-
FILED14 MAR 27 PM 4:28
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILEDCASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383-7 SEA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
)In re the Marriage of: ) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA
)TWILA MARKHAM, )
Petitioner, ) MOTION AND DECLARATION) FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
and ) DISCOVERY FROM PETITIONER)
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, ))
Respondent. )________________________________________ )
I. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
1. Relief Sought. Twila Markham, the Petitioner/Wife herein, by
and through her
attorney of record, Karma L. Zaike, o f Michael W. Bugni &
Associates, moves this Court,
pursuant to Civil Rule 37(a), for an order compelling the
Respondent/Husband, Gerald W.
Markham, to serve his full and complete answers to
interrogatories and Requests for
Production that were submitted pursuant to Civil Rules 33 and
34. The Wife also requests the
appointment o f a Discovery Special Master, pursuant to CR 53.3.
The Wife further moves,
pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4), to have the Husband pay the
reasonable expenses, including
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 1 o f
11
LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W. B ug ni &
Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attorneys fees, incurred in obtaining this Order along with
sanctioning the Husband $100 per
day for every day he does not submit his answers to the Wife
once an Order is entered.
2. Grounds.
First set of Interrogatories. The Husband was served with the
Wifes first set of
interrogatories and requests for production on August 30, 2013.
Exhibit 1. Though the
Husband did provide responses to many of Wifes first
interrogatories and requests for
production, he failed to provide a complete response to the
Wifes Request for Production
(RFP) Number 3, which contained a request for statements for all
of the Husbands bank
accounts for the past two years. With a marital estate totaling
~ $10 million, financial records
are of particular importance in this matter. Therefore, a
deficiency letter was sent to the
Husbands attorneys on October 23, 2013. Exhibit 2.
On October 30, 2013, in response, one o f the Husbands
attorneys, Mr. Anthony Urie,
sent Wifes counsel a 14-page letter explaining that the Husband
would not be providing
statements for his brokerage or retirement accounts because the
RFP requested statements for
all bank accounts, as opposed to other types of financial
accounts, and notified Wifes
counsel that the Husband was refusing to participate in a
discovery conference. Exhibit 3.
Due to Mr. Uries refusal to conduct a discovery conference by
phone, a detailed letter was
sent to the Husbands attorneys on November 18, 2013, outlining
the Wifes specific
objections to the Husbands outstanding Requests for Production.
Exhibit 4. The letter
expressed a willingness to work together in good faith to
determine the appropriate scope of
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW
OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 2 o f 11
MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEASTSEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Husbands discovery requests, as well as provide a list of
documents the Wife was willing
to produce.
For months, Respondents attorneys, Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi,
refused to respond
to the 11/18/13 discovery letter. Counsel for the Wife was
unable to bring a motion for
protective order because the CR 37 conference had not been
completed. A partial discovery
conference did occur on January 8, 2014, with Mr. Tsai and Mr.
Urie, but was incomplete.
The wife has willingly produced 1,834 pages of documents neatly
organized and bates
stamped. Said documents include but are not limited to all of
the parties tax returns in her
possession, bank statements, credit card statements and other
financial statements in her
possession for a minimum of two years for all of the colossal
number o f accounts in which the
parties have an interest, and has packed up much of the Husbands
personal property, which
remains ready to be delivered. In addition to Ms. Markhams
initial discovery responses
which were produced, she has also timely supplemented financial
documents and answers as
new information becomes available.
Second Set of Interrogatories propounded to Husband. In response
to bad faith
gamesmanship on the part o f the Husband, a second, very
specific set o f Interrogatories and
Requests for Production were served on his counsel on January
21, 2014. Exhibit 5. On
February 10, Wifes counsel proactively inquired as to whether
timely and complete
responses would be provided by the discovery due date, or
whether the Husband would be
seeking an extension. Exhibit 6. Wifes counsel also asked in
this e-mail whether a
discovery conference would be necessary. Ten days later, after
receiving no response, Wifes
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW
OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 3 o f 11
MICHAEL W . BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEASTSEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
counsel sent the Husbands attorney another e-mail inquiring as
to the Husbands ability to
meet discovery deadlines. Exhibit 7. On February 19, the
Husbands attorney responded by
simply stating that by his calculations, responses were not due
until February 24, and that he
was not available for a discovery conference at the scheduled
time. Exhibit 8. On February
20, the day before responses were due, Wifes counsel again
requested that the Husbands
counsel either advise that his responses would be provided on
time, or that a discovery
conference be scheduled. Exhibit 9. The Husbands counsel again
refused to schedule a
discovery conference at that time, and instead, sent Wifes
counsel a letter containing a vague
list of objections to the W ifes discovery as a whole, stated
that more substantive answers
would be provided by February 24, and declared that if a
discovery conference is needed at
that time, one would be scheduled. Exhibit 10.
On February 24, 2014, the Husbands attorney requested via e-mail
that Mr. Markham
be granted a 7-day extension. Exhibit 11. This was concerning
because the majority o f the
documents the Wife has requested can simply be downloaded by the
Husband from accounts
which are accessed on-line. The Husband was given the benefit of
the doubt, and agreed to a
moratorium in discovery until March 3, 2014. Exhibit 12.
On the evening o f March 3, the Husband produced a meager number
of financial
documents as his only response to the Wifes discovery requests.
Exhibit 13: Summary of
documents produced. Despite the fact that the Husband had plenty
of time in which to
respond to the Wifes discovery requests, and the Wifes counsel
even agreed to an extension
to allow him to do so, the Husband failed to provide any
responses to the Wifes second set of
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW
OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 4 of 11
MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEASTSEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interrogatories until March 12, 2014. Though the Husbands
attorney suggested that the
Husband would be producing more of the documents requested by
the W ifes Requests for
Production, hard copies o f the same meager financial documents
that were received on March
3 were delivered to the office of the Wifes attorney on March 12
as well. O f concern is that
the Husband has failed to produce two years of statements for
any account and no statements
more recent than early January, 2014. The Husband has failed to
produce any current
financial documents for 2014, including not one single credit
card statement or financial
account statement.
Furthermore, Respondents attorney has repeatedly failed to
cooperate in scheduling a
discovery conference. Wifes counsel provided notice of a
discovery conference over a month
ago when she served the Husband with the discovery requests. She
has made continuous
efforts to accommodate the schedule o f the Husband and his
attorney, but the Husbands
attorney has failed to respond to her e-mails, return her phone
calls, or even to make himself
available to discuss this matter at previously scheduled times.
Additionally, counsel refuses
to respond to repeated requests to make documents available.
Exhibit 14.
At no time prior to the filing of this motion has the Husband
requested a protective
order or request to limit the scope of discovery. The following
Interrogatories and Requests
for Production of Documents were not fully answered and are in
need o f a response:
Interrogatory No. 22: The interrogatory requested that Mr.
Markham identify the amount of any charge imposed for medical
coverage for each member o f his family. Mr. Markham stated that
there is an amount deducted from his AK PERS retirement check for
dental, optical and audio, as well as amounts paid for Medicare,
Part B. However, Mr. Markham failed to provide these amounts.
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 5 o f
11
LAW OFFICES_____________________MiCKAEL W. BUGNi & ASSOC.,
PLLC11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Interrogatory No. 26: The interrogatory requested that Mr.
Markham state the amounts o f all pension, retirement, unemployment
compensation and social security payments received by him for each
year since he was last employed. Mr. Markham stated that he
receives a PERS retirement check, and that such amounts for prior
years (since 2003) are contained in PERS 1099-R tax forms. However,
he has failed to provide the amounts requested or to produce any
1099-Rs for any previous years.
Interrogatory No. 28: The interrogatory requested that Mr.
Markham state the source and amount of any income he received in
each o f the last three years, including the current year, from any
source not disclosed in his answers to the previous
interrogatories. Mr. Markham merely states, See prior tax returns
in Petitioners possession. He does not state the sources of any
additional income, nor does he provide amounts received.
Interrogatory No. 32: Mr. Markham fails to provide information
regarding his retirement; states he will sign a release, but has
failed to do so. The source of this asset is essential since the
Wife believes that the Husband will make a separate property claim
on this asset at the time o f trial when it is fully a community
asset.
Interrogatory No. 37: The interrogatory requests that Mr.
Markham list any financial accounts in which he has had an interest
in the past three years, and for each such account state: (a) the
name and address o f the bank or financial institution at which the
account(s) is/are maintained; (b) type of account; (c) date the
account was opened; (d) date the account was closed (if not still
opened); (e) present balance; (I) persons authorized to draw on the
account; and (d) account numbers. Mr. Markham generally referred to
accounts for which the Petitioner has produced records, and
referred to statements for accounts produced within his responses.
Not only did Mr. Markham merely produce spotty records for only a
few of his financial accounts, he failed to answer the
interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 38: The interrogatory seeks information
regarding any withdrawals from Mr. Markhams financial accounts in
excess of $1,000 during the past 12 months. Mr. Markham has failed
to answer the interrogatory and has not provided comprehensive
statements for his accounts for the past 12 months such that this
information can be gleaned from documents he has produced, as he
indicates can be done his response.
Interrogatory No. 39: The interrogatory requests information
regarding Mr. Markhams investment plans. Mr. Markham stated that he
has an interest in the following accounts: (1) AK PERS retirement
plan; (2) stock in ALPS E&O Mutual Insurance Company; (3)
College Life policy; (4) Two retirement accounts from the
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW
OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 6 of 11
MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEASTSEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Municipality o f Anchorage (a 401K and 457); and (5) a SEP/IRA
through D.A. Davidson. However, Mr. Markham has failed to provide
the terms of such plans, his investment to date in such plans, or
his estimate o f their present value. Nor has Mr. Markham provided
statements for these plans, despite the fact that his response
states that documents regarding these plans will be provided.
Interrogatory No. 44 and 46: Mr. Markham fails to disclose any
securities or stocks purchased/sold during marriage and fails to
disclose savings or investment accounts. Mr. Markham has stated
that he intends to claim the majority o f the parties estate is his
separate property. His failure to produce statements or identify
accounts in his sole name preclude the Wife from obtaining evidence
to show that the funds have a community source.
Interrogatory No 53: The interrogatory seeks information
regarding Mr. Markhams ownership interests in any real property.
Mr. Markham states that he will produce all files in his possession
in response to the interrogatory but has failed to produced said
documents.
Interrogatory No. 55: The interrogatory seeks information
regarding Mr. Markhams ownership interests in any real property
which he claims is not community property. The interrogatory lists
questions a-h regarding such interests. Mr. Markham merely makes
conclusive statements about the characterization o f the partys
property generally, but fails to provide the information requested
by the interrogatory for each ownership interest he claims is not
community property.
Interrogatory No. 56: The interrogatory requests that Mr.
Markham list his average monthly expenses utilizing categories in a
chart provided by the interrogatory. Mr. Markham merely states that
he makes these payments by credit card and that the Petitioner has
access to such statements. Mr. Markham fails to take responsibility
for his own expenses or acknowledge that he has kept the majority
of the parties estate in his sole name.
Interrogatory No. 58: The interrogatory asks for Mr. Markhams
total average monthly income from ah sources. Mr. Markham merely
refers to his tax returns.
Interrogatory No. 59: The interrogatory requests that Mr.
Markham identify and describe all property he claims to be his
separate property. Mr. Markham has failed to provide the requested
information.
Interrogatory No 64: The interrogatory seeks information
regarding a change in location o f any funds or other liquid assets
having a value greater than $1,000. Mr.
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW
OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 7 of 11
MICHAEL W . BUGNi & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 .
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Markham has stated that such transfers are obvious from his
financial statements. However, Mr. Markham has neither answered the
question nor provided comprehensive financial statements for his
accounts.
Interrogatory No. 70: The interrogatory requests information
regarding any life insurance or annuity policies. Mr. Markham
merely states, See college life policies produced herewith. No such
policies were produced.
Interrogatory No. 74: The interrogatory seeks information
regarding each of the vehicles in which the parties have an
interest. Mr. Markham has failed to even list all of the vehicles
in which he has an interest, and has not provided any of the
information about each vehicle sought by the interrogatory.
Request for Production No. 4 : The RFP requested that Mr.
Markham produce legible copies of all documentary evidence
supporting his interest in assets acquired prior to the date of
marriage or after separation which are now in his spouses name or
control. Mr. Markham has responded that documents relating to his
interest in such assets are located at this office of his
attorney.
Request for Production No. 5: The RFP requested that Mr. Markham
produce legible copies of all documentary or physical evidence
supporting his contention that he is entitled to receive more than
50% of the net value of the marital estate. Mr. Markham has
responded that these documents will be available for inspection and
copying at his attorneys office at an agreed upon date and time.
Mr. Markhams attorney has refused to respond to inquiries as to
document availability.
Request for Production No. 7 : The RFP requested that Mr.
Markham produce copies o f all monthly statements for all debts
prepared by any creditor for each account listed in his answers to
interrogatories for the preceding twelve (12) months. Notably, Mr.
Markham failed to produce any statements for his American Express
credit card.Please produce statements for his American Express card
for the preceding 12 months. These statements can be acquired by
simply downloading them online.
Request for Production No. 9 : The RFP requested that Mr.
Markham produce important financial documents, most of which will
be required to be produced under KCLFLR 10. On March 3, Ms. Markham
received only the following financial documents:
1. Statements for Mr. Markhams Ameritrade Account ending in
#4823 for May, 2013, September, 2013 through January, 2014, and a
2013 year-end statement containing tax information;
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 8 o f
11
LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W. B ug ni &
Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Statements for Mr. Markhams D.A. Davidson Account ending in
#6360 for April, 2013, and January, 2014;
3. A statement for Mr. Markhams D.A. Davidson SEP IRA Account
ending in #8425 for January, 2014
4. Consolidated Summary o f Accounts for the parties four D.A.
Davidson accounts for April, 2013, and October, 2013 through
January, 2014.
On March 12, Ms. Markham received hard copies of the same
documents. On both occasions these documents were provided in a
completely random order, with several outdated statements
duplicated two or three times while no current statements were
produced.
The RFP requested full statements for all o f the above accounts
for the past 12 months, as well as:
a. Legible copies of all income tax returns filed by you or on
your behalf for the last three (3) years, including, but not
limited to, personal, corporate, partnership or other such
returns;
d. The most current statement that you have access to of accrued
benefits in connection with your retirement plants);
e. Legible copies of originals o f any and all brochures,
contracts, or other explanatory documents regarding any retirement
benefits to which you are entitled or will become entitled to;
f. All documents or records regarding any savings or investment
plans that you are participating in at the present time which have
been prepared for or received by you during the past 12 months;
g. All check or savings registers in your possession or to which
you have access which relate to any checking or savings accounts
into which you have deposited or from which you have withdrawn
funds during the past 12 months with such registers to cover the
most recent 12-month period;
h. All monthly statements and canceled checks in your possession
or to which you have access which relate to any checking, savings
or credit union accounts into which you have deposited or from
which you have withdrawn funds during the past 12 months covering
the most recent 12- month period;
i. All passbooks, monthly, quarterly and annual statements,
deposit slips and other records from any savings accounts into
which you have deposited funds or from which you have withdrawn
funds during the past eight (8) months;
j. Copies or originals o f all savings bond certificates
together with any other records in your possession or to which you
have access regarding savings bonds that you presently have an
interest in.
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW
OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 9 o f 11
MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEASTSEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Notably, Mr. Markham has failed to produce any documentation
regarding his retirement benefits through the Municipality of
Anchorage, his PERS files and his ALPS and College Life files,
though he acknowledged their existence in his response. Ms. Markham
is not in possession of any records o f these financial accounts
prepared since the date o f separation.
Request for Production No. 10: The RFP requested that Mr.
Markham produce any original or legible copy o f any community
property agreement or prenuptial agreement entered into between
himself and his spouse, as well as any documentary evidence that
the terms o f any community property agreement or prenuptial
agreement was adhered to during the marriage with full knowledge
and agreement by each spouse. Mr. Markham asserts that such
documents exist, but claims that they are in Ms.Markhams
possession. Ms. Markham is in possession of no such documents.
As stated above, many Mr. Markham states that documents will be
available in his
attorneys office. When W ifes counsel attempted to obtain the
statements, Mr. Markhams
counsel denied possession and has refused to cooperate in
transporting the documents to
Sound Legal Copying. Exhibit 14. Due to the contentious nature
of the discovery process in
this action, the Wife requests that a Discovery Special Master
be appointed in accordance
with CR 53.3. Because the appointment of a Special Master is
necessary due to the Husbands
continued bad-faith gamesmanship throughout the discovery
process, the Wife requests that
the fees for the Special Master be paid by the Husband out of
his separate account, not from
the parties joint funds. The Husband should be required to keep
such funds in a retainer until
the time of trial.
3. Basis. This Motion is based on the grounds stated above,
copies o f exhibits
attached hereto, and the annexed declaration o f Karma L.
Zaike.
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 10 o
f 11
LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W. B u g n i &
Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
Karma L. Zaike, WSBA #31037 Attorney for Petitioner/Wife
II. DECLARATION
Karma L. Zaike on oath, certifies and declares as follows:
1. I am the attorney of record for the Petitioner/Wife and am
competent to testifyherein.
2. Respondent was served discovery as set forth above. Despite
my repeated efforts to accommodate the schedule of Husbands
counsel, the Husband has failed to follow through with a discovery
conference.
3. The court should note that discovery requests which remain
outstanding are specifically tailored to obtain information that
has not yet been provided.
4. The Wifes Second Set o f Interrogatories and Requests for
Production was pertinent and reasonable. Attorneys fees in the
amount of $1,000 have been incurred to cooperate in scheduling a
discovery conference and bringing this Motion. Mr. Markham should
be ordered to pay those fees. Mr. Markham should be sanctioned $100
per day for every day he is late in providing his answers after an
Order is entered to ensure compliance.
5. Mr. Markham has had ample time to provide full and complete
discovery answers. Mr. Markham has been intentionally evasive.
6. Counsels Certification Under CR 26(i): Repeated good faith
attempts were made to schedule a discovery conference, as set forth
above. The Husbands counsel has willfully refused or failed to
confer in good faith as set forth above. Complete responses have
not been provided.
I certify and declare under penalty o f perjury under the laws
of the State of Washington that the foregoing statement is true and
correct.
DATED: March 27, 2014KARMA L. ZAIKE, WSBA#31037 Attorney for
Petitioner
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 11 o
f 11
LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l w . B u g n i &
Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
/- "
*
EXHIBIT 1
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
In re:
TWILA MARKHAM,Petitioner,
and
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM,Respondent.
) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA))) PETITIONERS FIRST SET OF )
INTERROGATORIES AND ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ) OF DOCUMENTS TO )
RESPONDENT)) Date Propounded: 08/30/2013) Due Date: 09/30/2013) CR
37: 10/01/2013
TO: GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, Respondent;
AND TO: DAISUKE TAKAHASHI, his attorney:
Interrogatories. In accordance with Rule 33 of the Civil Rules
for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the
following:
Answer each of the following interrogatories separately and
fully, in writing, under oath, unless there is an objection to an
interrogatory, in which case state the reason for the objection.
The answers and objections, if any, to interrogatories must be
served upon the undersigned attorney within 30 days after the
service of these interrogatories as provided in Civil Rule 33. lire
following interrogatories are intended to be continuing in nature,
and any information which may be discovered by y o u subsequent to
the service, and filing of vour
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents to Respondent - Page 1 of 7
LAW OFFICES ________________ _M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE, 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
OPPOSE COUNSEL ORIGINAL
-
12
j
4
5
6
7
8:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
answers should be brought to the attention of the inquiring
party, through supplemental answers, within a reasonable time
following discovery.
Requests for Production of Documents: In accordance with Rule 34
of the Civil Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please
do the following:
Produce and permit inspection and copying of the requested
documents, records and materials pursuant with Civil Rule 34. The
designated documents shall include writings, drawings, graphs,
charts, photographs, phone records and other data compilations from
which information can be obtained, translated if necessary or
otherwise reduced through detection devises into reasonably usable
form and shall be produced and made available for inspection and
duplication by the undersigned or someone acting on his behalf at
11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300, Seattle, Washington 98125, 30
days from receipt hereof.
The party upon whom these requests for production are served
shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of this
request, except that a Respondent may serve a response within 40
days after the service of the Petition upon that party. The
response shall state with respect to each item or category that
inspection (or related activities) will be performed as requested,
or if the request is objected to, the reason for such objection. If
objection is made to part of an item or category, that particular
part shall be specified in the objection. The party submitting this
request may move for an Order under Civil Rule 37(a) with respect
to any objection to or failure to respond to the request or any
part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection or related
activities as requested.
DEFINITIONS
As used in these interrogatories, the following words and
phrases shall have the following meanings:
(a) Person. The term person is meant to include any individual
and any businessentity.
(b) Document. The term document is meant to include, without
limiting its generality, contracts, agreements, correspondence,
telegrams, reports, records, schedules, diaries, invoices, purchase
orders, charts, notes, estimates, summaries, inventories, minutes
of meetings and memoranda regarding conferences or telephone
conversations, and any and all other written, printed, or typed
matters of whatsoever kind or description. If any documents are not
identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of
the privilege and the number of documents that are not
identified.
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof
Documents to Respondent - Page 2 of 7
LAW OFFICES ______ _M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc,, pllc11300
ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 .
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(c) Electronic Communications, The term electronic
communications is meant to include, without limiting its
generality, e-mails, text messages, voice mails or any other form
of electronic communication. If any such communications are not
identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of
the privilege, the nature and subject of the communications that
are not identified.
(d) Identify. As used in these interrogatories, the term
identify used in reference to an individual person means to state
his full name, present or last known address and telephone number,
his present or last known position and business affiliation, and
his position and business affiliation at the time in question.
Identify when used in reference to a document means to state the
date and authority, type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum,
telegram, chart, etc.) or other appropriate means of identifying
it, and its present location or custodian. If any such document was
but is no longer in your possession or subject to your control,
state what disposition was made of it.
NOTICE OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
This discovery request has been submitted in the Superior Court
pursuant to Local Rule 37 (e). Please take note of the
following:
If the Interrogatories set forth herein are not fully answered
or documents produced, then in that event, it shall be necessary to
have a conference of counsel or with the answering party if not
represented by counsel pursuant to Superior Court Local Rule 37
(e).
Please be advised that a telephone conference is hereby
scheduled for October 1,2013 at 10:00 a.m. for the purposes of
conferring with you as to why you have objected to or failed to
answer the Interrogatories set forth herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please provide the following for every
flight you have taken in the past two years:
a. Date of departure and returnb. Destination;c. Purpose of
travel;d. Method by which travel was paid; ande. Names and contact
information for any person accompanying you.
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof
Documents to Respondent - Page 3 of 7
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. B ugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAYNE, STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: During the past two (2) years, have you
charged on any credit card a flight ticket for yourself and/or any
other person. If so, with respect to each such account, provide the
following information:
a. Name and address of bank and financial institution at which
the account(s) is/are maintained;
b. Type of account(s) and account number;c. Date of each flight
charged;d. Destination of travel for each trip.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Pursuant to Civil Rule 34, you are
requested to produce, at the date, time and place that you serve
your answers to these Interrogatories, all documents underlying,
substantiating and/or evidencing your answer to the immediately
preceding two Interrogatories. You may comply with this Request by
attaching a copy of each such document to your answers to these
Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof
Documents to Respondent - Page 4 of 7
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state how many days each month you
have spent in Washington and in Alaska from January 1, 2012 to the
present.
ANSWER:
Month State Number of days in the stateJanuary, 2012
February, 2012
March, 2012
April, 2012
May, 2012
June, 2012
July, 2012
August, 2012
September, 2012
October, 2012
November, 2012
December, 2012
January, 2013
February, 2013
March, 2013
April, 2013
May, 2013
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof
Documents to Respondent - Page 5 of 7
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June, 2013
July, 2013
August, 2013
INTERROGATORY NO, 4: Please state the name and location of each
health care provider from whom you have received care within the
past two years:
a) Name, address and phone number of each health care
provider;b) Date and duration of each health care appointment;
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 2: Please produce legible copies of
your Pilots Log Book for the past two years for all aircraft you
have piloted, including but not limited to the Beech Mueketeer,
N7998L,
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce legible copies of
statements for all bank accounts you have for the past two
years.
RESPONSE:
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof
Documents to Respondent - Page 6 of 7
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Asso c .,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
I2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
August 30, 2013
KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA #31037 Attorney for Respondent/Mother
ANSWERS SUBMITTED: September______, 2013.
DAISUKE TAKAHASI-II, WSBA #46046 Attorney for
Petitioner/Father
STATE OF WASHINGTON )) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
and says:
That I am the Respondent herein, and I am qualified to answer
the within and foregoing interrogatories; that I have read the
within interrogatories, know the answers thereto and believe the
same to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this_____ day of September,
2013.
Notarys Printed Name: _________ ______NOTARY PUBLIC in and for
the STATE OFWASHINGTON, residing a t____________My commission
expires:_________ __
Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof
Documents to Respondent - Page 7 of 7
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206)
365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
EXHIBIT 2
-
l n f MICHAEL W, BUGNI & ASSOCIATES, PLLCA ttorneys
M ichael W .Bugni
Laura Christensen Co b e r g
Daria J. Goodwin
M argaret D oyle F ikpatrick
Jennie L aird
Kristina M . Larch
Christine A Mayoue
Yvette Smith O Connell
L uAnne P erry
B itaSoltan-Qurraie
Karma L. Zaire
Natalie M . Beckmann
October 23, 2013
11300 R oosevelt W ay N ortheast, S uite 300 S eattle,Washington
98125 P:206.365.5500 F:206.363.8067 [email protected]
Mr. Anthony Urie Mr. Dice Takahashi Attorneys at Law 18130
Midvale Ave. N Ste. A Shoreline, WA 98133
Re: Markham v. Markham
Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:
Mr. Markhams Response to Discovery Requests failed to fully
respond to Ms. Markhams Request for Production. The following
Request for Production of Documents was not answered and is in need
of a response:
Request for Production No. 3: Please produce legible copies of
statements for all bank accounts you have for the past two
years.
Your clients objection does not absolve him from responding.
Please be advised that if Mr. Markham has not provided a full and
complete response by the close of business on Thursday October 31,
2013, a motion to compel will be filed.
Yours truly,
Karma L. Zaike
KLZdym Cc: Client
-
EXHIBIT 3
-
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY M. URIE, pileA Professional Limited
Liability Company
A t t o r n e y a t l a w
Admitted in Washington & California
18130 Midvale Ave N. Shoreline, WA 98133
Ph: 206-542-4066 Fax: 206-542-6655-
Cell: (206)859-3400 Email: [email protected]
October 30, 2013
Ms. Karma Zaike Attorney At Law 11300 Roosevelt Way N.E. Suite
300Seattle, WA 98125
In re: Markham vs. MarkhamKing County Case No. 13-3-08383-7
SEA
Dear Ms Zaike:
My response to your October 23, 2013 letter regarding Mr.
Markham's objections to producing "statements for all bank
accounts" was in final draft before I received your current email.
I think the response (infra) should address all your concerns. If
after you receive it you still wish to have a discovery conference
about OUR objections to your first request for production augmented
by your October 23, 2013
P age-1
-
email, please set a time on Thursday a.m. and we will place a
conference call to you. But that conference needs to be so
limited.
Further to your proposal to have a discovery conference as to
YOUR OBJECTIONS to our recent proposed discovery, be advised that
to date we have not received your objections and therefore your
proposal is premature. The discovery rules simply don't provide for
a conference in advance of your filing objections to our requests,
however the balance of this email may address some of your
concerns. If after we receive and study your (we assume very
specific) objections and we think any are not well taken, we will
contact you and arrange a meeting to discuss them. We expect you
will professionally respond to our requests and to any request for
a discovery meeting we there after think we need as we have
professionally responded to yours.
I would think from the very comprehensive answers we gave to the
rest of your discovery that his (proper) objections do not remotely
suggest Mr. Markham is trying to be obstreperous or unreasonable in
responding to your discovery. Nor has he otherwise been in response
to your late August representations that its now Mrs. Markham's
intents to retract her earlier May 9, 2013 representation offering
to allow him to demonstrate, he has no anger management issues to
Dr. Maiuro's satisfaction and try to reconcile and instead proceed
directly to a divorce.
Page- 2
-
As we represented to you in all good faith, our intent in
bringing our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction was twofold. First we believed it was right. But we
also sought bring awareness to the serious Washington inheritance
tax consequences that will befall her heirs from a her claim to a
Washington domicile and the pursuit of her divorce here. You
however chose to somehow convince her that this was being done to
gain some sort of procedural advantage when nothing was further
from the truth? Thats now unfortunately her loss.
In addition you've persuaded her to respond in an unnecessary
and irrelevant punitive manner by having her and her son file
affidavits attempting to support a claim that her husband is a long
time batterer when your letter of May 9, 2013 clearly reflects she
did not initially so claim. Rather then she was then willing to
defer to Dr. Maiuro's evaluation as to whether he even had an anger
management problem? Moreover she and her son know (and you should)
that there is not one police or medical document in these parties
long loving marriage supporting that claim. On the contrary having
put this issue in evidence you've clearly effectuated a waiver to
Mrs. Markham's privilege to her many years of psychiatric
counseling, the Seattle Fire, ambulance and Virginia Mason records
of April 19, 2013 and ail of her medical records that proceeded
(and followed) Mr. Markhams April 24, 2013 arrest which your claim
now forces us to seek.
Page-3
-
Rather if its now Mrs. Markhams intent to proceed directly to a
divorce, we only seek to effect a fair and amicable professional
exchange of all of the important documents relevant to this
proceedings. As you can see from our first request for production
our first concern is for the integrity of all of these parties
relevant files. As your client is further well aware, the house in
Seattle that they jointly occupied immediately prior to Mr.
Markham's arrest, contains a substantial volume. Our first concern
regarding your production (and ours) is compliance with WA Civil
Rule 38(b), which clearly directs
"A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce
them as they are kept in the usual course of business".
It is for this reason that our request for production demands
that all of the files at this residence be produced and a video
record made of their position in the file, box or where ever theyre
located (when this discovery was served) be done by us at the
earliest opportunity before they are disturbed and copied.Until
this is done it will be difficult for either party to meet the
others request in compliance with this rule.
But with a basic amount of professional cooperation we should be
able to do this in short order. Be advised that due to his
familiarity with these documents and things and the only person
capable of assisting his counsel in this inspection, Mr.
Markham's
Page- 4
-
presence will be necessary at that home through out every phase
of that inspection.
In our last court hearing the court ruled the DV order was not
an impediment to the parties presence together. On the contrary its
basic to his constitutional right of due process and confrontation.
And in recognition of that fact his DV stipulated order of
continuance expressly permits the Markham's may have contact in the
presence of a 3rd party as necessary to pursue their divorce.
However we do not seek to force that or affect any other ulterior
purpose in this request. Mrs. Markham's presence is not requested
at this inspection. She can choose to be absent and instead have
her counsel there.
However when our proposed inspection and production is complete
if we are not in a position to have a mediation to attempt to
resolve this matter, we will need to promptly thereafter take Mrs.
Markham's deposition. This needs to be done at the 810 NE 58th
residence where the documents we seek are located so that she will
have easy access to them while testifying and we anticipate Mr.
Markham's presence will also be essential for that. Accordingly to
move this along as you've requested please advise of a proposed
time after the proposed inspection and production when we may
notice that.
It is also possible however that after the video inspection we
propose and your response to our current discovery, that we might
alternatively be in a
Page- 5
-
position to have the mediation you proposed in your May 9, 2013
letter? If this matter is to proceed to a divorce Mr. Markham would
of course like to do so in the least stressful to Mrs. Markham and
least costly manner, and to be fair to her in all things. But your
recent introduction of unfounded charges of domestic abuse is
hardly conducive of that!
Accordingly if you are going to persist in that path, we will
need to get all the relevant facts to the issues you unilaterally
raised in your domestic violence charges out on the table. And as
well to see the documents in demanded in our request. So far your
conduct in the course of this litigation gives us little hope we
will voluntarily see any of that. We hope if you persist in
interjecting these unfounded and irrelevant charges your responses
will disabuse us of that notion.
Alternatively an easier way to move forward in good faith, with
the least amount of stress and expense to both parties and
hopefully mediate this dispute in good faith would be for you and I
to consider a written stipulation that domestic abuse is not an
issue in this divorce. The reason that I am suggesting this
approach achieves multiple purposes.
1. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of producing
psychological and medical records which at the end of the day will
establish no Domestic Abuse Complaints to her medical providers.
And it will save Mr. Markham the
Page-6
-
expense of rebutting these unfounded and irrelevant
allegations.
2. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of paying her attorney
to litigate irrelevant issues. There are no children here and if
this matter is to proceed to a divorce it should only be about a
division of money and assets. Your insertion into this divorce the
claim of domestic abuse which is unsupported by anything but Mrs.
Markham and her sons interested testimony is contrary to what all
who know them will testify was a very happy relationship and
marriage for nearly 35 years. And its a marriage where Mrs. Markham
was provided from her husbands tireless work as a trial lawyer,
well over a Million dollars in accounts in her sole name to and a
virtually remodeled extremely valuable home in Seattle titled in
her own name (as well as several more titled jointly), to provided
her the freedom to live apart from Mr. Markham if she ever felt the
need. I hardly think at the end of the day, the financial freedom
that she has enjoyed in addition to a fine lifestyle including the
annual use of and traveling to, multiple vacation homes (near her
children from other relationships and marriages) will remotely
support a claim to domestic abuse.
AS TO YOUR RECENT REQUEST FOR BANKACCOUNTS after we accomplish
our videoinspection, I would like to hope a further amicable
Page- 7
-
resolution of your current concerns could be obtained by your
client simply doing the work that the law obligates her to do
before trying to shift this burden on to us. Repeating what we did
in our discovery response the only "bank accounts" that Mr. Markham
is aware of are as much or more in Mrs. Markhams custody and
control than his. To be more specific (although that is
unnecessary, as your client knows all this) the only "banks
accounts" statements in his sole name (but hardly his sole control)
are those of the First National Bank of Alaska (FNBA) Kodiak. But
for the period of your request (and some substantial time
previously) these statements have at Mrs. Markham's request been
sent to the parties Seattle address to facilitate their payment of
expenses.
In addition Mr. Markham authorized Mrs. Markham as an additional
signatory on all of those accounts except his trust account. And we
further believe she has online access to those accounts (that Mr.
Markham also presently does not). Finally at your May 9, 2013
letters request Mr. Markham did not terminate her authority to
continue to temporarily maintain the "status quo" with respect to
the payment of those bills customarily paid from those accounts
(and refreshed their balances when necessary to allow her to do so.
Accordingly, she should have all of those statements and as you can
see from our recent discovery, it is we that need to request
production of them from her! If (remotely) after you've discussed
this with your client (in connection with our request)
Page- 8
-
you feel you don't have all of these statements, please identify
specifically which statements you don't have and on pre-payment of
my client's estimated costs (including his and his counsels' future
and past professional time for attending the discovery conference
you scheduled, my October 1,2013 email, and this one (from funds in
accounts in Mrs. Markham's personal name) following an
appropriately noticed discovery conference we will hear your
reasons why we should be securing those records from this bank when
your client can just as easily?
The only other "bank account" that Mr. Markham is aware he has
any "control" of is a joint account that the parties maintained at
Islander Bank in Friday Harbor to enable them to pay local bills.
There was only a few hundred dollars in that account when the
parties separated following which Mr. Markham funded it with $2000
to allow him to be able to pay Dr. Maiuro's fee before it became
clear Mrs. Markhams son Adam Logghe would arrange for delivery of
his FNBA "traveling" office check book to him. Since then Mr.
Markham also deposited some small refunds that have come to the
parties Kodiak address into that account for convenience. And for
that reason in the future (and its preprinted checks) he wishes to
keep this account open for now and he's had its statements since
generated forwarded from Kodiak to him in Friday Harbor. For
statements prior to that time Mrs. Markham knows best where those
are since she established the manner of filing them
Page- 9
-
but they either came to and remained in Kodiak or were sent on
to Seattle. Either way Mr. Markham in Friday Harbor has no personal
knowledge of their whereabouts and no convenient manner of
knowing.
While we think the sums involved in that account are
insignificant, if you insist on copies in his immediate possession
to verify that, forward a check for $100 (again from Mrs. Markham's
personal funds) to my office for his professional time and copy
costs and on his return to Friday Harbor later this week, he will
copy those that he has and we will produce them in due course. If
on receipt of these you seek more, upon receipt of a similar check,
and express directions as to their location, he will similarly
request Karl Loffler in Kodiak to look for any that may be in
Kodiak. Or if this proves unsuccessful he will advise and (again
upon pre-payment of a reasonable sum for his time and costs) he
will consider securing copies from the bank. But again this is a
joint account so she has equal access to them.
On information and belief there are at least two other current
"bank accounts" (and may have been others in the period you
requested) with Seattle banks that your client has managed
virtually exclusively and has virtual total control of. The first
of these was with Bank of America but on information and belief she
closed or took most of the money from that account and transferred
it to a branch of Union Bank. There were also accounts at Key Bank
on Ravenna and US Bank
P age-10
-
(Mr. Markham believes on Roosevelt) at one time. Whether she
took steps to put Mr. Markham's name on those accounts he is
uncertain. Suffice it to say he doesn't have custody of any the
statements in Friday Harbor and if he has any control of them he's
unaware of it. The same goes for the "bank statement" regarding
charges for any and all safe deposit box which Mrs. Markham has
maintained in the past. Since we have requested she identify and
likewise produce all bank statements in our recent request we
assume you will be similarly forthcoming as to these regarding any
safe deposit boxes she controls in your responses to our
requests?
Finally although your discovery requests didn't seek them and
hence theyre not addressed in our responses, there is the matter of
our pending request for the parties substantial "brokerage"
accounts and which we anticipate in light of our discovery requests
you might likewise serve discovery requests on us to acquire. Let
us save you that effort by seeing if we can agree to mutually
exchange these? So far as Mr. Markham is aware the parties each had
two DA Davidson accounts (one personal and one IRA each) and one
each at TD Ameritrade.
Prior to filing her petition, Mr. Markham believes Mrs. Markham
had hard copies of the DA Davidson accounts coming to Seattle. But
whether she had two statements being printed one of which went to
Seattle or had the Kodiak statement forwarded to Seattle he's not
clear. Regardless she should have all of these up
P age-11
-
to that point. Following service of her petition, since arriving
in Kodiak in late June, Mr. Markham learned that copies of these
statements were coming to Kodiak so he took possession of those
that thereafter arrived and since he left Kodiak has had those that
have arrived in the mail since forward these on to him.
However shortly after he left Kodiak, Mrs. Markham also had
another person (without Mr. Markhams knowledge or authority) enter
this house (which he owned before the parties were married, is
titled in his sole name and which her April 15, 2013 affidavit
acknowledgers she has no interest in) and take some cash for a rent
payment on another Kodiak property (on Kashavaroff St.) which that
affidavit also admits was not titled in her name and likewise has
no interest in and had that mailed directly on to her! So whether
when that occurred that person also forwarded her the DA Davidson
statement and he has all of the DA Davidson statements for this
period is unclear. However Mrs. Markham also has access to her
statements for the accounts in her sole name online.
In our desire to acquire a complete copy of all of these
statements going back to the inception of these account (as well as
copies of her earlier brokers statements) if you will produce all
of those (going back as far as Mrs. Markham has) without a demand
for prepayment of costs, we will produce those recent ones that he
has acquired in the same fashion. After tha t! propose any
statements that are then missing
P age-12
-
be either printed offline by the party that controls that
account or request it from DA Davidson.
Mr. Markham also has no copies of TD Ameritrade statement for
that brokerage house for account in her sole name and requests all
of those since she opened that account. If Mrs. Markham advises
that copies of those earlier statements are also in Kodiak (and
where they are located), he would likewise agree to provide copies
of those without prepayment of costs if she will do likewise as to
those she has in Seattle.
There is also the matter of the records of several Bank CD's and
US Treasury Bond funds that were liquidated in 2008 that Mr.
Markham believes are no longer active but which explain how some
funds came to be in accounts in Mrs. Markham's name Those records
are in Seattle and we seek she produce them.
Also there is a 401K account and a 457 account that Mr. Markham
funded while working at the City of Anchorage totaling about $100K,
and some stock held by ALPS (Alaska's Legal E&O carrier which
have been forwarded quarterly to Seattle the records of which she
has. Also her life insurance policy. He also has the records to a
whole life policy begun before their marriage.
Also she has in Seattle the records pertaining to the ongoing
sale of the property on Mill Bay Road that was his mothers house
and some surrounding rentals to Kevin and Jerry Arndt. She also has
in Seattle, the
P age-13
-
records of an earlier substantial sale of the commercial Straut
building as well as a two Alaska liqueur licenses and two other
houses (the wagon wheel houses) nearby on Larch St. in Kodiak.
These properties were all left to Mr. Markham in his mothers will
and the proceeds From them where thereafter deposited in separate
accounts maintained in his own name.
Mrs. Markham also has in Seattle the records of an earlier sale
of a house at 4001 Borland, Anchorage that Mr. Markham had before
the parties married. All of the funds from its sale was likewise
deposited in separate accounts maintained in his own name.
If your client thinks there is anything else weve inadvertently
overlooked (and that is certainly possible) please advise.
Sincere^
AnthonyAttorney
M. Uriefor Gerald Markham
Page- 14
-
EXHIBIT 4
-
MICHAEL W. BUGN1 & ASSOCIATES, PLLCA ttorneys
M ichael W .B ugni
L aura C h risibisen C olberg
Darla J . Goodwin
M argaret Doyle F itzpatrick
J ennie L aird
KrisiynaM . L arch
CHRISe A.MYOIIE
Yvette Smith O 'C onnell
L uAnne P erry
B itaSoltan-Q urraie
Karma L. Z aike
N atalis M . B eckmann
Mr. Anthony Urie Mr. Dice Takahashi Attorneys at Law 18130
Midvale Ave. N Ste. A Shoreline, WA 98133
November 18, 2013
Re: Markham v. Markham
11300 R oosevelt Way N ortheast, S uite 300 S eattle,Washington
98125 P: 206.365.5500 F: 206.363.8067 [email protected]
Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:
I am writing in response to the Requests for Production served
on October 28, 2013. Ms. Markhams objections to said discovery are
asserted below. Please note, however, that Ms. Markham will work
with you in good faith to attempt to reach mutual agreement
regarding the appropriate scope of, and response to, the
requests.
The puipose of discovery is to make a trial less a game of blind
man's bluff and more a fair contest with the issues and facts
disclosed to the fullest extent practicable. Washington State
Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993). Mr.
Markhams discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to
discovery that will be admissible evidence at trial. In fact, it is
a poorly disguised attempt to obtain unnecessary access to the
parties home over Ms. Markhams objections. That is not acceptable.
Without limitation, Ms. Markham objects to the Requests for
Production to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations on Ms.
Markham beyond those allowed by any applicable Local Rules or
governing case law. Ms. Markham responds and objects as set forth
in detail below:
REQUEST NO. 1: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the
request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome,
and that it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending
action. The propounded discovery purports to require Ms. Markham to
conduct a search of all files in her custody or control in an
attempt to locate any documents that might be responsive, and
requires Ms. Markham to produce all e- mails sent to anyone over
the entire course of the parlies relationship. To the extent that
the request calls for Ms. Markham to produce documents located at
808 NE 59th St., Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the parties
have no control or ownership rights over the property.
REQUEST NO. 2: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal
residence and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome. The criminal No Contact Order prohibits Mr. Markham
-
Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 2
from entering Ms. Markhams home. Attempting to improperly use
the discovery process to obtain entry is unacceptable. If Mr.
Markham truly wants an inventory and/or appraise items in the
family home, he may hire an independent appraiser. His request to
require Ms. Markham to produce all tangible personal property in
her custody or control for inspection, without designating any
limitation as to the extent or value of such property is
unreasonable.
Without waiving said objection, Ms. Markham will produce a list
of all personal property to the extent that she is aware that the
property has a value of $1000 or more. Alternatively, as stated
above, she will cooperate with a neutral third party hired by the
respondent to conduct an inventory of personal property valued at
$1000 or more.
REQUEST NO. 3: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is invasive and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams
personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information
with no relevance to any pending action. Furthermore, the parties
have no ownership or control over real property located at 808 NE
59th Street. Ms. Markham will provide a list of vehicles in her
custody or control and she will cooperate with a neutral third
party hired by the respondent to inspect real property owned by the
parties.
REQUEST NO. 4: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is invasive and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams
personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information
with no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham objects to the
extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and is
unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. Markham to
produce all of the computers and their hard drives, including old
or retired computers, that have ever been located at 810 NE 58th
Street. The parties have no ownership or control over any computers
owned by Ms. Markhams son.
REQUEST NO. 5: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly
burdensome.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will produce statements
of accounts to which she has access for two years. These statements
cannot be produced immediately. It is expected that these documents
will be available for review by December 15, 2013, but will be
produced sooner if possible.
REQUEST NO. 6-7: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the
requests are harassing and invasive; they seek information relating
to medical, physical, and mental health, which are privileged under
various provisions of state and federal law; and they seek
-
Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 3
information that has no relevance to any pending action. Ms.
Markham will not produce privileged documents.
REQUEST NO. 8: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the
request is harassing and invasive; it seeks information that has no
relevance to any pending action; and it seeks information relating
to mental health, which is privileged under various provisions of
state and federal law. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged
documents.
REQUEST NO. 9: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege or doctrine (referred to respectively as
privileged documents and privileges). Ms. Markham will not produce
privileged documents.
REQUEST NO. 10: . Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is overly broad in temporal scope, is unduly burdensome and
requests information which is not in Ms. Markhams possession.
Without waiving objection, documentation in Ms. Markhams
possession is available for inspection at the Law Offices of
Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC, 11300 Roosevelt Way NE,
Third Floor, Seattle, WA. Please schedule an appointment.
REQUEST NO. 11: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the
request has no relevance to any pending action.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a photograph
of Phinney for Mr. Markham.
REQUEST NO. 12: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly
burdensome.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a list of
tangible items which were personal to Mr. Markham or which have a
value over $1,000 (see RFP #2) that were removed from the parties
real property located in Friday Harbor, Alaska or Arizona within
the past two years.
REQUEST NO. 13: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is overly broad and improperly demands entry into Ms.
Markhams personal residence. The discovery requests production of
photos, wall art, and other personal items, without any
-
Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 4
specificity.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham believes she knows the
items to which Jerry refers. The items have been packaged and are
ready to be delivered. Please provide a time you are available in
your office when Mr. Markham will not be present and Ms. Markham
will have the items delivered.
REQUEST NO. 14: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome.
The request purports to require Ms. Markham to produce passwords
and statements for any and all accounts which have ever been paid
for out of funds held in the names of the parties.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will disclose passwords
she currently uses for access to current asset and liability
accounts, as well as those paid for out of funds held by the
parties within the two years preceding this action. It should be
noted that Mr. Markham already has access to these passwords and
accounts. He does not have permission to change the passwords or
make unauthorized transfers to/from any account.
REQUEST NO. 16: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the
request is beyond the scope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms.
Markham to produce information held by a non- party. Mr. Markhams
RFP seeks information with no relevance to any pending action by
seeking the production of information relating to property over
which the parties have no ownership rights or control.
REQUEST NO. 17: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the
request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome.
Ms. Markham also objects on the ground that the request seeks
materials that are obtainable from other sources, including but not
limited to party discovery and/or other non-party sources. Ms.
Markham is not going to be executing a waiver.
Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham has already delivered to
Mr. Markham 2010 - 2012; To the best of Ms. Markhams knowledge,
there are no tax returns in her home.She believes Jerry kept copies
in Friday Harbor and there may be older returns in Kodiak.
REQUEST NO. 18: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the
request has no relevance to any pending action and on the ground
that the request is beyond the scope of CR 34 in that it requests
Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non-party.
REQUEST NO. 19: This Request for Production does not make
sense.
-
Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 5
Ms. Markham specifically reserves the right to modify and
supplement these objections and responses. Ms. Markham assumes no
obligation to supplement her responses beyond those imposed by the
Civil Rules, if any. By agreeing to search for documents responsive
to the Requests for Production, Ms. Markham does not represent that
such documents do in fact exist.
Ms. Markham has not completed her investigation into the subject
matter of the action or the underlying facts, evidence or
allegations. This response is made to the best of her current
knowledge, information and belief. Ms. Markham makes no
representation that any responsive documents exist or will be
produced. Ms. Markham reserves the right to conduct additional
investigation and to assert additional objections.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ms.
Markham will produce responsive documents by sending copies of the
same addressed to counsel. Please immediately confirm that neither
Mr. Markham nor counsel on his behalf will be appearing at Ms.
Markhams home. If Mr. Markham or his agents appear, it will be a
violation of the criminal No Contact Order currently in effect and
law enforcement will be immediately contacted.
I am out of the office between November 25 and December 9. If I
do not have correspondence from you limiting the scope of discovery
prior to my return, then I will be forced to seek a protective
order on Ms. Markhams behalf. Please advise.
Yours truly,
Karma L. Zaike
KLZ:esr Cc: Client
-
EXHIBIT 5
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
In re the Marriage of: )))
TWILA MARKHAM )Petitioner, )
)and )
)GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM )
)Respondent. )
) ) )
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA
PETITONERS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO RESPONDENT
Date Propounded: 1/21/2014Due Date: 2/20/2014CR 37:
2/21/2014
at 10:00 a.m.
TO: GERANLD WAYNE MARKHAM, Respondent;
AND TO: PHILIP C. TSAI and ANTHONY M. URIE, his attorneys:
Interrogatories. In accordance with Rule 33 of the Civil Rules
for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the
following:
Answer each of the following interrogatories separately and
fully, in writing, under oath, unless there be an objection to an
interrogatory, in which case state the reason for the objection.
The answers and objections, if any, to interrogatories must be
served upon the undersigned attorney within 30 days after the
service of these interrogatories as provided in Civil Rule 33. The
following interrogatories are intended to be continuing in nature,
and any information which may be discovered by you subsequent to
the service and filing of your
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 1 of 35
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
answers should be brought to the attention of the inquiring
party, through supplemental answers, within a reasonable time
following discovery.
Requests for Production of Documents: In accordance with Rule 34
of the Civil Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please
do the following:
Produce and permit inspection and copying of the requested
documents, records and materials pursuant with Civil Rule 34. The
designated documents shall include writings, drawings, graphs,
charts, photographs, phone records and other data compilations from
which information can be obtained, translated if necessary or
otherwise reduced through detection devises into reasonably usable
form and shall be produced and made available for inspection and
duplication by the undersigned or someone acting on his behalf at
11300 Roosevelt Way N.E., Third Floor, Seattle, Washington 98125,
30 days from receipt hereof.
The party upon whom these requests for production are served
shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of this
request, except that a Respondent may serve a response within 40
days after the service of the Petition upon that party. The
response shall state with respect to each item or category that
inspection (or related activities) will be performed as requested,
or if the request is objected to, the reason for such objection. If
objection is made to part of an item or category, that particular
part shall be specified in the objection. The party submitting this
request may move for an Order under Civil Rule 37(a) with respect
to any objection to or failure to respond to the request or any
part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection or related
activities as requested.
DEFINITIONS
As used in these interrogatories, the following words and
phrases shall have the following meanings:
(a) Person. The term person is meant to include any individual
and any businessentity.
(b) Document. The term document is meant to include, without
limiting its generality, contracts, agreements, correspondence,
telegrams, reports, records, schedules, diaries, invoices, purchase
orders, charts, notes, estimates, summaries, inventories, minutes
of meetings and memoranda regarding conferences or telephone
conversations, and any and all other written, printed, or typed
matters of whatsoever kind or description. If any documents are not
identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of
the privilege and the number of documents that are not
identified.
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR LAW
OFFICES____________________PRODUCTION - Page 2 of 35 MICHAEL W.
BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 .
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(c) Identify. As used in these interrogatories, the term
identify used in reference to an individual person means to state
his full name, present or last known address and telephone number,
his present or last known position and business affiliation, and
his position and business affiliation at the time in question.
Identify when used in reference to a document means to state the
date and authority, type of document fe.g., letter, memorandum,
telegram, chart, etc.) or other appropriate means of identifying
it, and its present location or custodian. If any such document was
but is no longer in your possession or subject to your control,
state what disposition was made of it.
NOTICE OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
This discovery request has been submitted in the Superior Court
pursuant to Local Rule 37 (e). Please take note of the
following:
If the Interrogatories set forth herein are not fully answered
or documents produced, then in that event, it shall be necessary to
have a conference of counsel or with the answering party if not
represented by counsel pursuant to Superior Court Local Rule 37
(e).
Please be advised that a conference is hereby scheduled for
February 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of Michael W. Bugni
& Associates, PLLC, for the purposes of meeting and conferring
with you as to why you have objected to or failed to answer the
Interrogatories set forth herein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
GENERAL.......................................................................................................................3II.
EMPLOYMENT AND
BUSINESS..............................................................................
6III. PROPERTY AND FINANCIAL
INFORMATION....................................................13IV.
MISCELLANEOUS.....................................................................................................
29V. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS............................................... 30
INTERROGATORIES
I. GENERAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state your:
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 3 of 35
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a. Full name; andb. Social security number.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state the date and place of your
birth.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state your present street
address.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: How long have you resided at that
address?
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state the name and relationship to
you of each person residing with you at your present residence.
With respect to each person listed, please state the following:
a. Age of each individual;b. Occupation of each individual;c.
Monthly gross income of each individual;d. The financial
arrangement for any shared expenses; ande. First date of shared
residence with each individual.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 4 of 35
LAW OFFICES _______________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INTERROGATORY NO.6: Please state the date and place of your
marriage to your present spouse.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NQ.7: Prior to your marriage to your current
spouse, did you live with your spouse?______ Yes _____ No. If yes,
please state:
a. Beginning and ending dates when you lived together;b.
Location of any and all shared residences; andc. Arrangements for
sharing of expenses.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.8: Have you ever been married to anyone other
than your current spouse?_____Y es_____ No. If Yes, please
state:
a. Name of each prior spouse;b. Last known address of each prior
spouse;c. Date and location of each prior marriage;d. Date and
means of termination of each prior marriage; ande. Court and cause
number of prior decreed of dissolution of marriage or divorce.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NQ.9: Please state in detail your educational
background together with any specialized or vocational training
which you have received during your life.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 5 of 35
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 .
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II. EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state whether you are presently
employed (he. employment, refers to any position you hold for which
you receive compensation, including salaried or hourly
compensation, contract work, self-employment through a sole
proprietorship or partnership, or any other position for which you
perform work in exchange for any sort of compensation).
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If you are presently employed, please
state the following:
a. The name and address of your present employer;b. The date you
commenced employment;c. Your job title position;d. The description
of your work or duties;e. The name, address and position of your
immediate supervisor; andf. Your pay period (that is, whether you
are paid monthly, weekly, every two weeks,
or twice per month).
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please state whether you are compensated
on the basis of a salary, an hourly wage or other basis. If other
basis, please describe in detail how your earnings are
determined.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to your earnings from your
present employment, please state the following:
a. Your gross earnings from any employment source per month
during each month in the past twelve (12) month period providing
distinct amounts for each of those
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 6 of 35
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael w . Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
twelve (12) months {Note: This question must he answered even if
you have provided income tax returns);
b. The number of hours per week that you normally work at the
present time; andc. The date or dates on which you receive your pay
checks;
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do you own any interest in a corporation,
business or other enterprise? If so, please state:
a. The name of the corporation, business or enterprise;b. The
full and exact nature of your interest;c. The date of acquisition
of such interest;d. Identify all other shareholders or other owners
of each controlled business;e. Names, addresses and titles of
officers and directors of said corporation; andf. Name and address
of corporate accountant and attorneys.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Are you an officer or director of any
coiporation? If so, please state the name of the corporation, the
date you acquired the position, and the present term of the
position.
ANSWER:
in ter r o g a to ries a nd req u ests fo rPRODUCTION - Page 7
of 35
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state the number of hours that you
have worked and your total gross earnings for each month during the
past year. If you have worked, but not been paid by the hour,
please state the number of hours worked and the amount you expect
to be paid or have requested to be paid.
ANSWER:
Month Hours Earnings1. $2. $3. $4. $5. $6. $7. $8. $9. $10. $11.
$12. $
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state the amount deducted from your
gross salary per pay period for each of the following at the
present time:
a. Federal Income Tax $b. Social Security $c. Retirement
Contributions $d. Union Dues or Assessments $e. Credit Union
Payments $f. Charitable Contributions $g. Savings Plans (including
Savings Bonds) $h, Profit Sharing $i. Stock Purchase $j- Wage
Assignment $k. Other (specify) $
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state your present monthly net
income after taking into account the above-indicated deductions
from gross income:
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR LAW
OFFICES____________________PRODUCTION - Page 8 of 35 MICHAEL W.
BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 .
FACSIMILE (205) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please state whether you have engaged in
any part-time employment in addition to your regular occupation
during the past year.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If the answer to the preceding
interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the
following:
a. The names and addresses of each employer for whom you have
worked;b. The type of work performed;c. The rate of pay received
for your services;d. Average gross monthly and net monthly income
from such employment;e. The total number of hours or dates you were
so employed during the past six (6)
months; andf. Whether you are still engaged in such part-time
employment.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please list and describe your present
employment benefits, which fall into the following categories:
a. Life Insurance:i. Name of Insurer:
______________________________
ii. Face amount of policy: $.iii. Amount of premiums or
payments
made by you per month: $.iv. Beneficiaries for each policy:
_____________ _____
b. Hospital, medical and dental insurance: i. Type of
insurance:
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 9 of 35
LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc.,
pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 .
FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ii. Name of insurer:
iii. Amount of monthly premiums: $.iv. Names of dependents
covered: ________________
INTERROGATORY NO. 22: What charge is imposed by your employer or
insurance company for medical coverage for each member of your
family? Please identify the amounts paid by your employer and the
amounts paid by you for each of the following:
ANSWER:
Medical DentalYourself:Spouse:Any Other Dependent:
INTERROGATORY NO. 23: What other types of insurance coverage or
benefits are in effect for your family and/or other dependents
(such as insurance available from your spouse or your spouses
employer)? Describe the nature of this coverage, the cost per
person, and identify what portion (if any) is paid by the insureds
employer.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With regard to any hospital, medical,
dental and vision insurance benefits that you receive or have r