker Apartments, LLC, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. Executed on DecembeOI, 2015, at San Jose, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Cdrl Cilk r 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1042410 1