Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #4

[justice be served]

<modsnip>
Looks like things have slowed down on LHK as last posting was mid August. Maybe counsel told them to shut off the thing. I guess if it next disappears, the way back machine has all of it anyway. Just unbelievable that Dina's lawyer referenced it in a pleading. I'll bet she'll never live that one down.

 

[*Lash*]

Excellent news On Friday the Federal case was dismissed. The Honorable Judge Whelan granted the Plaintiffs' (Rebecca Zahau family) motion for voluntary dismissal, in spite of repeated objections by the defendants D.N.A.

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to Def. R. Div. P. 41(a)(2) [Doc. 73]

https://www.pacer.gov/
Case #: 13-cv-01624-W-NLS

Most recent entries in docket as of yesterday:

View attachment 83430 - Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc 99)
View attachment 83429
View attachment 83428

Thanks Carioca

Just an FYI, the PDF link contains 3 documents. The original link didn't seperate the 3. The first attachment is doc 99, Dismissal Without Prejudice. Good read. ETA- I was able to separate the docs in the above quote.

Below, one of Judge Whelan's decisions. This one on the Federal Subpoena Power. Remember Dina wanted the federal case to stay because she alleged the Rady's surveillance was in FBI custody.

3. Deprivation of Federal Subpoena Power ( doc 99 page 7)

Dina Shacknai and Nina Romano contend that they will suffer legal prejudice by no longer having access to federal subpoena power to conduct discovery. (See Dina Shacknai Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 81] 10:25&#8211;13:9; Nina Romano Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 82] 3:5&#8211;4:3.)

Dina Shacknai contends that a loss of federal subpoena power would prevent her from accessing information in the possession of various federal agencies. (Dina Shacknai Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 81] 10:25&#8211;13:9.) She provides a letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (&#8220;FBI&#8221 declining to comply with a state-court subpoena and requesting an affidavit from Ms. Shacknai pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22(d) in order to determine whether to authorize release of the information.2 (Dina Shacknai Exh. B [Doc. 81].) It does not follow from the FBI&#8217;s compliance with applicable regulations that Ms. Shacknai would be unable to obtain the information she seeks without a federal subpoena.

Nina Romano joins in Ms. Shacknai&#8217;s contention. (Nina Romano Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 82]3:5&#8211;4:3.) Ms. Romano asserts that information vital to establishing her defense is contained on digital drives from Rady&#8217;s Children&#8217;s Hospital, which are now in the possession of the FBI&#8217;s San Diego Regional Computer Crime Lab. (Id.) Plaintiff Pari Zahau replies that original copies of the video footage in question &#8220;are being held at the Coronado Police Department&#8221; and have already been produced pursuant to a state-court subpoena. (Pari Zahau Reply [Doc. 89] 2:15&#8211;20.)

Irrespective of the discovery status of this information, no defendant demonstrates that the documents in question would be inaccessible without a federal subpoena. Accordingly, there is no showing that the loss of federal subpoena power would cause plain legal prejudice. See Smith, 263 F.3d at 975&#8211;76.

 

[*Lash*]

Judge Whelan's decision on Dina's Deprivation of Statute of Limitations Defense -

2. Deprivation of Statute of Limitations Defense (doc 99, page 6)

Dina Shacknai contends that she will suffer legal prejudice &#8220;by being deprived of a statute of limitations defense.&#8221; (Dina Shacknai Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 81] 10:21&#8211;23.) Accordingto Ms. Shacknai, dismissal of the original complaint on November 12, 2013 implies that the SAC does not relate back, and the applicable statute of limitations now bars the action. (See id. 9:2&#8211;7.)

An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when &#8220;the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out&#8212;or attempted to be set out&#8212;in the original pleading.&#8221; See Fed. R.Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). &#8220;An amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence if it will likely be proved by the same kind of evidence offered in support of the original pleading.&#8221; Asarco, LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004(9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). &#8220;The relation back doctrine is to beliberally applied.&#8221; Id. at 1005.

The SAC states a claim based on the same occurrence set out in the original complaint, the death of Rebecca Zahau. (See Compl. [Doc. 1]; SAC [Doc. 36].) Ms.Shacknai provides no reasoning as to why the SAC would not relate back. (See DinaShacknai Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 81] 8:1&#8211;10:24.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B); Asarco, LLC,765 F.3d at 1005. She instead focuses on a footnote to an unpublished opinion of the Central District of California, Lee v. United States, 2013 WL 3044860 at *7 n.4 (C.D.Cal. June 14, 2013), which discusses the impact of a dismissal on a plaintiff&#8217;s ability to file a new action in the future after properly exhausting administrative remedies. (Id.) She does not explain what this authority has to do with relation back, or how any potentially applicable statute of limitations defense would substantively differ under California&#8217;s relation back doctrine.1

Accordingly, Dina Shacknai does not demonstrate that the loss of a statute of limitations defense would cause her plain legal prejudice. See Smith, 263 F.3d at 975&#8211;76.

 

[*Lash*]

Judge Whelan's decision on Adam's discovery defense and Nina's costs/fees defense.

4. Discovery (doc 99 page 9)

Adam Shacknai contends that a dismissal would cause him legal prejudice because the California Code of Civil Procedure would govern expert discovery in a California Superior Court action. (See Adam Shacknai Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 83] 9:5&#8211;12:25.) Mr. Shacknai discusses several differences between federal and California procedural law, but he does not offer any reasoning as to how California&#8217;s procedural rules would cause prejudice to any legal interest, claim, or argument. (See id.) See Smith, 263 F.3d at 976.

Accordingly, Mr. Shacknai does not demonstrate that the loss of federal procedural rules would cause him plain legal prejudice. See Smith, 263 F.3d at 975&#8211;76.


B. Costs and Fees (doc 99 page 9)

Only one defendant, Nina Romano, argues for recovery of costs and fees as a condition of dismissal. (See Nina Romano Opp&#8217;n [Doc. 82] 4:5&#8211;24.) In the single paragraph she devotes to the issue, Ms. Romano does not state what particular work product would be useless in future California Superior Court proceedings, or why. (See id.) Rather, Ms. Romano moves to condition dismissal on payment of all costs and all fees incurred from the point Defendants opposed &#8220;[P]laintiffs&#8217; motion for leave to amend[,]&#8221; apparently the one filed in November of 2013 [Doc. 19], to the present. (Seeid. [Doc. 82] 4:5&#8211;24.) Without any identification of the work product in question or reasoning as to why it would be useless upon dismissal, there can be no principled basis for conditioning dismissal on such an award. See Koch, 8 F.3d at 652; Stevedoring, 889F.2d at 921.

 

[SweetT]

As well, the amount of attention a litigation claim receives usually depends on how much the insurance co anticipates losing or winning. Most companies have a select few firms they have chosen to work their litigation claims. They have their own legal department overseeing these types of claims. The department would review motions, billable hours, contact with law firm, etc...They approve/decline any settlement offers. Imo, the ins co usually holds the reigns. They can trump the law firm and insured.

True, we always had the power to over ride the attorneys in settlements etc..or should I say decide not to take their advice if it did not seem logical etc. We could settle or fight, always an option, always having to weigh which would financially benefit our company more. A lot of times it was just a guessing game. A lot of times, we knew we had evidence to prove things one way or another. Other times the judge made the final call.

 

[Frigga]

^ It was ANYONE except Rebecca or XZ searching for Asian on REBECCA's COMPUTER, huh?

Nope, it was Rebecca planning her naked Cirque du Soliel act - an angry FU to Jonah and Dina.

JMOO

I'll agree with you that it was a big, long over due FU to Jonah but it was FROM Dina, IMOO.

 

[kittychi]

Yes IMO ^

 

[Morag]

P

I'll agree with you that it was a big, long over due FU to Jonah but it was FROM Dina, IMOO.

Yes...and she would have had an opportunity when Rebecca was on one of her airport runs that day.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Only Rebecca and her sister were at the mansion that day. IMO, it was Rebecca. After all, it was HER computer, and was most likely password protected.

JMO

 

[LuckyLucy2]

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, DINA SHACKNAI ("Defendant"), submits this Separate Statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 in support of her concurrently-filed Motion for an Order Compelling Third-Party Witness, DOUG LOEHNER ("Mr. Loehner"), to Answer to Defendant's deposition questions.

Questions and Answers from The Order to Compel Plantiff.

(Note, statements and questions are asked by Kim Schumann, Attorney for Dina Shacknai, and answers are from Doug Loehner to his Attorney, Council Greer - unless otherwise noted.)

1. Question: Have you been involved in any of the conferences-if there had been any-any of the conferences that your wife has had with her lawyer?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay. And you've been present during discussion that related to how to handle this lawsuit?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay. Are you a plaintiff in this lawsuit?

Answer: Yes.

Statement By Counsel, Keith Greer: But he's not a plaintiff. You're not a named plaintiff.

Statement by Counsel, Kim Schumann: Okay. So, Keith, I think I'm entitled to know what discussed in those conversations in that he's not a plaintiff.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

By Counsel Greer: You can-you'll have to make-go to court to get that one.

2. Question: All right. When was the last time you and your wife met with her lawyer to discuss this case?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement By Counsel Greer: You know what, I'm going-I'm going to object as attorney-client privilege.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: And so I will forego asking all of the questions. We'll agree that you'll object and instruct him not to answer any of those questions.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Time, place, substance.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. And-and based on attorney-client privilege?

Statement By Counsel Greer: Yes sir.

Statement bv Counsel Schumann: Okay. Is he-all you're basing it on is a spousal privilege?

Statement By Counsel Greer: Marital privilege also. Depending on-either or both, depending on the nature of the question, I would instruct him not to answer.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. Should I ask all the questions?

Statement By Counsel Greer: No.

Statement By Counsel Greer: No. For your purposes, if you need to go to court, you can presume that I would have objected to all of them.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. And can we also agree that both objections will be-that the objections will be attorney-client privilege and spousal?

Statement By Counsel Greer: And spousal and work product.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: And work product. Got it. And that will go also as to how many meetings, the length of the meetings?

Statement By Counsel Greer: Anything at all relating to those communications.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. Got it. Would that also go for whether he was involved in discussions that relate to the decision to file a lawsuit?

Statement By Counsel Greer: Yes.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: All right. That takes care of that for now.

Statement By Counsel Greer: This-he really doesn't have much to offer outside of that; so--

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. Okay. Did you discuss who to file a lawsuit against with your wife before you retained a lawyer?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Object as marital privilege. I instruct him not to answer.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Question: Did you personally seek out any attorneys in an attempt to file a lawsuit?

Statement By Counsel Greer: And as-as-as phrased would invade attorney-client privilege. What do you need? Do you just want to know if he ever called an attorney, that he personally tried to look for an attorney after Rebecca's death?

Statement by Counsel Schumann: I want to find out if he is the one who was in charge of finding a lawyer--

Statement By Counsel Greer: I am going to object as attorney-client privilege.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. Are you going to instruct him not to answer then or what?

Statement By Counsel Greer: Well, let me talk-maybe-maybe it's not worth me even interfering with it.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Okay. Just a quick statement. Off the record I discussed with my client the question that was pending, and we discussed with counsel off the record some information that we would be willing to share if the proper question was phrased without waiving the other related attorney--

4. Question: Okay. So did you have any involvement in the hiring any of the lawyers that have touched this case for the plaintiffs?

Statement by Counsel Greer: It's a yes/no question. I think you can answer. Were you involved in any of the lawyers?

Answer: Yes.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. And what was your involvement in hiring of lawyers Statement by Counsel Greer: I would object is that invades the attorney-client privilege.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Question: Did you review any of the complaints that were filed in this lawsuit before they were filed?

Statement by Counsel Greer: Object, attorney-client privilege. Yes, I'm instructing him not to answer.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay.

6. Did you have anything to do with approving what was going to be said to the news media at any time after Rebecca's death?

Answer: Boy, that invades the attorney-client privilege also. Instruct him not to answer.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

7. What involvement, if any, did Mary have with any of the statements that were made to the news media?

Answer: As phrased, invades attorney-client privilege and I instruct not to answer.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

8. Okay. Have you talked to Mary about what she believes was Rebecca's relationship with Jonah?

Statement by Counsel Greer: It's a yes/no question.

Answer: Yes.

Question: And what did she tell you?

Statement by Counsel Greer: You know, as phrased, it's going to invade-invade the marital privilege, but can you ask Mary?

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Well, I'm certainly going to ask Mary, but I do want to ask him, too.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Does it open the door now, though, in start letting you chat about what they talked with each other? So I guess I have to assert the privilege right?

Statement by Counsel Marino: So if you're going to assert the privilege, you got to assert the privilege-

Statement by Counsel Greer: You got to do it all the way.

Statement by Counsel Marino: -you can't pick and choose.

Statement by Counsel Greer: you can't pick and choose, yeah. Yeah. You-you can't pick and choose; so, yeah, I have to assert the privilege.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

9. You have looked, I assume, at a lot of the material that relate to the investigation into Rebecca's death, correct?

Statement by Counsel Greer: I just object. That's going to invade the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: If you have answer yes or no, it probably doesn't. Have you seen stuff relating to the investigation.

Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay. Have you read the sheriffs department's file-or any portion thereof?

Statement by Counsel Greer: Okay. I' going to in- --I'm going to instruct him not to answer as that invades attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine still whatever he was and wasn't given to read.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: But it doesn't say whether he was given it. I'm just asking you whether he has read it.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Okay. This is clearly-

Statement by Counsel Schumann: I'm just asking whether he has given-

Statement by Counsel Greer:The only-I just confirmed it. The only materials you have relating to that investigation was given to you by attorneys, correct?

Answer by The Witness: Yes.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Okay. He doesn't have it from any other source.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: But he's not a plaintff; so I don't understand how you can assert a privilege-privilege as to what he has read.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Because we represent him and he's involved in that decision. There's-he has potential liabilities from the lawsuit through community property. He' s-although not a party, he's a related party that will be impacted by the case.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: We're not going to use him as an expert. I'll stipulate to that.

13. Statement by Counsel Schumann: In anything that you have seen, any evidence that you've seen in this case, do you believe that any of it point to my client having had anything to do with Rebecca's death?

Statement by Counsel Greer: I instruct the witness not to answer as that invades the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

11. Question: As you sit here today, do you know of any evidence that you believed would disprove the suicide theory?

Statement by Counsel Greer: I instruct the witness not to answer as it invades attorney-client privilege since all of the evidence he has came from counsel.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

12. Question: Do you know if Jonah or any of his representatives have ever contacted you or the family or any of the family's lawyers?

Statement by Counsel Greer: You know what, it's-to the extent I would be the one telling him, it would invade the attorney-client privilege, but I can tell you we've never been contacted by him. Just-So let me just asking him-

Statement by Counsel Greer: Well, I can't have that asked because it invades the attorney-client privilege because the only person he could hear it from was me. I'll instruct him not to answer because-

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay.

Statement by Counsel Greer: -it invades attorney-and I will tell you, we've never been contacted by him or his attorneys.

13. Question: The same question as to whether Jonah or any of his representatives have ever contacted any of your experts.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I instruct him not to answer because it would invade attorney-client privilege, and I am going to tell you I'm not aware of him ever doing that or his people.

14. Question: Did you have anything to do with the decision not to sue Jonah for the wrongful death of Rebecca?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I would instruct him not to answer based on attorney-client privilege and work product.

15. Question: Did -- has anyone that you or your lawyer has retained -- and I don't mean names yet, but has anyone that you or your lawyer -- you, the family, or your lawyers have retained had access to that house after Rebecca's death?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: As phrased, would invade --invade the attorney-client privilege. Instruct him not to answer. But we haven't.

16. Question: Okay. I just want to confirm something. I assume you have your own opinions as to what might or might not have transpired the evening of Rebecca's death. Do I assume that correctly so far?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay. What is the -- what are the facts upon which you base those opinions?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.
.
Statement by Counsel Greer: I instruct him not to answer because that would invade the attorney-client privilege. His fact -- his opinion is necessarily based on all of the information that we've shared with him.

16. Question: Okay. What do you believe happened to Rebecca?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: You know, I'm going to instruct him not to answer. His opinion would be necessarily based on evidence received from us and communications with us as his attorneys; so the answer will invade the attorney-client privilege.

18. Question. Is the lawsuit also based on any actual facts that place any of the defendants anywhere near Rebecca shortly before her death?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.
Statement by Counsel Greer: I'm going to instruct him to answer. Invades attorney-client privilege.

19. It's my understanding that Rebecca --that -- that you -- you and/or the family and/or your lawyer has Rebecca's cell phone records. Have you ever looked at them? "-

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel. Objection to the extent it would invade attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine .I instruct him not to answer.

20. Question: Have you ever looked at any of Rebecca's e-mails?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Same objection. Unless you've gotten those e-mails from anything -- anything you've gotten isn't from us, you can answer that question.

21. Question: My last question is do you -- do you have an opinion as to what happened to Rebecca--

Statement by Counsel Greer: Yes or no question.

Question: -- and who was involved?

Answer: Do I have an opinion?

Question: And who was involved?

Answer: Yes, I have an opinion.

Question: What is your opinion?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I instruct the witness not to answer. It invades the attorney-client privilege. It's based on information received from us --

Question: And you will not be --

Statement by Counsel Greer: -- and our work product.

Question: And you will not be testifying at trial concerning the opinion that you may have either, correct?

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: You don't have to answer that. I'll tell you we do not have an intent to have him give any of those such opinions at trial.

Question: Please answer -- please answer -- please answer the question.

Doug Loehner refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: That -- that actually would go to attorney work product and our decision as to who to use as experts; so I'll instruct him not to answer. I'll just tell you we're not, and if we do decide to change that, we'll make him available for deposition.

Question: Are you following your attorney's instructions?

Answer: Yes.




https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...tion_Testimony_of_Doug_P_Lo_1445568050507.pdf

 

[K_Z]

Three new documents filed on the San Diego Register of Actions in the Zahau case. All three are filed by the Zahau Plaintiffs, and there are 440 pages of documents (DL- 93 pages; XZ 41 pages; MZL 370 pages):

232 10/26/15 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Oppostion to Motion to Compel deposition of Doug Loehner

233 10/26/15 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Opposition to motion to compel deposition testimony of Mary Zahau-Loehner

234 10/26/15 Memo of Points and Authorities in support of Opposition to Motion to Compel deposition testimony of Xena Zahau

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...d_Authorities_in_support_of_1446225317704.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...d_Authorities_in_support_of_1446225318860.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...horities_in_support_of_Oppo_1446225319985.pdf

In the interest of saving space in the thread, I'm not going to copy and paste all 440 pages here, lol!

Hope it's not too much trouble for folks to click on the above links!

 

[LuckyLucy2]

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 6, 2015, at 1 :30 p.m., in Department C-69 of the above-entitled Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, Defendant Dina Shacknai will and hereby does move the Court for an order compelling XZ to appear for a second deposition session to respond to questions asked by Defendant Dina Shacknai's counsel which were not answered based upon her counsel's instruction and assertion of the attorney-client privilege and or right to privacy. Further, Defendant Dina Shacknai requests that monetary sanctions be issued upon Miss Z, and her counsel in the amount of $2,151.00.

Questions and Answers from The Order to Compel Plantiff.

(Note, statements and questions are asked by Kim Schumann, Attorney for Dina Shacknai, and answers are from XZ or her Attorney, Council Greer - unless otherwise noted.)


Question: Is there any particular reason why you live with Mary and not your mother?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement of Counsel Greer: I object as to invasion of her right to privacy and instruct her not to answer.

Question: Okay. Was any -- was any family member with you when the second interview took place?

Answer: No.

Question: Okay.

Answer: Not in the room with me.

Question: Okay. But outside the room?

Answer: Right.

Question: And who was that?

Answer: My brother-in-law.

Question: I'm sorry?

Answer: My brother-in-law.

Question: And who is that?

Answer: Doug.

Question: Okay. Got it. Was it a male or female that interviewed you the second time?

Answer: Male.

Question: Okay. One or two?

Answer: It was more than one.

Question: More than one?

Answer: (Witness nods head.)

Question: Okay. Maybe more than two?

Answer: I don't think so.

Question: Okay. Do you remember if they recorded it either with a video or with just a handheld recorder, any device?

Answer: It might have been with a recorder.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Oh --

Question: Just like a handheld recorder?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Time out. Time out. Time out. I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's breach of attorney-client privilege. That's our interview. Yeah. So that's -- it was our meeting with her was the second tIme,

Answer: I think so.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Okay. Yeah, so I just instruct her not to answer anything about that.

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: So anything related to that second interview --

Statement by Counsel Greer: Attorney-client privilege. Instruct her not to answer.

Question: All right. So you're on the call with the 911 dispatcher. Have you read or listened to the 911 call?

Answer: Once.

Question: And when was that?

Answer: It was over a year ago.

Question: Okay. And how come you were listening to it?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: You know what, I object, attorney-client privilege, yep, and instruct the witness not to answer.

Question: Now, did Rebecca say anything to you about the dog having caused Max to fall?

Answer: No.

Question: Did Rebecca tell you that Max somehow said "Ocean" after he had fallen?

Answer: Yes.

And what did she mean by that when she said it to you? &#8211;

Answer: She didn't say it to me. She said it to an -- an emergency person that was there.

Question: The phone that Rebecca gave you --

Answer: Yes.

Question: did she set it up in her name?

Answer: I think so.

Question: And I want to ask --And you can object.-- what was that phone number?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I object, right to privacy.

Question: And you had that phone for four months or so you said. Do you know who paid for the bills?

Statement by Counsel Greer: It was asked and answered. You can answer.

Answer: At first Rebecca did.

Question: Okay. How do you know she did other than buying the phone?

Answer: Because she told me she would.

Question: Okay. Was it her own credit card?

Answer: I don't know.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I object, right to privacy.

Question: And you had that phone for four months or so you said. Do you know who paid for the bills?

Statement by Counsel Greer: It was asked and answered.

Question: You can answer.

Answer: At first Rebecca did.

Question: Okay. How do you know she did other than buying the phone?

Answer: Because she told me she would.

Question: Okay. Was it her own credit card?

Answer: I don't know.

Question: Okay. How often do you get together with your mother?

Answer: Every other week end at least.

Question: Is there any reason why you don't get together with her of- -- more often than that?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I object, right to privacy.

Statement by Counsel Schumaun: Are you instruct &#8211;

Statement by Counsel Greer: I instruct her not to answer.

Question: Did Rebecca have an estranged relationship with her parents?

XZ refuses to answer.

Question: Did you use the computer in the -- in one of the rooms upstairs?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I'm just going to object. We're really going way out on a limb. Whether she used the computer or not is no relevance. I instruct her -- right to privacy -- don't answer. We got to rein this in somewhere, gang.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: So, I'm sorry, you're objecting to her computer use?

Statement by Counsel Greer: Yeah, right to -- right to privacy.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay. I mean you know there are certain things looked at during the time around Rebecca's death that seem to be important to this case.

Statement by Counsel Greer: I don't think they are, but that's okay. Still assert the same right to privacy.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Okay.

Question: Did you have to use a login password to get on the computer?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Same objection.

Statement by Counsel Schumann: Same instruction?

Statement by Counsel Greer: Yeah.

Statement by Counsell Schumann: So, counsel, you will not allow me -- you will not allow her -- me to ask her whether she accessed any of the websites that police found had been accessed?

Statement by Counsel Greer: Correct.

Question: And just to confirm, you're being represented by Mr. Greer today?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And when did you retain Mr. Greer as your counsel?

Answer: I don't remember when.

Question; Was it this year? Answer: Last year.

Question: What was the purpose for which you retained Mr. Greer?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: She's a minor. She said I'm her attorney and I'm representing her in this case, and I'll instruct her not to answer, invasion of the attorney-client privilege

Question: Okay. Do you have any reason to believe of your own independent knowledge that Max's Aunt Nina had anything to do with your sister's death?

Answer: I'm not sure.

Question: Why are you not sure?

Answer: Because they would -- they had a reason to.

Question. What was their reason?

Answer: That they thought it was Becky's fault.

Question: Even if they thought that, they were at the hospital, correct?

XZ refuses to answer.

Statement by Counsel Greer: Aww Argumentative. You don't have to answer that.

Statement by Counsel Acosta: Why? Why?

Statement by Counsel Greer: She has no idea where they were. I kind of let -- I left the gate open here to let you get where you wanted to go, but any further I'll be objecting.

Statement by Counsel Acosta: X, these are very serious accusations. I understand it's difficult. You're -- you are suing --

Statement by Counsel Greer: She's not suing anybody. She's not a party to this lawsuit.

Statement by Counsel Acosta: Okay. Well --

Statement by Counsel Greer: She's a 16-year-old kid that's here telling what she knows about what went on. I don't think it's appropriate to argue with her about contingents of the case. You're asking --

Statement by Counsel Acosta: I'm not arguing with her, but I will argue with you.

Statement by Counsel Greer: We can do that. We can do that. Let's get her done.

Statement by Counsel Acosta: All right.

Question: SO in any event, what --what is your reasoning that they had a motive? Just that because Max was egregiously injured? Had your sister ever talked to you about being very, very sad or depressed or anything that she didn't like about her life?

Answer: No.

Question: Okay. Never?

Answer: No.

Question: Okay. Did you ever see your sister other than after Max's fall in this incident, did you of see your sister cry?

Answer: No.



https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...upport_of_Motion_to_Compel__1445568053053.pdf

 

[K_Z]

Bold by me:

Defendant DINA SHACKNAI’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) motion to compel further testimony of non-party Ms. Xena Zahau (“Ms. Zahau”), who at the time of her deposition was 16 years old, violates her attorney-client privileges and her right to privacy. Moreover, Defendant seeks information from a deponent who, at the time of Ms. Rebecca Zahau’s alleged murder in San Diego, had just turned 13 and was more than 1,500 miles away in St. Joseph, Missouri.

Moreover, each and every document in Plaintiffs’ possession has been produced to Defendant in this case, including all the phone records they are attempting to question Ms. Zahau about.

Defendant also seeks answers as to Ms. Zahau’s familial relationships, including why she lives with her sister, Mary Zahau-Loehner (“Ms. Zahau-Loehner”), and not her mother. First and foremost, familial relationships are rights fiercely protected by the U.S. Constitution and Defendant has no right to this private information. Nonetheless, Ms. Zahau-Loehner has already answered this question during her deposition and to compel Ms. Zahau to answer violates her Constitutional right to privacy. Moreover, this information is in no way directly related and essential to this case.

Finally, Defendant seeks to compel Ms. Zahau to testify as to her family relations.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate why this line of questioning has any direct relevance to this case and that such information is “essential.” The Supreme Court has consistently held that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" [(Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1928)] and has specifically listed family relations and child rearing as a protected privacy interest. (Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, 152-153.). Here, Defendant’s questions specifically seek to intrude Ms. Zahau’s familial relations and Defendant’s motion to compel deposition testimony should be denied.

Accordingly, pursuant to the holding in Rifkind, questioning about contentions regarding location of the defendants at the time of the murder, even in an argumentative form, was inappropriate and the objection should be sustained. This is particularly true regarding this deponent, who is a minor, not a party to the case, and could not have been a witness to the murder since she was at her home in St. Joseph, Missouri at the time. And finally, it is simply not fair to allow highly competent counsel badger a minor, still suffering from the death of her sister, and already intimidated by being in a room full of layers making her fell like the wrongdoer, with clearly argumentative questions that would not be allowed at trial.

With typos noted-- "lawyers", not "layers", and "feel" not "fell". Greer also got Max's full name wrong once in that document-- listed as "Maxwell" instead of "Maxfield". But at least Greer knows the 911 call in question pertained to Max's death, and not Rebecca's-- that's a very big improvement over the gaffes in Dina's documents from the Schumann firm, who clearly didn't know the 911 call they were questioning XZ about was not from Rebecca's death-- and then quite incorrectly stated XZ discovered Rebecca's body.

I really wish these highly paid attorneys and their staffs would proofread!

Good for Greer for calling out the harassment and badgering of this minor, who was 1500 miles away when her sister died, and is NOT a party to the lawsuit.

Similar to the badgering and harassment of Lisa Luber, I suspect, who was ALSO very clearly not in the state of California when Rebecca died.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...horities_in_support_of_Oppo_1446225319985.pdf

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I am one of the attorneys for members of the Zahau and Loehner families in this matter, including XZ, [/B] a minor, Doug Loehner, Pari Zahau and Mary Zahau-Loehner, individually and as representative of the estates of Rebecca Zahau and Robert Zahau. [My representation commenced in May of 2011. At the time I joined the litigation team, the Zahau family had other counsel, who continue to consult on the case.

Looks like Greer also got the date he became their attorney wrong. Unless Max's accident and Rebecca's suicide was planned in advance.

WHY does XZ, who was whisked out of town after Max's accident, and who is a WITNESS in this case, need Greer to represent her?

Why does Doug, a policeman and not a Plantiff in this case need Greer to represent him?

Why won't the Zahaus and Doug answer the questions? What are they trying hide (other than they have no evidence for their insane claims)?

Why is XZ reviewing her 911 call, and getting coaching from Greer? Why can't she just tell the truth? Why the need for secrets?

I think we can see how the different families involved in this tragedy have reacted. The Shacknais and Romanos cooperated with LE, told the truth, answered any questions asked, did not lawyer up, and stayed out of the media as much as possible following Max's death and Rebecca's suicide.

The Zahaus went to the media just 8 days after Rebecca's death, lawyered up with the Queen of Litagation Sensationalism, deluded the media with their opinions, dug up Rebecca for a Sweeps Week stunt, had fundraising campaign after fundraising campaign (and received very little support), brought bogus murder accusations against innocent people in a Civil Case for money - and lots of it - and now REFUSE to answer questions

I really hope they are sanctioned for their blatant refusal to cooperate with the Defendants that THEY have accused (falsely) of serious, deplorable crimes.

Attorny Greer must be the smarmiest person on earth. It seems he will do anything for money - from representing the Zahaus in a possible effort to frame people for murder, to sueing the FBI for the sister of the man who kidnapped teenager Hannah Anderson and killed by the FBI during her rescue. Also for lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...-in-Hannah-Anderson-Abduction-320207721.html#

JMO

 

[LuckyLucy2]

How do we KNOW that Mary, Doug, and XZ were 1500 miles away when Rebecca comitted suicide?

We have not seen video tape of them at home during that time.

JMO

 

[Gilgamesh]

Remember: Don't. Take. The. Bait.

 

[K_Z]

Wow! There are more pages in those 3 documents that I thought. My mistake, lol.

There are 504 pages. Why, that's a lot of reading. Might take some time to read thru all that.

I still think I'll refrain from copying and posting all 504 pages, though. Lol.

Night crawlers.

 

[justice be served]

K_Z, thank you for your generosity in downloading and paying for all of these documents to share with the forum. Your commitment to the WDS is hugely appreciated!