Evidence revealed during the course of the Wrongful Death action

*Lash* said:

BettyP :wave:

The newest minute order from ex parte on 11/17/2016.

BBM- notice the comment regarding Adam's dispute to the two sets of discovery. One issue has been resolved and counsel are close to resolving the other. Doesn't appear Zahau stalling was of issue last week hence the word resolved.

CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER
TIME: 08:45:00 AM

DEPT: C-69​

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Katherine Bacal
CLERK: Jay Browder
REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported , Not Recorded
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Bryan Bagnas


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO


CASE NO: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 11/13/2013CASE TITLE: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other

Curtis K Greer, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Marlys K. Braun, specially appearing for counsel KIM SCHUMANN, present for Defendant(s).Kathleen McCormick, specially appearing for counsel Mark Vranjes, present for Defendant(s).Krista M. Enns, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Darin L. Wessel, specially appearing for counsel John D Marino, present for Defendant(s).

Now being the time previously set for hearing Defendant Adam Shacknai's Ex Parte Request for Discovery Conference Regarding Dispute Re Plaintiff's Responses to Adam Shackani's First and Second Sets of Discovery, counsel and/or parties appear as noted above and the hearing commences.

Counsel inform the Court that they have resolved one of the issues and are close to resolving the other.

The ex parte is off calendar without prejudice.
Counsel agree to continue Adam Shacknai's Motion for Protective Order as follows:

Motion Hearing (Civil) is continued pursuant to Court's motion to 02/10/2017 at 11:00AM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Click to expand...

LuckyLucy2 said:

Since Rebecca Zahau was the subject of an intense police investigation, her Permanent Resident records would be needed by the SDSO and the other three agencies that worked on the case. Dina is entitled to all of the investigative files. The Zahaus and their followers may want to railroad three innocent people in order to make a fortune, but that will not happen.

Are you talking about the Federal case the Zahaus closed just to keep Dina from deposing the FBI agents that worked on the case?

Actually, Betty P., it is the Zahaus who are stalling. They were suppose to get their interrogatories in to Adam Shacknai's lawyers in July. They still have not done so. Adam has filed a Motion with the Judge and she is not going to be happy, since she gave them three extensions with the last one being final. Under the law, the Plantiffs have an obligation to provide the information.

Why would the Zahaus want to stall a case they brought to court? Because they know they have no case at all.

Click to expand...

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs requested a two-week extension of time, to August 29, to respond to Mr. Shacknai's discovery. The extension was granted. Id. at 3.On August 25, 2016, Plaintiffs requested a second extension of time, to September 15, in which to respond to the discovery. The extension was granted. Id. at ®[ 4.

On September 13, 2016, Plaintiffs requested a third extension of time in which to respond, to September 29. While that extension was also granted, Plaintiffs were also told it had to be the final extension of time because Mr. Shacknai needed Plaintiffs' responses in sufficient time to allow for any follow-up discovery or motions to compel that may be necessary prior to expert discovery. Id.

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiffs requested a fourth extension of time in which to respond, to October 19, 2016, notwithstanding the fact, Plaintiffs knew as of September 13 that the third extension of time was the final extension. As such Plaintiffs' request was denied. Id. at If 6.

Late on the evening of September 29, 2016, Plaintiffs emailed courtesy copies of their discovery responses to all counsel. Those responses contained objections only, with a single exception—plaintiff Pari Z. Zahau responded to Form Interrogatory No. 1.1 and identified that her counsel assisted with the preparation of responses. Id. at If 7. Each of the other plaintiffs served objections only to Form Interrogatory 1.1. Id.

After waiting just over a week to see whether amended response would be forthcoming, on October 7, 2016, counsel for Mr. Shacknai emailed Plaintiffs' counsel asking when substantive responses would be served. Id. at ^f 8. In the hope that a pending conference on the Court's ex parte calendar might spur a prompt response, that email also notified Plaintiffs' counsel (and the other parties) that a reservation has been made for October 20 at 8:45 a.m. Id.

On the afternoon of October 18, Plaintiffs' counsel responded by email. Id. ^f 9. They set forth that they hoped to have “supplemental” responses ready for service “next week”—i.e., the end of the week of October 25. and, for the first time, that they would be unable to attend the October 20 informal discovery conference. Id. Finally, they wrote: “I suggest that we reschedule for the first week of November, as you will hopefully have had time by then to analyze our supplemental responses.” Id. As a courtesy, counsel for Mr. Shacknai called the Court and continued the informal discovery conference to November 2. Id.
On the afternoon of October 31, Plaintiffs' counsel both left a voicemail and sent an email about the discovery responses. Id, ®[ 10. In pertinent part, the email sets forth: “Although we have made good progress, we still have not completed the amended responses to Adam Shacknai's discovery demands. I am hopeful that we can have the responses completed and verified by this coming Tuesday, November 8.”

B. The Second Set of Discovery at Issue

On August 26, 2016, Mr. Shacknai served a set of special interrogatories and requests for production of documents on plaintiffs Pari Z. Zahau, Estate of Rebecca Zahau, and Estate of Robert Zahu. Enns Dec. at ®[ 11. The declaration of necessity for the additional interrogatories was inadvertently left out. Id. On September 14, 2016, by overnight delivery, counsel for Mr. Shacknai served declarations of necessity for the second set of special interrogatories. Id. Plaintiffs responses were due October 17, 2016. Id,Plaintiffs served their responses to both the special interrogatories and requests for production of documents by mail on October 14, 2016. Id, at f 12. Plaintiffs Pari Z. Zahau and Estate of Rebecca Zahau served objections only. Id, Plaintiff Estate of Robert Zahau responded to only half of the 20 interrogatories (not all responses were complete) and only 1 of the 15 document requests. Id, The remainder of Estate of Robert Zahau's responses were objections. Id,

On October 20, 2016, counsel for Mr. Shacknai wrote to Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the deficient responses, asking if Plaintiffs intend to stand on their objection or supplement their responses. Id, at ‘[13. It is unclear whether the most recent promise to serve supplemental responses extends to this set of discovery.

Click to expand...

LuckyLucy2 said:

Does anyone want to discuss what Neil Nalepa, Rebecca Zahau's ex-husband meant when he says in his interview with detectives that "Rebecca had learned what men like and used it to get things from them?"

Click to expand...

LuckyLucy2 said:

Does anyone want to discuss what Neil Nalepa, Rebecca Zahau's ex-husband meant when he says in his interview with detectives that "Rebecca had learned what men like and used it to get things from them?"

Click to expand...

LuckyLucy2 said:

Does anyone want to discuss what Neil Nalepa, Rebecca Zahau's ex-husband meant when he says in his interview with detectives that "Rebecca had learned what men like and used it to get things from them?"

Click to expand...

LoveAlways7 said:

I had missed so much on here and tried catching up (still working on it). I saw much discussion of the clothing neatly folded on the bed. Small women's size. Sans panties. I did not see anyone draw any correlation between the non-existant panties in the master and the fact(?) That small size panties were found in the wastebasket in the guest room. The ones reported by the homeowner to belong to one of his daughter's friends. Huh?

Click to expand...

Imp said:

If you think you're harming the deceased victim or the case against the defendants with these kinds of posts, you're sorely mistaken. Number one, Rebecca's DECEASED - she can no longer be hurt. Number two, no one reading here or anywhere will be convinced of anything more than that *someone* seems to be obsessed with Rebecca and her relationships with men. The only people who will find this "information" you provide useful, will be the defense. Clearly *someone* had a major ax to grind with Rebecca.

Click to expand...

LuckyLucy2 said:

Rebecca's ex husband knew her better than anyone, and still loved her despite her numerous affairs and her constantly trying to find someone with more money. He knew about her molestation, her faked "kidnapping" she tried to pull when she ran away from her first millionaire, and the missing persons report. He knows all the lies she told. Seems he is so afraid to be deposed that he has defied a court order to answer questions under oath, and a motion is on the docket to compel him to talk.

Rebecca is not the person that Mary Zahau has tried to make her out to be. She was a very messed up woman - a shoplifter at the age of 30, and a compulsive liar.

She committed suicide to hide what she did to Max.

<modsnip >

Click to expand...

BBL said:

Irrelevant.... how does this pertain to Dina's (or Nina's or Adam's) defense?

Click to expand...

BBL said:

Irrelevant.... how does this pertain to Dina's (or Nina's or Adam's) defense?

Click to expand...

coastal said:

Well because she deserved to die, don't you see? They just did what needed doing, these poor victims of such a monster as that babysitter scratch that illegal immigrant man-eating gold-digging lying thieving cheating messed-up hateful and let's not forget murdering babysitter.

What?

Click to expand...

SweetT said:

I think she is trying to say if Rebecca had mental issues, then it is quite likely she killed herself due to her mental issues that her family does not want to admit she has or may not know she has. But faking a kidnapping is pretty serious IMO. I thought she also had some road rage issues and I'm sure there are other things that her ex knows about that her family may not. Just saying.

Click to expand...