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

[IzzyBlanche]

Well I enjoy visual puzzles. And I also suck at them usually. So for what it's worth, my two cents.

The guy holding the coffee and the guy to the left of Tsuida in the Ann Rule book photo look like the same guy to me. In both photos the two are standing about the same distance apart, but the woman in the doorway photo looks about six inches taller than Tsuida. Perspective, maybe.

I agree that the woman in the doorway photo looks hunched over whereas Tsuida in the Ann Rule photo does not.

As for the black bag, in the doorway photo the bag is over the woman's right shoulder. In the frontal view of Tsuida, I don't see the strap of the black bag on her right shoulder. If it is over her left shoulder, the strap is obscured by her hair and the notebook (or whatever it is) she is holding.

Assuming the doorway photo is in fact Tsuida, what is that black bag anyway? To me it looks like a large woman's purse. Do female detectives carry their purses into a crime scene? I would think not but IDK. It doesn't look the same shape or size to me to be a laptop bag and I imagine that the department would have standard-issue laptop bags but again IDK. Are there any images of male detectives carrying similar bags?

Also she does not have the bag over her right shoulder in the Ann Rule photo. Most people in my experience and observation carry their bags over one shoulder or the other and rarely switch.

Well just my amateur analysis of some grainy photos. I do see the resemblance as well so if it turns out that the doorway picture is Tsuida, I won't be surprised. I got no dog in this fight.

ETA: Except I have never believed for one second that this was a suicide.

 

[*Lash*]

Again thank you KZ for providing the PDF on the Motion for Protective Order.

A lot of reading but surprisingly easy to follow. The Zahau's motion was granted by State Judge Katherine Bacal. Her motion had 4 orders including the $2,580. fine. The judge agreed the 130 special interrogatories caused the Zahua's to suffer unwarranted annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense. The Zahau attorney's even contacted Dina's defense team in an attempt to reach a resolution but with no avail.

After reading 55 pages, I have a better understanding of the fine. Imo, the Zahau's had no choice but to file for a protective order. The fine includes the fee to file the motion in court. As well as the Zahau attorneys billable hours to prepare the motion, ultimately prepare an opposition and court appearances.

Breakdown from the court document:

The filing fee for this motion is $60.00, my hourly rate is $210.00, and I spent eight (8) hours preparing this motion and anticipate I will spend an additional four (4) hours preparing a reply to an opposition and in preparing for and appearing at the hearing on the instant motion for a combined total oftwelve (12) hours, totaling $2,580.00 spent in preparation ofthis motion.

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

 

[bourne]

This has turned I to " I'm right and you're wrong". No, I'M right and YOU'Re wrong". Could we please move on?

Why are you directing this to me?

 

[*Lash*]

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.

I completely agree. This was a smack down, imo. The failure of the defense to comply with fair procedures caused not only unwarranted burden on the plaintiffs but also on the court. Imo, the judge was likely annoyed having to be bothered by unjustified interrogatories by the defense. From what I read it can also be a sanctionable abuse of discovery. Imo, the 130 interrogatories was a nothing but a defense game. Kind of like, let's see how you like this. Imo, it was a waste of the courts time. I don't think it was the best defense strategy either. If it was even a strategy. Especially since their defendant is being accused of stalking and harassing. Imo, it was not the best move in their clients defense.

 

[K_Z]

A couple more documents from the Superior Court Register of Actions to share. (I'm glad the links are working!) These first 2 are part of the run up to the order granting the Order of Protection, and the $2850 fine for DS and her attorneys. The last is AS's Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS'ESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ROA document #51, filed 12-1-2014 (49 pages)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Special_Interrogatories_Se_1418399183950.pdf

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DINA SHACKNAPS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
ROA document #61, filed 12-2-2014 (11 pages)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...1_12-02-14_Opposition_Other_1418399188716.pdf

Adam Shacknai's Answer to the First Amended Complaint
ROA #67, filed 12-8-14 (9 pages)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...-CTL_ROA-67_12-08-14_Answer_1418399963638.pdf

*KZ note-- AS's response above is bare bones/ lawyer speak. It's all a general denial of responsibility, and denial of any knowledge-- nothing new in there. His attorneys (IMO) are playing it smart. KISS principle.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

I completely agree. This was a smack down, imo. The failure of the defense to comply with fair procedures caused not only unwarranted burden on the plaintiffs but also on the court. Imo, the judge was likely annoyed having to be bothered by unjustified interrogatories by the defense. From what I read it can also be a sanctionable abuse of discovery. Imo, the 130 interrogatories was a nothing but a defense game. Kind of like, let's see how you like this. Imo, it was a waste of the courts time. I don't think it was the best defense strategy either. If it was even a strategy. Especially since their defendant is being accused of stalking and harassing. Imo, it was not the best move in their clients defense.

I think it's ironic that the Zahaus team found this annoying seeing as how the defendants had keep responding to invalid complaints. Wasn't one even in the wrong court? There was a bit of a handholding to get to this final complaint so I don't know why the defense didn't file sanctions or for a fine?? Of course, I am no legal eagle so I'm sure there's valid reasons.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

I agree. A friend of mine who was driving past Spreckels that morning around 11am got stuck in the traffic jam in front of the house.......she is certain that she saw Dina coming out of the mansion with LE.

Wow! What a coincidence! A friend of mine also drove past Spreckles that morning around 11am . . . She is certain that she didn't see Dina coming out of the mansion.

 

[K_Z]

This email from plaintiff's attorney Greer to defendant attorney Matthews is illuminating of what has been going on between the 2 groups of attorneys and their clients. This is from DS's "opposition" 49 page document linked above. It explains why plaintiffs did not respond to the interrogatories (they had filed a motion for the Order of Protection already, which was on the court schedule for Dec 5, 2014.) It also gives the information that 41 depositions have been scheduled, but NONE have gone forward. (BBM below)

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
C. Keith Greer <[email protected] >
Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:07 PM
Bradley Mathews
Kim Schumann; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Phillina Batiller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Zahau v. Shacknai, et al.

Dear Mr. Mathews:

This email is an effort to meet and confer regarding your November 21, 2014, advising me that you will be going in ex
parte on Tuesday December 2nd to seek an ex parte order compelling Plaintiffs'o respond to Dina Schacknai's first set of special interrogatories without objection. It is my opinion that this is simply another frivolous effort to abuse the discovery process and harass the Plaintiffs. First, there is no legitimate reason for this to be handled on an ex parte basis. There is no emergency or any reason this can't be handled by a regularly scheduled motion. Second, your motion is premature, since we won't even know whether Plaintiffs will have to answer a single interrogatory until after the December 5th hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order. Third, as cited in Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for a protective order, there is authority, in addition to a rational reading of the relevant statutes, that supports Plaintiffs' contention that they had the choice of responding to the interrogatories or moving for a protective order, as opposed to your contention that they had to respond to the interrogatories in order to protect their right to seek protection from responding.

Finally, please be advised that we will seek sanctions if we are forced to attend this hearing. In light of 135 special
interrogatories being propounded without any effort to stay within CCP constraints, the setting of 41 depositions, none of which went forward as noticed (although they did tie up Plaintiffs' calendar and resources since our requests for confirmation of dates was rebuffed), and now this frivolous hearing, it is quite clear to me what your firm is attempting to do. I am confident that the court will agree.

Respecfully submitted,
C. Keith Greer, Esq.
Attorney at Law
GREER & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C.
17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92127
(858) 613-6677 Telephone

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Special_Interrogatories_Se_1418399183950.pdf

And we further learn, from this document, that the 41 depositions that did not go forward, were SCHEDULED by Dina Shacknai and her attorneys. BBM.

In summary, there is no legitimate reason for the Defendant to bring this ex parte
application. Although the Defendant references the Court's Policies and Procedures, specifically
that: "The court makes itself available to the parties during ex parte hours to discuss discovery
disputes prior to the filing of motions to compel," the Defendant has filed a motion to compel by
way of this application, and thus is not here to "discuss discovery disputes prior to filing." This
is simply another effort to further harass Plaintiffs, like the 41 deposition notices that the
Defendant served (none of which have gone forward as noticed), and the 130 special
interrogatories counsel attests are needed, even though the Defendant hasn't made any effort to
comply with the 35 limit mandated for special interrogatories (see discussion).

What has been represented in the Defendant's brief, which is not evidence, is that counsel
went through the complaint and asked multiple interrogatories (some themselves compound),
about each individual allegation. However, courts have specifically stated that this method of
discovery constitutes an abuse of the discovery process, particularly in the early stages of
discovery.

"there is substantial reason to believe that the early knee jerk filing
of sets of contention interrogatories that systematically track all
the allegations in an opposing party's pleadings is a serious form
of discovery abuse. Such comprehensive sets of contention
interrogatories can be almost mindlessly generated, can be used
to impose great burdens on opponents, and can generate a great
deal of counterproductive friction between parties and counsel.
In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig. (N.D. Cal. 1985) 108 F.R.D. 328, at 336.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...1_12-02-14_Opposition_Other_1418399188716.pdf

 

[Gilgamesh]

Thank you, KZ.

 

[screecher]

Seems Dina and her lawyers have opened their play book for all to see. I do wonder, after the smack down they got from the judge, if they will now change their strategy.

many thanks K_Z.

 

[*Lash*]

I think it's ironic that the Zahaus team found this annoying seeing as how the defendants had keep responding to invalid complaints. Wasn't one even in the wrong court? There was a bit of a handholding to get to this final complaint so I don't know why the defense didn't file sanctions or for a fine?? Of course, I am no legal eagle so I'm sure there's valid reasons.

Hi MNT!

Imo, the Zahau's attorneys made honest mistakes. Learning, sorting and interpreting the law correctly, judges understand this. Imo, the 130 special interrogatories requested by Dina's attorneys was intentional burdening on the Zahau's and the court. The case law is pretty simple in this process. It is apparent in the document the judge agreed.

 

[K_Z]

And, IMO, it's a really manipulative and harassing scheme by DS and her very experienced and elite attorneys to schedule, and then short-notice cancel 41 depositions in about 90 days or so, is really playing dirty.

I could see a few that might have to be cancelled or re-scheduled due to last minute conflicts, but IMO, the fact that not a single one of the 41 has gone forward is intentionally manipulative and harassing.

Makes me seriously wonder if Dina actually wants to "clear her name" or not. I'm leaning toward "not". If she is totally innocent, then why wouldn't she want to cooperate and get this over with, already? This little game she and her attorneys are playing (right out of the gate, no less!) makes her look like she's having an angry toddler tantrum, and that she's vindictive, certainly not innocent, or "not responsible." IMO.

And isn't it quite interesting that neither Nina or Adam are playing this same game? They filed their responses, and are being very quiet at the moment. What to make of that? Letting Dina call the shots for all 3 of them? Or does Dina only speak for herself and her interests?

 

[MaybeNotToday]

So, I guess instead of answering plaintiff's interrog just plainly, Dina challenged each allegation?? And that is a no no at this stage of proceedings. Am I getting that right?

 

[MaybeNotToday]

Hi MNT!

Imo, the Zahau's attorneys made honest mistakes. Learning, sorting and interpreting the law correctly, judges understand this. Imo, the 130 special interrogatories requested by Dina's attorneys was intentional burdening on the Zahau's and the court. The case law is pretty simple in this process. It is apparent in the document the judge agreed.

Hi Lash

I just read Dina's motion to compel them to answer and makes sense to me (but obviously judge disagrees). Every interrogatory directly correlates with every allegation the Zahaus made in complaint. It reminds me of this site. We have to back up statements of facts with some proof/source/REASON etc. There's none if that in plaintiffs complaint. Just a theory, which in all honesty looks like it was plucked from thin air.

The Zahaus make very serious allegations. It's a bit insulting to think you cannot challenge those accusations and ask for at least the basis of it. Court is not the way we see it on tv. Each side benefits from discovery.

 

[bourne]

Hi Lash

I just read Dina's motion to compel them to answer and makes sense to me (but obviously judge disagrees). Every interrogatory directly correlates with every allegation the Zahaus made in complaint. It reminds me of this site. We have to back up statements of facts with some proof/source/REASON etc. There's none if that in plaintiffs complaint. Just a theory, which in all honesty looks like it was plucked from thin air.

The Zahaus make very serious allegations. It's a bit insulting to think you cannot challenge those accusations and ask for at least the basis of it. Court is not the way we see it on tv. Each side benefits from discovery.

What's insulting is Dina's RIDICULOUS 130 interrogatories designed only with the purpose to intimidate and waste the court and Zahau's time, money, efforts, and patience. If she really has these so-called witnesses as alibi, why is she *not* filing a motion to dismiss based of frivolity of charges and having her ironclad alibi witnesses sign affidavits to that effect?

GMAB

 

[bourne]

So, I guess instead of answering plaintiff's interrog just plainly, Dina challenged each allegation?? And that is a no no at this stage of proceedings. Am I getting that right?

Huh? What's wrong with Dina? Of course she has a right to challenge the suit. Why isn't she *challenging* the entire WDS suit (instead of piecemeal as you claim she's attempting with a big fail to do with 130 interrogatories) by filing a motion to dismiss based on frivolity of charges as she allegedly believes the suit to be, and bringing her ironclad evidence of eyewitness alibis to support her motion?

Answer: She's using technicalities to hamstring the legal proceedings and in a piss-poor attempt to exhaust the Zahau funds (imagine the airline expenses alone -- how much it costs for the Zahaus to travel to CA from MO time and time again for depos Dina then cancels at the last minute). Too bad so sad it's a BIG FAIL as the Judge agrees and Dina has to pay a fine.

I hope Dina continues with this nonsense so that the court will just throw her in jail for contempt of court.

 

[screecher]

Seems as though she has no witnesses.

In all honesty, IMO, DS seems to delight in attempting to make the Zahaus world a frightful one. And that speaks volumes to DS's moral fiber.

 

[bourne]

Seems as though she has no witnesses.

In all honesty, IMO, DS seems to delight in attempting to make the Zahaus world a frightful one. And that speaks volumes to DS's moral fiber.

I wholeheartedly agree. I have no sympathy nor tolerance for amoral people -- people with zero conscience and who operate purely out of hate and spite. Also loathe bullies who take out their anger and frustrations on innocent people because they're too afraid of rattling the feathers of the likes of Dina. Amoral people are (pardon the French) *lower than scum*.

 

[screecher]

repectfully snipped

...

And isn't it quite interesting that neither Nina or Adam are playing this same game? They filed their responses, and are being very quiet at the moment. What to make of that? Letting Dina call the shots for all 3 of them? Or does Dina only speak for herself and her interests?

Very interesting indeed. I do imagine Nina pleading with Dina to pull herself together and stop antagonizing the Zahaus, their lawyer and the court. To no avail. I believe Dina derives a perverse pleasure in all this. Her lawyers are doing their client no favors by allowing her to call all the shots and I believe they're doing harm to their reputations, just as those other two professionals who Dina paid to create a scenario showing how her Maxie was torpedoed over a railing.

I'm thinking Dina is speaking only for herself.

 

[Betty P]

Wow. Thanks for the info, K_Z. I began to read the document yesterday, but didn't get far.

I'm not an expert by any means, but the bullying, wrangling and delays that DS has imposed on the plaintiffs, attorneys and the court seems phenomenal, very extreme. I can't imagine her attorneys will be willing to tolerate this kind of behavior much longer, unless she's paying them a great deal of money. How much longer will the judge tolerate this obstruction and harassment? Does anyone with more experience know how common this is or how likely this is to be allowed to continue?