SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE--CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Michaël Fischer, Bar No. McKASSON, KLEIN & HOLMES LLP 00 Anton Boulevard, Suite 0 Costa Mesa, California Telephone: ( -0 Facsimile: ( -1 Attorneys for: Plaintiff Aurora Chavez SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE--CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER AURORA CHAVEZ, as an individual and as a shareholder and director in P.V.J. Foods, Inc., dba Marina Ranch Market, Plaintiff, vs. FRANK D ERRICO, as an individual and as a director and officer in P.V.J. Foods, Inc., dba Marina Ranch Market; P.V.J. FOODS, INC., a California Corporation, dba MARINA RANCH MARKET; and DOES 1-, Defendants. CASE NO.: 0CC0 PLAINTIFF AURORA CHAVEZ S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FRANK D ERRICO S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Judge: Dennis S. Choate Dept.: C Action Filed: //0 Trial Date: 1//0 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant Frank D Errico RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER: Plaintiff Aurora Chavez One TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Aurora Chavez ( Plaintiff, or Responding Party hereby makes the following responses to Defendant Frank D Errico s ( Defendant 1

2 Special Interrogatories, Set One pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 0. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff has not fully completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for trial. The responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to, and specifically known to Plaintiff, and disclose only those facts and contentions which presently occur to Plaintiff. It is anticipated that further discovery will supply additional facts and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, and/or changes and variations from the responses set forth herein. The following responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiff and Plaintiff s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which Plaintiff may later discover. Plaintiff accordingly reserves the right to amend any and all responses herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, and contentions are made. The responses made herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much specification of the facts and contentions as are presently known, which should in no way be to the prejudice of Plaintiff in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. The information supplied in these responses is not necessarily based solely on the knowledge of Plaintiff, but may include information as may be available to Plaintiff by way of other persons, including Plaintiff s agents, representatives and attorneys, unless privileged. The word usage and sentence structure may be that of attorneys assisting in the preparation of these responses and thus does not necessarily purport to be the precise language of Plaintiff. Plaintiff specifically notes that it has not necessarily talked to and/or interviewed each and every one of the persons from whom information may have been obtained, as to each point that may be raised, and at the time of trial there may be a variance between witnesses actual testimony and these responses. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant s interrogatories to the extent that any part

3 thereof purports to place any greater or different obligations or burdens upon Plaintiff than required under California law or to the extent that they call for procedures not provided therein.. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant s interrogatories to the extent that it calls for information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant s interrogatories to the extent that it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant s interrogatories to the extent that it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to individual privacy rights. No information so protected will be disclosed, and the inadvertent disclosure of protected information shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any privilege.. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant s interrogatories as oppressive and unduly burdensome.. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant s interrogatories to the extent the information requested is equally available to Defendant.. Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant s interrogatories to the extent Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession.. Discovery is continuing, and these responses are made without waiver of Plaintiff s right to amend, supplement or otherwise modify these responses based on the discovery of additional facts, information or contentions subsequent to the service of these responses. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the above General Objections in each and every response set forth below. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify by date and amount all compensation, cash or property YOU obtained or received from the COMPANY during the period August, 0 to February, 0.

4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vastly overbroad in time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Aurora Chavez received $1,000 per week and approximately $,000 additional per month. Ms. Chavez was entitled to receive more under the August th 0 Agreement between the parties, which allowed her to keep all profits from the business after Defendant D Errico received a certain fixed amount. Defendant D Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Further, Ms. Chavez has produced all ledger sheets that reiterate this information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State whether the handwritten accounting sheets prepared by YOU for the period September, 0 to December, 0 account for all cash received and disbursed by the COMPANY. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous as to

5 handwritten accounting sheets and prepared by you. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as overbroad in time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has all financial information related to the business, or the information is easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Additionally, if Defendant D Errico s interrogatory seeks information about the company ledger sheets, Responding Party adds that Defendant D Errico was involved in their preparation and that they have been produced. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State whether the handwritten accounting sheets prepared by YOU for the period September, 0 to December, 0 account for all cash, compensation or property YOU received from the COMPANY. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous as to handwritten accounting sheets and prepared by you. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as

6 overbroad in time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has all financial information related to the business, or the information is easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Additionally, if Defendant D Errico s interrogatory seeks information about the company ledger sheets, Responding Party adds that Defendant D Errico was involved in their preparation and that they have been produced. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State the name of the person who signed and filed the COMPANY annual and quarterly tax returns to the United States Internal Revenue Service, the California Employment Development Department, the California Department of Industrial Relations, the California Franchise Tax Board and the California Board of Equalization during the period September, 0 to December, 0. The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound as various people, including Defendant D Errico, signed various returns to different governmental bodies. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information.

7 Defendant D Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business, including tax preparation. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.: State the name of the person who hired COMPANY employees during the period January 1, to December 1, 0. The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in time. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Defendant D Errico and Aurora Chavez. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Did YOU pay COMPANY employees partly by check and partly with cash during the period September, 0 to November, 0? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party

8 objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has all financial information related to the business, or the information is easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Did YOU pay COMPANY employees overtime compensation during the period September, 0 to November, 0? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has all financial information related to the business, or the information is easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible

9 for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Defendant D Errico refused to pay employees any overtime compensation. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Did YOU withhold federal income taxes from COMPANY employee wages paid in cash during the period September, 0 to November, 0? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business, including all tax issues. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail the records YOU kept for COMPANY wholesale produce sales in cash during the period September, 0 to November, 0? ///

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Further, Responding Party understands the ledger sheets already produced reflect the wholesale produce sales. Responding Party also states invoices were prepared. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State what YOU did with the payments made by wholesale produce customers of the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to November, 0? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the

11 financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Whenever Responding Party received payments from wholesale produce customers, they were deposited in the company bank account. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe all written and computer records that exist pertaining to wholesale produce sales and customers of the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to November, 0? The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the

12 business. Responding Party believes the ledger sheets, already produced, are responsive to this interrogatory. Responding Party is not aware of computer records. Responding Party also states invoices were prepared. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by name, address and account number all bank accounts in which YOU deposited compensation, cash or property received by YOU from the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it improperly seeks information protected by personal rights to privacy. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by name and address every wholesale produce customer of the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it improperly seeks information protected by personal rights to privacy. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive

13 and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Responding Party does not have this information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe by date, customer and amount each and every invoice YOU sent to any wholesale produce customer of the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it improperly seeks information protected by personal rights to privacy. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession.

14 Defendant D Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Responding Party does not have this information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by make and present location each and every computer used to generate any invoice, account statement or billing to any wholesale produce customer of the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to February, 0. The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information in its possession. Defendant D Errico already has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Responding Party states that the business had one computer, of unknown make, located in the business office room. Another computer, located at the front of the business, was used for Western Union wire transfers and was owned by Western Union. ///

15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State whether YOU ever took for personal use any produce or groceries from the COMPANY during the period September, 0 to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is not relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous as to took for personal use. This interrogatory is wholly irrelevant as Defendant D Errico has not alleged Responding Party improperly took groceries or produce from the business. Further, had she wanted, Ms. Chavez was entitled, under the August th 0 agreement between the parties, to take produce and groceries from the business. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail including date, substance and incident number any statement or complaint YOU made to a police officer or sheriff about Defendant Derrico during the period September, 0 to November, 0. persons, agents and entities acting on her behalf. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Without

16 waiving these objections or its General Objections, Responding Party Defendant D Errico, on at least two occasions in or about November and December of 0, acted violently and harassingly towards Responding Party. She feared for her life based on D Errico s violent acts which included, among other things, coming within inches of her face and yelling you and your family are pigs, you are a stupid snake and you are just a little Mexican. Responding Party, in fear for her immediate safety, called the Orange County Sherriff Department and related D Errico s violent and threatening conduct in order to protect herself from him. Incident report numbers are believed to be 0-0 and 0-0. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Did YOU know when YOU hired certain COMPANY employees during the period September, 0 to November, 0 that they were not authorized to work the United States? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party never knowingly hired any employees that were unauthorized to work in the United States. Responding Party does not know whether Defendant D Errico did so. ///

17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State what YOU did with all payments and cash received by the COMPANY that were not deposited into a COMPANY bank account during the period September, 0 to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe by name, address and account number each and every bank account of the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Defendant D Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business.

18 Nonetheless, Responding Party believes the business had bank accounts at First Bank (Laguna Niguel, Union Bank of California (Dana Point, and Bank of America (Dana Point. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State the purpose of each and every bank account of the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Defendant D Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Nonetheless, Responding Party believes the First Bank account and the Bank of America account were generally for the Western Union business and check cashing, and the Union Bank of California account was generally for daily sales. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : State the purpose of each and every bank line of credit of the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. The term COMPANY means P.V.J. Foods, Inc. a California corporation, d/b/a Marina Ranch Market. ///

19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Defendant D Errico has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. Responding Party does not have this information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date and amount each and every withdrawal of money from or use of a line of credit of the COMPANY by YOU during the period January 1, to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the

20 financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Responding Party does not understand what the interrogatory requests. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every loan of money to the COMPANY by YOU during the period January 1, to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Responding Party s loans to the business include: Responding Party lent the business $,000 in or about November as an initial loan; Responding Party lent the business $0,000 for the construction of the business restaurant and renovation of the business as a whole between late and November of 01; Responding Party lent the business approximately $,000 for the purchase of business vehicles; Responding Party lent the business approximately $,000 in or about September 0 for the painting of the

21 business; Responding Party lent the business approximately $,0 for Defendant D Errico s and his girlfriend s use of cell phones. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every loan of money to YOU by the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Defendant has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date and amount each and every payment made by YOU for any loan of money to YOU by the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0.

22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Defendant has this information in his possession or easily available to him as he was at all times in charge and responsible for the financial dealings of the business. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date and amount each and every payment made to YOU for any loan of money by YOU to the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information.

23 Ms. Chavez was never repaid for the construction of the business restaurant and general renovation. Ms. Chavez was never repaid for the loan related to the painting of the business, for Defendant D Errico and his daughter s use of cell phones, or for the loan related to the business vehicles. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every payment made by YOU for the purchase of any stock in the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Ms. Chavez lent the business $,000 in or about November and received,000 shares of stock. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every amount YOU invested in the COMPANY for capital improvements or capital contributions during the period January 1, to February, 0.

24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for an expert conclusion. Responding party does not know how an accounting or tax expert would categorize the money she has put into the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Responding Party lent the business $,000 in or about November as an initial loan; Responding Party lent the business $0,000 for the construction of the business restaurant and renovation of the business as a whole between late and November of 01; Responding Party lent the business approximately $,000 for the purchase of business vehicles; Responding Party lent the business approximately $,000 in or about September 0 for the painting of the business; Responding Party lent the business approximately $,0 for Defendant D Errico s and his girlfriend s use of cell phones. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 0: Identify by date, amount and purpose each and every withdrawal made by YOU from the COMPANY to return any capital improvements or capital contributions made by YOU during the period January 1, to February, 0.

25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 0: Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for an expert conclusion. Responding party does not know how an accounting or tax expert would categorize the money she has put into the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety and unintelligible. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as assuming facts that have not been established. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Ms. Chavez has not been repaid for the loans she has made to the business. Specifically, she has not been repaid for: her loan of $0,000 for the construction of the business restaurant and renovation of the business as a whole; for her loan of $,000 for the purchase of business vehicles; for her loan of approximately $,000 for the painting of the business; or for the loan of approximately $,0 for Defendant D Errico s and his girlfriend s use of cell phones. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify by date and amount each and every item YOU claim as damages as a result of any of the allegations contained in YOUR First Amended Complaint dated December, 0.

26 persons, agents and entities acting on her behalf. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vastly overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. Ms. Chavez has suffered damages well in excess of $0,000 in the form, among others, of: Defendant D Errico s thefts of funds and property from the business; Defendant D Errico s failure to repay Ms. Chavez sums she advanced for the business; Defendant D Errico s refusal to allow Ms. Chavez to retain the profits of the business as was provided in the August th 0 Agreement between the parties; Defendant D Errico s closing down of the company parking lot, causing Ms. Chavez to lose profits; Defendant D Errico s harassment and firing of company employees, causing Ms. Chavez to lose profits; Defendant D Errico s towing of company vehicles, causing Ms. Chavez to lose profits; Defendant D Errico s filing of fraudulent taxes for the business, underreporting income, and otherwise mishandling the business financial affairs as to expose Ms. Chavez to tax liability; Defendant D Errico s refusal to allow Ms. Chavez to operate the day to day operations of the business without interference as provided in the August th 0

27 Agreement between the parties; Punitive damages related to Defendant D Errico s fraud with respect to the August th 0 Agreement between the parties by which he never intended to abide; Treble damages related to Defendant D Errico s violation of racketeering statutes; Attorney s fees; Costs of suit; and Prejudgment interest. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe each and every complaint YOU made to the COMPANY Board of Directors concerning the actions of Defendant as alleged in YOUR First Amended Complaint dated December, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is not relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was the only other member of the Board of Directors. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. Ms. Chavez made numerous complaints to the Board of Directors regarding Defendant D Errico s handling of the business, his repeated breaches of the August th 0 Agreement, his underreporting of company income (when discovered, his filing of

28 fraudulent taxes (when discovered, his thefts of produce and groceries from the business, his laundering of money through the business, his failure to pay employees proper overtime pay (when discovered, his failure to remit all profits of the business to Ms. Chavez as required under the August th 0 Agreement, his harassment of company employees, his thefts of company records, his attempts to extort more rent moneys than he was allowed under the company lease, his illegal closing down of the company parking lot, his firing of company employees, his towing of company vehicles, and his refusal to allow Ms. Chavez to operate the day to day operations of the business without interference. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail including date, amount and name of customer each and every instance in which YOU authorized Antonio Reynoso to take money from any wholesale produce customer of the COMPANY during the period January 1, to February, 0. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is not relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as the information requested is equally available to Defendant as Defendant was at all times responsible for the financial/accounting dealings of the business. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as Defendant already has any responsive information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail all evidence YOU have to support the claim in Paragraph of YOUR December, 0 Amended Complaint that D Errico intentionally, knowingly, and continuously caused to be prepared and filed false and fraudulent annual tax statements

29 with local, state and/or federal tax agencies. persons, agents and entities acting on her behalf. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vastly overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and misleading as it only quotes a portion of the cited paragraph in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint. D Errico s tax fraud is supported by, among other things, the company tax filings from to 0, the separate sets of books kept and maintained by Defendant D Errico, the reconciliation sheets prepared by Defendant D Errico stating the amount he chose to report versus the amount he chose not to report, the testimony of company employees and former employees, as well as the testimony of other individuals with personal knowledge of D Errico s finances. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Describe in detail all evidence YOU have to support the claim in Paragraph of YOUR December, 0 Amended Complaint that Plaintiff has confirmed with third party witnesses that D Errico has, within the past ten years, engaged in similar mail fraud tax schemes in connection with other businesses, including his interest in D Errico Jewelry in Scarsdale, New York, and in his approximately fifteen years operating D Errico and Associates, an accounting business in southern California. persons, agents and entities acting on her behalf.

30 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for information that is confidential and privileged from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is vastly overbroad in both time and scope. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as it is oppressive and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as compound. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and misleading as it only quotes a portion of the cited paragraph in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint. Defendant D Errico s history of mail fraud tax schemes is evidenced by, among other things, tax filings and associated tax documents prepared and/or submitted by D Errico in connection with other businesses in which he has had an interest (as well as in connection with his preparation and/or submission of the personal tax filings for individuals, accounting records prepared by D Errico, the testimony of former business partners and associates, and the testimony of other individuals with personal knowledge of D Errico s finances. Dated: August, Michaël Fischer, Esq. McKASSON KLEIN & HOLMES LLP Attorneys for: Plaintiff Aurora Chavez 0