In their complaint, the heirs and estate of Rebecca Zahau ("Ms. Zahau" and collectively
"Plaintiffs") allege that the Defendants conspired to, and did, murder Ms. Zahau. The heirs reside
in Missouri and thus did not witness any of the events leading to Ms. Zahau's death. Moreover,
since the only witnesses of the actual crime are the decedent and the person(s) who killed her, this
is case of circumstantial evidence.
Fortunately, both the Coronado Police Department and the San Diego Sheriffs
Department investigated the incident, and collected evidence reflecting all the events of the
evening that Ms. Zahau was killed, i.e., the knives, the rope, the gag in her mouth, debris in the
area where the murder occurred, etc. In conducting their investigation, the police identified
everything they thought was relevant to determining whether this was a murder or a suicide,
collected the evidence, photographed it, performed tests and interviewed witnesses they felt were
relevant to the investigation. Reports were written of the investigation and the officers' findings,
and the San Diego Medical Examiner performed an autopsy and issued a report. This material
comprises the "police investigative files," that all parties have copies of. This evidence is
further supported by the testimony from "investigating officers" and personnel at the Medical
Examiner's Office, that all parties have.
Evidence outside of the police investigation are the autopsy report of Cyril Wecht, M.D.,
performed at the Plaintiffs' request, and an interview with a tourist, Jim Haager, who said he saw
Defendant Dina Shacknai at the Spreckels' Mansion (i.e., where the murder occurred) the evening
of the murder. In addition, Plaintiffs produced a box of Rebecca's belongings, constituting all of
the documentation from Rebecca in Plaintiffs' possession, including an envelope addressed to her
parents, containing $420 and various checking, credit card account and personal papers. All of
the parties in this action have all of this evidence.
Plaintiffs have also responded to interrogatories identifying her parents were financial and
psychological impacted by Ms. Zahau's death. What little documentary evidence they have in
their possession has already been produced. At this point there is simply nothing left to give.
Defendant Shacknai as thus far served Plaintiffs with 249 Form Interrogatories, 430
Special Interrogatories, 193 Requests for Admission and 469 Requests for Production of
Documents, i.e., 1,341 separate discovery demands, even though everyone already had all the
evidence. (Greer Declaration at 'if 3). The vast majority of these requests are duplicative, as they
are propounded on Ms. Zahau's deceased father and his estate and on the decedent and her
estate. Since the decedents and their estates are one-in-the-same, half these discovery demands are
completely duplicative. (Greer Decl.'i[ 4) Moreover, since the vast majority of the discovery
requests are either contention interrogatories or demands for documents relating to the murder, by
answering one of the five or six sets of demands, Plaintiffs' have fully responded to the other 80%
of he demands. (Id.)
Because of the sheer volume of these demands, and the additional challenge caused by
each set of demands being organized slightly differently, it was very difficult to sort through and
organize them to determine the most efficient way to respond. Moreover, nearly one-hundred
Requests for Admissions asked the deceased parties to admit that they had no personal
knowledge regarding events cited in the complaint. (Greer Deel. 'i[5) Since it is clearly impossible
for a dead person to attest to his or her personal knowledge, it really appeared to Plaintiffs'
counsel that either someone was purposefully being unreasonable, or at a minimum not making a
reasonable attempt at efficiently preparing discovery demands. (Greer Deel. 'if 5).
Overwhelmed and frustrated, Plaintiffs' counsel finally asked counsel for Defendant
Shacknai to attempt to organize this massive accumulation of discovery requests so Plaintiffs
could respond. (Greer Deel. 'if 6). Plaintiff Pari Zahau does not read English, and is also still very
distraught over the loss of her daughter, so it was even more important to present the discovery in
a logical and concise manner. (Greer Deel. 'if 6). Defendant Shacknai's counsel responded with
several tables of numbers that correlated all the discovery and identified many of the duplicate
demands. (See Exhibit A to Greer Deel.). Plaintiffs then attempted to reconcile their prior
response to determine if any additional responses were warranted. The goal. was to prepare
responses for each defendant regarding demands that called for their personal information, and
respond to all demands and then respond to all contention interrogatories and document demands
through Robert Zahau. (Grer Deel. iJ7) A chart reflecting this organization is attached as Exhibit
2 B to the Greer Deel.
As discussed in detail below, at this point Plaintiffs submit that, with the exception of a
few demands that got lost in the mass of over 1,300 demands, they have produced all non-
objectionable evidence and information their possession that is relevant, or likely to lead to the
discovery relevant evidence.
