Gerald W. Markham
Attorney at Law
518 Marine Way #205
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Twila Y. Markham
Divorce
King County Case# 13-3-08383-7 SEA
Karma Zaike
Michael W. Bungi & Assoc., PLLC
11300 Roosevelt Way NE, STE 300
Seattle, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500
Original Title
11 Twila Markham v Gerald Markham PET Letters 13-3-08383-7 SEA
Gerald W. Markham
Attorney at Law
518 Marine Way #205
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Twila Y. Markham
Divorce
King County Case# 13-3-08383-7 SEA
Karma Zaike
Michael W. Bungi & Assoc., PLLC
11300 Roosevelt Way NE, STE 300
Seattle, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500
Gerald W. Markham
Attorney at Law
518 Marine Way #205
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Twila Y. Markham
Divorce
King County Case# 13-3-08383-7 SEA
Karma Zaike
Michael W. Bungi & Assoc., PLLC
11300 Roosevelt Way NE, STE 300
Seattle, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500
[ ravozoens ta ars Sem 38
) Serna
MICHAEL W.BUGNT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC oi
mas ‘sbianon
vata
Lenenmeste
Gere
sarees
‘peta
toil
cnet November 18, 2013
ordmmvoeet
co
soe Mr. Anthony Urie
Neaiteee Mr, Dice Takahashi
‘Attomeys at Law
18130 Midvale Ave. N Ste. A.
Shoreline, WA 98133
Re: Markham v. Markham
Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:
| am writing in response to the Requests for Production served on October 28, 2013. Ms.
‘Markham’s 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 purpose 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.24 299 (1993). Mr.
Markham’s discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery that will be
admissible evidence at trial. In fact, itis a poorly disguised attempt to obtain unnecessary
access to the parties’ home over Ms. Markham’s 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 attemapt 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 parties’ relationship. To the extent that
the request calls for Ms. Markham to produce documents located at 808 NE 59" St, Ms.
Markham objects on the ground that the parties have no control or ownership rights over
the property.
REQUEST NO. 2: Ms. Maticham objects to the extent that the request improperly
demands entry into Ms. Markham’s personal residence and to the extent that it is overly
broad and unduly burdensome. The criminal No Contact Order prohibits Mr. MarkhamMr. Urie
Mr. Takahashi
November 18, 2013
Page 2
from entering Ms. Maricham’s 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 ail tangible personal property in her custody ot 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. Markham's 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 59" 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. Markham’s 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, Marisham to produce “all” of the computers and their
hard drives, “including old or ‘retired’ computers,” that have ever been located at $10 NE
58" Street. The parties have no ownership or control over any computers owned by Ms.
Markham’s 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 seekMr. Utie
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 attomey-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.
‘Markham’ s possession.
Without waiving objection, documentation in Ms. Markham’s possession is available for
inspection at the Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni é& Associates, PLLC, 11300
Roosevelt Way NE, Third Floor, Seattle, WA. Please schedule an appointment.
REQUEST NO. 1: 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 REP #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. Markham’s personal residence. The discovery
requests production of “photos,” “wall art,” and “other personal items,” without anyMr. 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. Markham’'s 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. Matkham 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. Markham’s 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. Markham’s 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.
Tam out of the office between November 25 and December 9. If do not have
correspondence from you limiting the scope of discovery prior to my retum, then I will
be forced to seek a protective order on Ms. Markham’s behalf. Please advise.
‘Yours truly,
Vana bee
Karma L. ZaikeExhibit EPhilip C. Tsai
Philip C. Tsai [phil@tictawco.com]
Monday, January 13, 2014 3:32 PM.
"Karma Zaike’
"Kerry Bowers’
RE: Reschedule phone conference
Karma,
[called and left you a message with your receptionist. Regarding your inquiry below, | confirmed with Jerry that he has
set up the deposits to go into the account on the 10” of the month and that they have been made pursuant to the prior
agreement. !am unsure why you contend that the deposit has not been made in the past month. | assume that
because the 10” of January fell on a Saturday that the deposit is made the next business day, which is today. Please
confirm with your client that she received the funds and that your email contending that my client has not deposited
anything in the last month is inaccurate.
In our conference call last Wednesday, January 8, 2014, we agreed that a neutral third party would be agreed upon to
remove the records subject to Mr. Markhamn’s discovery requests from the Seattle residence where your client resides in
their normal and regular state for the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. Markham proposes Christ Pardisio for this
purpose. Please confirm this is an agreeable third party so we can schedule a date as soon as possible. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Tsai Law Company, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560
Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
This E-mall is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication i strictly
prohibited
From: Karma Zaike [mailto:karma@lawaate.net]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Philip C. Tsai
Ce: Kerry Bowers
Subject: RE: Reschedule phone conference
Phil,
Please copy my assistant, Kerry, on correspondence,
‘What is your client’s position about depositing funds into their revenue account for payment of joint expenses.
Justa yes or no. Is he going to follow through with his prior agreement to deposit $20K a month or not? He
hasn’t deposited anything for the past month. If the answer is no, then could you please let me know your
availability during the last week of January for a hearing on temporary orders?
1Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:47 PM
To: Karma Zalke
‘Subject: Reschedule phone conference
Hi Karma,
| just had an issue come up in another case that is going to draw my attention at 3:00 p.m. Can we please reschedule
‘our conference call to Monday at 3:00 p.m. Please confirm. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Tsai Law Company, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560
Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
‘This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Ifthe reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.Exhibit FPhilip C. Tsai
Philip C. Tsai [phil@tlctawoo.com]
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:53 PM
‘Philip C. Taf’ Karma Zaike!
"Kerry Bowers” ‘anthonyurie@gmail.com'
RE: Reschedule phone conference
Karma,
Can you please respond to the below. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Tsai Law Company, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560
Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
Information is confidential and Is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited
‘From: Philip C, Tsai [mailtoiphil@ticlawco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:32 PM
Ce: ‘Kerry Bowers’
‘Subject: RE: Reschedule phone conference
Karma,
I called and left you a message with your receptionist. Regarding your inquiry below, | confirmed with Jerry that he has
set up the deposits to go into the account on the 10" of the month and that they have been made pursuant to the prior
agreement. | am unsure why you contend that the deposit has not been made in the past month. | assume that
because the 10” of January fell on a Saturday that the deposit is made the next business day, which is today. Please
confirm with your client that she received the funds and that your email contending that my client has not deposited
anything in the last month is inaccurate.
In our conference call last Wednesday, January 8, 2014, we agreed that a neutral third party would be agreed upon to
remove the records subject to Mr. Markham's discovery requests from the Seattle residence where your client resides in
their normal and regular state for the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. Markham proposes Christ Pardisio for this
purpose. Please confirm this is an agreeable third party so we can schedule a date as soon as possible. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. TsaiExhibit GPhilip C. Tsai
Philip C. Tsai [phil@tlctawco.com]
Friday, January 17, 2014 8:20 AM
"Karma Zaike!
"Kerry Bowers!
Markham
Karma,
Tony mentioned that you indicated you may need a trial continuance in the Markham matter. The trial date is currently
scheduled for April 7, 2014. | raise this as an issue because our last day for a trial continuance is Tuesday, January 21,
2014 (Monday is MKL Day). Can you call me this morning to discuss? Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
‘Tsai Law Company, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560
Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
‘This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibitedExhibit HPhilip C. Tsai
Philip C. Tsai [phil@ticlaweo.com]
Friday, January 17, 2014 3:49 PM
‘Philip C. Tsal’; Karma Zaike"
‘Kerry Bowers"
RE: Markham
Karma,
have called you twice today to follow up on the below email. | want to know if you agree that atrial continuance is
necessary in this case. | have a conflict with the current trial date and the deadline for fling a motion is on Tuesday.
Tony indicated that you also wanted to continue the trial date. If you and Ms. Markham agree to atrial continuance,
‘then we can enter an agreed order which would not then require me to file a motion with the Court. May | please hear
from you on this issue? | do not want to have to waste resources on filing a motion if we can agree. A simple yes or no
would suffice. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Tsai Law Company, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560
Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
‘This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly
prohibited
From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:phil@ticlavico.com!
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:20 AM
To: ‘karma Zaike’
Ce: ‘Kerry Bowers’
Subject: Markham
Karma,
Tony mentioned that you indicated you may need a trial continuance in the Markham matter. The trial date is currently
scheduled for April 7, 2014. | raise this as an issue because our last day for atrial continuance is Tuesday, January 21,
2014 (Monday is MKL Day). Can you call me this morning to discuss? Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Tsai Law Company, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
‘This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited