Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #2

[fran]

:modstop:


Stop arguing back and forth. :naughty:

All opinions are welcome.

Agree to disagree and move on.

I've already removed several posts for baiting, personal attacks, telling others their theory is wrong.

These are opinions! Two people can see the same evidence and interpret the pieces differently.

If you can't participate in the discussion of this case without arguing, perhaps you should step away until there are new developments, hearings, etc...


tia for your cooperation
fran
:xmastree:

 

[bourne]

Future events scheduled in the Register of Actions for the San Diego Superior Court case:




Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL Date Filed: 11/13/2013

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Hmm, wonder who filed for "Motion for Protective Order"?

 

[bourne]

Ann Rules book is non-fiction, true crime. She wrote with the investigative files handy and the Zahaus and Anne Bremner as her sources. So yes, there are true facts, and there are also "theories" about what happened. It is clear which is which.

Just because what she says doesn't fit the murder theorie(s) doesn't make it not true.

Such as this fact: There is a picture in Ruls's book of the woman Boune claims was Dina in front of the mansion on the morning of July 11 standing with other detectives. Ann Rule clearly identies this woman as Detective Angela Tsuida. [modsnip]

Interesting that you're the only one who's seen this pic in Ann Rule's book. Do copy & post this pic of Det. Tsuida here. (And my name is spelled BOURNE. You can call me Ms. Bourne if you're nasty. LOL)

 

[LuckyLucy2]

And works on a tugboat and can tie complex, uncommon (tugboat hitch) nautical knots in his sleep.

ETA: And that's another thing that bothers me about the investigation. SDSO analyzed RZ's laptop to see past online activity, but they never dusted it for fingerprints.

Betty P, do you have a link showing that Rebecca's computer was not dusted for fingerprints? As far as I know, the investigative file has not been released. Was that in a MSM article? Or just an opinion?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Luckylucy, extraordinary vague comment u made here. Where's your link proving investigators dusted the computer keyboard?

BouRne, please look for my IMO before you ask for a link. You have a habit of this. I clearly stated that it was my opinion.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Interesting that you're the only one who's seen this pic in Ann Rule's book. Do copy & post this pic of Det. Tsuida here.

I didn't know you hadn't read Ann Rule's book! You should have said something earlier instead of getting so upset by me quoting her. I'm happy to supply that photo of Detective Tsuida - the one you keep saying is Dina. Note that Ann Rule was working with Anne Bremner and Mary Zahau, so she often calls it a murder in the book, even though it wasn't.

 

[bourne]

BouRne, please look for my IMO before you ask for a link. You have a habit of this. I clearly stated that it was my opinion.

Even as an opinion, you need to have evidence to back it up.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Even as an opinion, you need to have evidence to back it up.

No, opinions are fine, and you only need a link if you state something as fact. That is what I understand from the rules and the mods.

Perhaps a kind Mod could chime in to clear this up?

 

[MaybeNotToday]

No, opinions are fine, and you only need a link if you state something as fact. That is what I understand from the rules and the mods.

Perhaps a kind Mod could chime in to clear this up?

It's like the Wild West up in here.

 

[K_Z]

So, in light of today's filing in the federal case, requesting a stay while the State WDS is proceeding, I decided to go back to the state documents.

Jan 30, 2015 is scheduled for a hearing on a motion for protective order.

01/30/2015 01:30 PM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil) - Motion for Protective Order

(see post 213 above for link to the Superior Court Register of Actions website.)

Now, the motion for protective order was filed by the Zahau family, in response to the 130 special interrogatories in "set one" filed by Dina Shacknai. (Interrogatories are written questions requiring a response, and are typically limited to about 35 by statute.) The Zahau response to the interrogatories is a request for an order of protection, which would shelter them from responding to the interrogatories in their present configuration. This is not an order of protection like what is thought of with a "restraining order" or a "keep away" order, but the similarity is that the OOP alleges that the requestor (plaintiffs) are being unduly harassed by the one filing the interrogatories.

The order of protection is 55 pages in length, and would be quite cumbersome to try to post here. I'm going to look into the possibility of hosting these documents in their entirety somewhere easily accessible, so everyone can have access to them. (Apologies for the formatting; I've removed line numbers to make it more readable.) This is the summary that precedes the next 50 or so pages of explanation. Note the area I have bolded below; the Zahau's are asking for Dina and her attorneys to be fined around $2580 for this action, and subsequent acts of non-cooperation.

The substance of the additional 50 pages is explanation of the various ways that the information could be answered grouping the questions, the duplicative and harassing nature of the 130 interrogatories, and the multiple attempts the Plaintiffs made to contact and work with DS's attorneys related to the interrogatories that were ignored or rebuffed, etc.

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on December 5, 2014 at 1 :30 p.m., in department C-69 of the above entitled Court located at the Hall of Justice, FIFTH FLOOR, 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, PLAINTIFF'S REBECCA ZAHAU,
deceased, through her personal representative, MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER; ROBERT ZAHAU,
deceased, through his personal representative, MARY ZAHAU-LOEHNER; ESTATE OF
REBECCA ZAHAU; ESTATE OF ROBERT ZAHAU; both estates represented by MARY
ZAHAU-LOEHNER, an individual; and PARI Z. ZAHAU, an individual, will and hereby do,
move this Court:

For a protective order that the moving party need not respond to Defendant, DINA
SHACKNAI's, Special Interrogatories, Set One, on the grounds that the Declaration of Necessity served and filed together with the Special Interrogatories is deficient;

For a protective order that the that the moving party need not respond to
Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI's, Special Interrogatories, Set One, on the grounds
that unless a protective order is issued the moving party will suffer unwarranted
annoyance, oppression, or undue burden and expense, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 2030.090(b) and 2030.090(b )(1 );

That the Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI, be directed to propound written discovery
that appears to be more carefully crafted in manner consistent with the limitations
set forth in C.C.P. §§2019.030, 2030.030, 2030.040, and 2030.060; and
For sanctions against Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI, and/or her attorneys of record, in the amount of $2,580.00, for their blatant failure and refusal to meet and confer in good faith to reach an informal resolution of this matter, without the need for the Court's intervention.

This motion is made on the grounds that moving party has made reasonable and good faith efforts to reach an informal resolution of this matter, without the need for judicial intervention,

but Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI, and/or her attorneys of record have rebuffed all efforts.This motion will be based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the declaration of Jonathan M. Berger, Esq. and Exhibits attached thereto, all pleadings and papers on file herein, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented, at the time of the hearing.

DATED: October _k_, 2014 GREER & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C.

While Plaintiffs are more than willing to cooperate with Defendant in good faith,
throughout the discovery process, Defendant cannot be permitted to use unduly burdensome
interrogatories solely to drain Plaintiffs' resources. The same information can be obtained through
far less burdensome discovery, including 35, or less, carefully prepared special interrogatories.
Defendant's 130 Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs should therefore be limited by a Protective
Order issued by this Court.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Motion_for_Protective_Order_1418273857216.pdf

 

[Tricia]

Come on everyone. If you are becoming annoyed then scroll. Please dial back the snarky responses OK?

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[K_Z]

Order of Protection granted 5 Dec 2014. BBM.

The motion by Plaintiffs for a Protective Order relating to Defendant, DINA
23 SHACKNAI's (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") first set of 130 Special Interrogatories,
24 came for hearing, before the Hon. Katherine Bacal, in Department "C-69" of this Court, on
25 December 5, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter could be heard. Attorney, C.
26 Keith Greer, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Attorney, Bradley Mathews, Esq., appeared on
27 behalf of Defendant.
28 After full consideration of the evidence, and the written and oral submissions by theparties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED.

2 IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that:
3 1) Plaintiffs need not respond to Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI's, Special Interrogatories,
4 Set One, on the grounds that the Declaration ofNecessity served and filed together with
5 the Special Interrogatories is deficient;
6 2) Plaintiffs need not respond to Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI's, Special Interrogatories,
7 Set One, on the grounds that unless a protective order is issued Plaintiffs will suffer
8 unwarranted annoyance, oppression, or undue burden and expense, pursuant to Code of
9 Civil Procedure sections 2030.090(b) and 2030.090(b)(1);
10 3)That the Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI, is directed to propound written discovery that
11 appears to be more carefully crafted in manor consistent with the limitations set forth in
12 C.C.P. §§2019.030, 2030.030, 2030.040, and 2030.060; and
13 4) That Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI, and/or her attorneys of record, pay Plaintiffs the
14 amount of $2,580.00, as sanctions for unsuccessfully opposing Plaintiffs motion for
15 protective order, without substantial justification
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 DATED: ______________ __
Hon. Katherine Bacal,
18 Judge of the Superior Court of California

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Motion_for_Protective_Order_1418273857216.pdf

 

[time]

Thank you K_Z, all I can say is

 

[K_Z]

There are about a dozen or so documents with a lot of new information in them. I'm looking into a free hosting site for pdf documents, so we can all have them accessible in their entirety. Does anyone have a preference for the hosting site?

 

[time]

There are about a dozen or so documents with a lot of new information in them. I'm looking into a free hosting site for pdf documents, so we can all have them accessible in their entirety. Does anyone have a preference for the hosting site?

Maybe Google docs?

 

[K_Z]

Maybe Google docs?

Yeah, I'm looking at that. This one, possibly.

http://freepdfhosting.com/

 

[time]

Not familiar with it, but if it's easy, that would be good.

 

[K_Z]

All I can say is, it's no surprise to me that defendant Dina Shacknai was unwilling to settle at yesterday's ENE conference in the Federal suit, in light of the "smack down" in the State case from December 5. A one/ two punch, granting the Order of Protection in the State case, as well as the $2580 fine, and now a stay in the Federal case. Not a particularly good week for defendant Dina Shacknai, IMO.

And, IMO, the documents filed indicate to me a signal that the 3 defendants are not particularly in alliance on how to proceed. Perhaps they have begun to "throw one another under the bus".

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Looks to me like the fine is for a technicality over how many Special Interrogatories Dina's attorney sent in - nothing other than that.

IMO, Dina nor Nina nor Adam are going to settle this case. Not today, not ever. They will be asking for the Judge to dismiss the case in August when the three Motions to Dismiss are before the Judge.

 

[K_Z]

Looks to me like the fine is for a technicality over how many Special Interrogatories Dina's attorney sent in - nothing other than that.

Snipped and BBM.

I'd recommend reading all 55 pages. Lots of good stuff in there, including emails.

Fines aren't doled out over *minor* technicalities.

Neither are Orders of Protection.

The Judge's order says, no, plaintiffs, you don't have to respond to *this* from the defendant DS. The Judge basically threw out all 130 interrogatories submitted by DS. And admonished her and her attorneys to play by the rules next time. And then fined them $2580. That's a smack down, IMO.

ETA: And Dina has some very elite attorneys, in the Schumann/ Rosenberg firm. This isn't their first WDS, or their first dog and pony show. They knew exactly what they were doing. So did the Judge, and the Plaintiff's attorneys. And they were admonished and sanctioned by the Judge, and their first try at discovery questions thrown out.