Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #3

[Inparadise]

Thanks Inparadise !!!

Did the Zahau attorney ask the judge for a protective order for Mary?

Jonah requested the order of protection against Dina. This is in the WDS Dina filed against Jonah in 2013 for Max's death (Maricopa County CV2013-009289).

 

[K_Z]

Thanks Inparadise !!!

Did the Zahau attorney ask the judge for a protective order for Mary?

Plaintiffs requested an order of protection 10/2/2014 from defendant DS. It's entry #43 on the San Diego Register of Actions in the State WDS.

IIRC, this order of protection was related to the greatly excessive number of interrogatories by DS, but I'd have to go re-read to be sure-- and that entry is 55 pages long. Weren't there about 168 interrogatories by DS? The rules of civil procedure usually limit to about 15, without approval by the judge, after showing why the excessive number is thought to be necessary.

It has been speculated that another order of protection was filed about 1 1/2 years ago, on behalf of another Zahau family member, against DS, but this is only speculation.

 

[Inparadise]

Plaintiffs requested an order of protection 10/2/2014 from defendant DS. It's entry #43 on the San Diego Register of Actions in the State WDS.

IIRC, this order of protection was related to the greatly excessive number of interrogatories by DS, but I'd have to go re-read to be sure-- and that entry is 55 pages long. Weren't there about 168 interrogatories by DS? The rules of civil procedure usually limit to about 15, without approval by the judge, after showing why the excessive number is thought to be necessary.

It has been speculated that another order of protection was filed about 1 1/2 years ago, on behalf of another Zahau family member, against DS, but this is only speculation.

This is the WDS Dina filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against Jonah (CV2013-009289) in July, 2013. Jonah had requested an order of protection, and Oral Arguments were this past Wednesday, March 25th.

 

[K_Z]

Just a general question that's been on my mind, I hope this is an appropriate place to ask. Could past domestic abuse charges (we know they went both ways) and a request for a restraining order be used in court as evidence someone might become violent and/or that there is evidence that person made another fear for their safety?

Snipped. IANAL, but from what I know, there is wide latitude in civil cases to ask deposition questions, as long as the questions have some relevance to the lawsuit filed, or may lead to additional discovery that is relevant. Relevance to the complaint seems to be the key. Perhaps AZlawyer can clarify, as I may not be explaining this correctly.

For example, if someone were suing a health care provider for negligence/ malpractice, and you wanted to find out if the provider has ever had an order of protection filed against them, you might have to make a case with the judge as to how that information might be relevant to the malpractice complaint, or might lead to more discovery evidence related to the malpractice complaint. Likewise, if you were suing a provider for malpractice, and wanted to ask about the relationship between the provider and his/ her spouse, you'd have to show why that was relevant to the complaint filed. If you wanted to ask questions about specific things about other family members of the provider being sued (like children), you would have to show why that was relevant to the complaint filed.

 

[K_Z]

This is the WDS Dina filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against Jonah (CV2013-009289) in July, 2013. Jonah had requested an order of protection, and Oral Arguments were this past Wednesday, March 25th.

Yes, I saw that. I was responding to screecher's question as to whether MZL had filed a PO against DS.

 

[K_Z]

2. On January 23, 2015, Mr. Schumann appeared and took the deposition of Doug E.
Loehner ("Ms. Zahau-Loehner").

3. During Ms. Zahau-Loehner's deposition which began at 9:19a.m. and ended at
2:53 p.m., Plaintiffs'ounsel, CURTIS K. GREER ("Mr. Greer") interposed numerous objections
with instructions not to answer. There were at least 68 instances where the objections and
instructions not to answer were premature and/or improper. Given that the objections appear
through out the deposition transcript, the entire deposition transcript will be lodged with the Court
five (5) days prior to the hearing on this matter.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1427678122931.pdf

This begins on line 10, page 20 of 38. So, this is another puzzling entry in DS's recent "motion to compel" another deposition of MZL. Was DL present? Was he deposed as well? Or is this an error, and MZL should have been written. The pronouns and titles don't match the genders, either.

Both documents 113, and 114, appear to be identical, and show that they were both electronically filed at the exact same time, 3-24-15, at 3:28 pm. So I wonder if this is just a recording glitch that the same document was entered on the ROA twice? IDK. There are many clerical type errors and typos, that I would assume a high powered firm should catch during proofreading, before they file. But who knows?

There is clearly another "Separate Statement" referred to in the motion, numerous times, and line by line in some instances. It appears to contain details related to the 68 questions and areas where MZL was advised by her counsel not to answer. This companion document must be confidential at this time, and is not listed on the ROA.

 

[bourne]

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1427678122931.pdf

This begins on line 10, page 20 of 38. So, this is another puzzling entry in DS's recent "motion to compel" another deposition of MZL. Was DL present? Was he deposed as well? Or is this an error, and MZL should have been written. The pronouns and titles don't match the genders, either.

Both documents 113, and 114, appear to be identical, and show that they were both electronically filed at the exact same time, 3-24-15, at 3:28 pm. So I wonder if this is just a recording glitch that the same document was entered on the ROA twice? IDK. There are many clerical type errors and typos, that I would assume a high powered firm should catch during proofreading, before they file. But who knows?

There is clearly another "Separate Statement" referred to in the motion, numerous times, and line by line in some instances. It appears to contain details related to the 68 questions and areas where MZL was advised by her counsel not to answer. This companion document must be confidential at this time, and is not listed on the ROA.

I noted that too. Rebecca's sister MZL's HUBBY is said in Dina's document to have been testifying along with MZL! What's that about???? Dina must be TERRIFIED of trial so much so that she is harassing EVERYONE remotely related to the case (Mrs. Luber) and even Rebecca's brother-in-law AND her mother, AND her sisters, including her YOUNGER TEEN Brother and Sister! My oh my, what a tangled web we weave, Dina...

 

[*Lash*]

In my opinion, one thing has become clear. Dina's attorneys appear to have a pattern of asking excessive, unnecessary questions in depositions. Imo, borderline harassment. Maybe there is a legal strategy behind it, IDK. Two different civil cases, but the Zahau's and Jonah both filed motions for PO's with the judge actually granting Jonah's motion. Speaks volumes! Also, very interesting how quiet Nina and Adam appear to be in their defense strategy compared to Dina's representation.

 

[screecher]

I noted that too. Rebecca's sister MZL's HUBBY is said in Dina's document to have been testifying along with MZL! What's that about???? Dina must be TERRIFIED of trial so much so that she is harassing EVERYONE remotely related to the case (Mrs. Luber) and even Rebecca's brother-in-law AND her mother, AND her sisters, including her YOUNGER TEEN Brother and Sister! My oh my, what a tangled web we weave, Dina...

Third BBM

I agree ! IMO, DS does not want this to go to trial. Bottom line, she has no alibi.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if she is the first to offer up a settlement ?

 

[SweetT]

Wow. Thanks KZ for these docs.

I'm absolutely BEMUSED that just skimming over one doc, I already see Dina asking for RIDICULOUS things from Rebecca's sister MZL.

E.g., Dina asked for "MZL's brother's PICTURES on Facebook" and "Rebecca's teenager sister XZ's guardianship and relationship with her mother."

First of all, WTH does Rebecca's BROTHER's PHOTOS on Facebook have to do with Zahaus' WDS? Unless he posted Rebecca's crime scene, I see absolutely NO relevance whatsoever.

Second, recall that Dina had already accused XZ and Rebecca of "torpedoing Max to his death" on Dr. Phil show with her "experts". And how Dina and some posters here have accused Rebecca of being the MOTHER to her teenager sister XZ!!! So here is Dina officially seeking info to further slander Rebecca and claim that Rebecca's younger sister is her daughter and not Rebecca's biological daughter! Honestly, WTH does XZ's blood relation to her mother have to do with Rebecca's murder which is what the Zahaus' WDS is about?

I do clearly see giant leaps of logic in Dina's legal motions in court as well as the manifold posts on WS which follow this same leap in logic and fallacious, unproven, random, inflammatory and spurious, accusations of Rebecca and her family.

I'm sure I'll have more to say when I have more time to actually peruse the two new docs.

I dont pretend to actually know why Dina would be asking these questions and I can't find any reasonable reason for pics of the brother..but She could assume as others have that XZ is Rebecca's child and wanted to state something like "Look she can't even, chooses not to even take care of her own child so how could she be capable of taking care of Max any better?" Just a possibility. I don't know if the coroner would state if someone had prior children if they didnt have a c section scar or something like that but IDK. I do think its possible that XZ and her bro are just late children for the parentals.

 

[SweetT]

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1427678122931.pdf

This begins on line 10, page 20 of 38. So, this is another puzzling entry in DS's recent "motion to compel" another deposition of MZL. Was DL present? Was he deposed as well? Or is this an error, and MZL should have been written. The pronouns and titles don't match the genders, either.

Both documents 113, and 114, appear to be identical, and show that they were both electronically filed at the exact same time, 3-24-15, at 3:28 pm. So I wonder if this is just a recording glitch that the same document was entered on the ROA twice? IDK. There are many clerical type errors and typos, that I would assume a high powered firm should catch during proofreading, before they file. But who knows?

There is clearly another "Separate Statement" referred to in the motion, numerous times, and line by line in some instances. It appears to contain details related to the 68 questions and areas where MZL was advised by her counsel not to answer. This companion document must be confidential at this time, and is not listed on the ROA.

It seems that someone was advised to not answer questions ...but why? Its a depo right? whats the big secret?

 

[SweetT]

Plaintiffs requested an order of protection 10/2/2014 from defendant DS. It's entry #43 on the San Diego Register of Actions in the State WDS.

IIRC, this order of protection was related to the greatly excessive number of interrogatories by DS, but I'd have to go re-read to be sure-- and that entry is 55 pages long. Weren't there about 168 interrogatories by DS? The rules of civil procedure usually limit to about 15, without approval by the judge, after showing why the excessive number is thought to be necessary.

It has been speculated that another order of protection was filed about 1 1/2 years ago, on behalf of another Zahau family member, against DS, but this is only speculation.

Excuse my ignorance but does that mean she kept asking him questions and he got tired of the questions? Cause honestly if my child had died while in the care of their father/his gf I'd have questions and I would keep hammering at them until I got some answers.

 

[*Lash*]

Hey Bourne,

KZ touched on it above. I think it is still just a motion. We discussed it quite a bit back in October. The link to the actual document has expired, but I will try to post the PDF later. You can find discussion on it here.

Discussion Begins, Lawyer Thread -
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-for-VERIFIED-LAWYERS&p=11291436#post11291436

Post by Carioca -
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...13-2013-in-California&p=11125536#post11125536

Plaintiffs requested an order of protection 10/2/2014 from defendant DS. It's entry #43 on the San Diego Register of Actions in the State WDS.

IIRC, this order of protection was related to the greatly excessive number of interrogatories by DS, but I'd have to go re-read to be sure-- and that entry is 55 pages long. Weren't there about 168 interrogatories by DS? The rules of civil procedure usually limit to about 15, without approval by the judge, after showing why the excessive number is thought to be necessary.

It has been speculated that another order of protection was filed about 1 1/2 years ago, on behalf of another Zahau family member, against DS, but this is only speculation.

 

[K_Z]

Excuse my ignorance but does that mean she kept asking him questions and he got tired of the questions? Cause honestly if my child had died while in the care of their father/his gf I'd have questions and I would keep hammering at them until I got some answers.

You have this order of protection mixed up with the other one. There are two orders of protection against DS that have been requested in 2 separate cases,-- one in the civil WDS DS filed against JS. The other has been requested in the WDS filed by the Zahau's against the plaintiffs DS, NR, AS. We don't know what the reason for the OP was in the DS v JS case, because those documents are not posted publicly. I could be something else besides answering questions in a depo or written interrogatories. All we know at this point is JS asked for an OP, and the Judge clearly granted it.

 

[K_Z]

And I'll also add that filing excessive motions, or making pleas for additional things not granted in the rules of civil procedure, are simple and often-used tactics to delay the progress of a case. Everything filed with a request for something has to be acted on in some way, so it's easy to keep filing "stuff" to be a nuisance, or delay the progress or conclusion of a case. In cases involving substantial amounts of $$, with one side having more than the other, it's a common tactic to run out the money of the other party.

One civil lawsuit (related to fraudulent billing by the defendants) one of my professional organizations was involved in filing went on for 10 years, while the defendant group filed motion after motion after motion. Requests for everything under the sun, and the kitchen sink, too. The case finally concluded with the defendants "settling" one of the 3 suits for more than 11 million dollars.

 

[*Lash*]

Post by Carioca from 10/23/2014 - thumbnails are attached in the original post.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...13-2013-in-California&p=11125536#post11125536

For the record, on October 2, attorneys for Rebecca's family filed a Motion for Protective Order. The Motion Hearing date is scheduled for December 5, 2014. IMO the evidence for murder speaks for itself.

A couple of definitions for Protective Order

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
A motion for protective order refers to a party's request that the court protect it from potentially abusive action by the other party. Such a request is often made in relation to discovery, as when one party seeks discovery of the other party's trade secrets.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mot...tective-order/

PROTECTIVE ORDER
In litigation, an order that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain conditions.

Any order issued by a court which is meant to protect a person from harm or harassment.

A protective order is commonly used to protect a party or witness from unreasonable or invasive discovery requests (for example, harassing questions in a deposition).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p103.htm

 

[K_Z]

It seems that someone was advised to not answer questions ...but why? Its a depo right? whats the big secret?

Because you can't just ask anything you want in a deposition. It's not a "free for all". The questions have to be legal, and relevant to the complaint filed, or will reasonably lead to discovery of new evidence. Discussing rumors of parentage of a minor who was not even in the state when the murder allegations of the WDS occurred, or pictures posted on a relative's social media page, or private conversations between a husband and wife, is probably pretty far outside of what might be considered relevant.

I'm not surprised counsel advised MZL not to answer many of the questions in the motion recently filed. The judge will have to make the decision whether or not MZL will be subject to another deposition related to the 68 questions not answered by advise of counsel. I think she probably answered many times that amount in her 6 hour depo. Hopefully, DS attorneys confined their most pertinent questions to the ones that were answered, as none of the ones referred to in the motion seem at all critical or relevant to defending the allegations against defendant DS.

 

[SweetT]

And I'll also add that filing excessive motions, or making pleas for additional things not granted in the rules of civil procedure, are simple and often-used tactics to delay the progress of a case. Everything filed with a request for something has to be acted on in some way, so it's easy to keep filing "stuff" to be a nuisance, or delay the progress or conclusion of a case. In cases involving substantial amounts of $$, with one side having more than the other, it's a common tactic to run out the money of the other party.

One civil lawsuit (related to fraudulent billing by the defendants) one of my professional organizations was involved in filing went on for 10 years, while the defendant group filed motion after motion after motion. Requests for everything under the sun, and the kitchen sink, too. The case finally concluded with the defendants "settling" one of the 3 suits for more than 11 million dollars.

I understand that actually I think it is called BAD FAITH. And yes it would be easy for a company lets say with millions of dollars to keep it going knowing that the individual can't afford to keep on as they dont have the finances to do so.

 

[Betty P]

Excuse my ignorance but does that mean she kept asking him questions and he got tired of the questions? Cause honestly if my child had died while in the care of their father/his gf I'd have questions and I would keep hammering at them until I got some answers.

It's important to remember that this WDS is about the death of Rebecca Zahau. The purpose of the lawsuit us to investigate and reveal information about her death.

 

[K_Z]

In my opinion, one thing has become clear. Dina's attorneys appear to have a pattern of asking excessive, unnecessary questions in depositions. Imo, borderline harassment. Maybe there is a legal strategy behind it, IDK. Two different civil cases, but the Zahau's and Jonah both filed motions for PO's with the judge actually granting Jonah's motion. Speaks volumes! Also, very interesting how quiet Nina and Adam appear to be in their defense strategy compared to Dina's representation.

BBM. I agree.

The other 2 defendants have been keeping a low profile. AS hasn't filed anything since a case management statement back in December, (12-24-14). NR filed a demurrer/ motion to strike 12-09-14, and a form to add an attorney 1-20-15.

From my cursory and completely non-scientific estimates, DS files about 10 documents/ motions for every one filed by NR or AS. She has emerged as the leader of the 3 defendants in terms of the amount of activity on this case.

But it also does not appear to me that the 3 defendants are collaborating at all in their defense. FWIW.