22 Twila Markham V Gerald Markham RES RESPONSE Compel Discovery 13-3-08383-7 SEA

FILED
14 APR 02 AM 9:20
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLE
'
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

FOR KING COUNTY
In re the marriage of:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71~~
73
75
77
79
TWILA MARKHAM
Petitioner,
and
GERALD MARKHAM
Respondent.
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES AND SANCTIONS
FOR FAILURE TO ABIDE BY CR 26(i)
REGARDING A DISCOVERY
CONFERENCE
COMES NOW, the Respondent, Gerald Markham, appearing by and through his attorney of
record, Philip C. Tsai of TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC, and hereby submits this Response to
the Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions for Failure to
Abide by CR 26(i) Regarding a Discovery Conference.1
I.
1.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The Respondent, Gerald Markham, respectfully asks the Court to deny the Motion
to Compel submitted by the Petitioner as although discovery is ongoing, he has substantially

1 Respondent objects to the substantial mischaracterization o f his efforts to cooperate with Petitioner regarding
conducting discovery in an organized fashion. This includes Petitioners requesting premature CR 26(i) conferences
before discovery was due, failure to abide by prior agreements to inspect and copy documents as well as Petitioners
filing the instant motion without conducting a CR 26(i) conference after she received Respondents Answers to
Interrogatories and Requests for Production o f Documents.
____ _____
__
___
___ _____
TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY
Page 1
ATTORNEYS A T LAW
2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
original
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
complied with the discovery requests provided by Petitioner. Respondent continues to provide
supplemental Requests for Production of Documents to the Petitioner to the best of his ability
given the substantial amount of documentation spanning this 34 year marriage and over 10
million dollar estate.
2.
Respondent also asks the Court to deny Petitioners Motion to Compel as she has
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
not complied with CR 26(i) regarding holding a discovery conference after she received
Respondents Answers to Wifes Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents provided on March 10, 2014.23 Therefore, Respondent, for the first time is reviewing
Petitioners claimed deficiencies to her discovery in the instant motion. Respondent contends
that Petitioner is mandated pursuant to CR 26(i) to discovery conference after receiving
Respondents Responses to Wifes Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents instead of just filing her motion.
3.
Respondent asks the court to allow for oral argument on this issue give the
complexity of the discovery issues in this case.
2 Respondent further supplemented his answers to the Requests for Production of Documents providing a plethora of
documents to the Petitioner in response to her requests on March 28, 2014 and April 2,2014.
3 Petitioner also comes to court without having complied with Jerrys discovery requests as she has hot provided all
o f the documents located in the Seattle residence which was the subject o f Respondents Motion to Compel filed on
January 21, 2014.

Page 2

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This matter involves the dissolution of a 33 year marriage and an estate valued at over 10
million dollars. The Respondent, Gerald Markham (hereinafter Jerry) and the Petitioner,
Twila Markham (hereinafter, Twila) were married on July 6, 1980.4 They have been married
for 33 years. They do not have any children of their marriage. Both parties have adult children
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
which were not bom of this marriage. Gerald is an attorney licensed to practice in Alaska.
Twila has her Bachelors Degree in psychology. Gerald is 66 years old. Twila is 65 years old.
Twilas Failure to Comply with Jerrys Discovery Requests
On October 28, 2014, Jerry issued Requests for Production of Documents to Twila. See
Exhibit A, Requests for Production of Documents. Jerry knew he would be at a substantial
disadvantage in this proceeding because Twila had possession of the Seattle residence where the
majority of the documents spanning the parties 33 year marriage were located. Jerrys Requests
for Production were broad because it would be impossible to attempt to list all of the documents
in the Seattle residence that would be relevant to the separate property tracing due to the
inheritance he received from his mother. Jerry has significant separate property claims not the
least of which arise from a 1988 inheritance from his mother of at least 13 separate parcels of
real property. Many of those properties were developed and virtually free and clear of debt that
was (undervalued on the basis of low Borough tax appraisals) for Federal Estate Tax purposes at
over $1 Million that estate Jerry operated through a professional property manager earning
4 For purposes o f this response, references to Jerry" and Twila are also intended to be through their counsel.

Page 3

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
further substantial rents (separate from his law practice) and which over the later years of the
parties marriage he judiciously sold. This included a large commercial two story office building
in Kodiak, Alaska. This Commercial Building alone sold in 2004 for over $1 Million. This was
in addition to the sale of stock in a closely held corporation the owned his Mothers profitable
bar and liquor store and several other parcels with residences that both proceeded that sale and
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
followed it approaching nearly $2 million in total sales exclusive of the property that his mother
left him in 1988 that he still owns in his separate name.
The documents that establish the separate property nature of Jerrys estate were at the
time of their separation largely located in a home the parties maintained in Seattle (in addition to
homes in Kodiak, Anchorage, Friday Harbor and Green Valley, AZ) in the several filing cabinets
where he kept his records together with the parties records pertaining to property held in their
parties joint names acquired over the course of their marriage.5
Upon Jerrys insistence, on January 8, 2014, both counsel had a CR 26(i) conference to
discuss Twilas objections to Jerrys Requests for Production of Documents. Of particular
importance was Jerrys ability to review the documents in their original state as he had organized
them so he would be familiar with their contents. Therefore, during that CR 26(i) conference,
Twilas attorney, Ms. Zaike agreed that a neutral third party would be designated to remove the
5 Ms. Zaikes representation that the October 30, 2013 letter from Jerrys prior counsel, Mr. Urie, evidences a
refused to participate in a discovery conference or to provide bank statements is belied by the letter itself. All the
Court needs to do is read the letter to see that Jerry was appropriately responding to the discovery issues at that time.
Further, the January 8, 2014 discovery conference was requested by Jerry regarding Twilas failure to provide
discovery as Jerry had already responded to Ms. Zaikes first discovery requests. See Exhibit B, Email from
Anthony Urie.

Page 4

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
file cabinets from the residence to be taken to a neutral location so Jerry could review and copy
3
5
7
9
them. On January 13, 2014, undersigned counsel sent Ms. Zaike an email as follows:
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
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. Markhams
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.
See Exhibit C, Email from Counsel.
Ms. Zaike failed to identify a neutral third party and also failed to produce the documents
consistent with the agreement. Therefore, on Wednesday, January 15, 2014, undersigned
counsel sent another email to Ms. Zaike again as follows:
Karma,
Can you please respond to the below. Thank you.
See Exhibit D, Email from Counsel.
Ms. Zaike failed to identify a neutral third party to remove the documents from the
Seattle residence so Jerry could inspect and copy them. Therefore, on January 21, 2014, Jerry
filed a Motion to Compel Twila to comply with his discovery requests.6 See Exhibit E, Motion
to Compel.
In the interim between when Jerry filed his motion and the Court made an initial ruling
on the motion, Ms. Zaike agreed to work more cooperatively regarding discovery. On February
6 In response to Jerrys motion, Ms. Zaike filed a Motion for Protective Order and for Order Shortening Time
responding to Jerrys motion.

Page 5

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2101 FO URTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
Jo
19, 2014, undersigned counsel sent an email to the Court advising that he and Ms. Zaike had
reached an agreement and wanted to withdraw the motions that had been filed. Specifically, a
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
part of the agreement stated:

Both parties motions to compel and for protective order are temporarily
withdrawn to allow the parties to work together and develop a discovery plan to
move forward with discovery. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, either
party may renew his/her motion at a later date.
See Exhibit F, Stipulated Order.
Unbeknownst to the parties, the Court had already entered an Order on February 19, 2014
on both Jerry and Twilas motions. See Exhibit G, Orders entered with the Court. Therefore,
the parties stipulated to vacate the Orders entered on February 19, 2014 and to enter the
agreement to work together and develop a discovery plan to move forward with discovery. See
Exhibit H, Orders Vacating and Stipulated Order.
Part of the agreement to work together more cooperatively was to allow Jerry to inspect
and copy the records from the Seattle residence. Therefore, on Wednesday, February 12, 2014,
Jerry was scheduled to go to Ms. Zaikes office to review and mark the documents for copying.
However, for unknown reasons, Ms. Zaike canceled this meeting at the last minute claiming that
she no longer would allow the inspection to occur. See Exhibit I, Email from Counsel. This

Page 6

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
bad faith gamesmanship on Ms. Zaikes part was only the beginning regarding the inspection and
copying of the documents.7
Therefore, the meeting had to be rescheduled of Friday, February 14, 2014. When Jerry
began inspecting the documents, he could immediately see that they were not in their original
state as in the file cabinets but had been gone through by someone (presumably Twila and her
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
counsel), and they were incomplete. Ms. Zaike also supervised the inspection of the documents
and in an intimidating fashion and at one point, accused Jerry of intentionally mixing up the
documents. Upon inspection, Jerry realized that Ms. Zaike had only supplied select documents
from one of the filing cabinets. However, Jerry did the best that he could regarding marking
them for the purpose of having them copied. Also, Jerrys counsel specifically advised Ms.
Zaike that the documents were incomplete and requested that Twila also provide the files from
the other filing cabinet located in the Seattle residence.
On February 19, 2014, undersigned counsel made arrangements for Sound Legal Copy to
copy the documents that Jerry spent hours reviewing and marking. However, Twilas counsel
then sent an email stating as follows:
7 Jerry takes substantial issue with Ms. Zaikes contention that he is engaging in bad faith gamesmanship. Jerry is
a successful attorney and has been upstanding member o f the Alaska Bar for the past 42 years beginning his career
as a Assistant Attorney General for the state o f Alaska in 1972-1776 and then after 36 successful years practicing
maritime injury law, returned to public service to vest his retirement as a Senior Municipal Prosecutor for the City of
Anchorage in 2003-04. He has conducted him self with professionalism and integrity throughout this proceeding.

Page 7

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Phil,
When asked, there was no confirmation that the files needed to be copied, so they
are no longer available. Please let me know what files Jerry wants from the list he
made and the files will be made available.
Thanks,
Karma
See Exhibit J, Email from counsel.
Undersigned counsel was shocked that Ms. Zaike would contend that the files were no
longer available for copying. After substantial delay, Ms. Zaike eventually allowed Jerrys copy
service to make copies of the documents he reviewed and marked. However, despite the fact that
counsel had agreed to work more cooperatively regarding discovery, as the Court can see, Ms.
Zaike continued to play games regarding: (1) the date for inspection of the documents; and (2)
then her claim that the documents were no longer available for copying when asked by Jerrys
counsel. Twila and her counsel still have not provided the other filing cabinets in the Seattle
residence for inspection and copying despite Jerrys requests to receive those additional
documents. Specifically, Jerrys counsel sent a request for the additional documents on March
21, 2014 (three days prior to Twila filing the instant motion) as follows:
Next, in connection with the original documentation and additional discovery
requested in my in my settlement letter (the Mill Bay Road condemnation file, the
4001 Borland Drive sale file and all of the files containing all prior year Federal Tax
Returns in the 810 58th Street, Seattle residence together with their supporting work
papers) I am going to add to the list of specific needed documentation the parties
"estate planning" file that needs to be produced. Jerry reports it was also in his
office in the tall standup file cabinet in his "old" (spare bedroom) office. But since it
was not in what you have represented was that entire file cabinet (which he now
Page 8

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
believes was incompletely produced as shown by the conspicuous the omission of

numerous years of files containing the parties "Seattle copy" of their joint tax
returns together with their work papers). Accordingly, he asks that a search be
made of both his entire "old" and "new" office area (in what was formerly the
garage) as well as in the furnace room and any other possible location for this and
the other files mentioned in his settlement letter that he's indicated he needs to both
fairly document his settlement proposal and if necessary his case.
See Exhibit K, Email from Counsel.
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Ms. Zaike has not responded to Jerrys additional request for documentation as
enumerated in the March 21, 2014 email and instead, unilaterally filed the instant motion with
the Court.
Twilas Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.
Twila send her second set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents
to Jerry on or about January 21, 2014. Jerry worked to locate the substantial number of
responsive documents located in the remaining four of the five residences (described above) that
he was not precluded from entering where documents are located.
On February 10, 2014, prior to the date that the discovery answers were even due,
Twilas counsel aggressively began demanding to know whether they would be produced on
time and attempted to schedule a premature discovery conference. Jerrys counsel responded by
letting Twilas counseTknow they were working on the responses (which he was intent on
obtaining in connection with a trip Jerry was making to argue before Alaskas Supreme Court on
February 18, 2014) but that pursuant to his calculation, they were not due until February 24,
2014. See Exhibit L, Email from Counsel. Further, undersigned counsel provided a letter to
Page 9

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Twilas counsel on February 20, 2014 as a partial response and objection to the discovery
requests. See Exhibit M, Letter to Counsel.
The weekend of February 21, 2014, following hes Alaska Supreme Court argument in
Anchorage, Jerry encountered travel problems getting to Kodiak, Alaska due to high winds that
had grounded all airplanes. Undersigned counsel in good faith notified Twilas counsel of the
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
problem in an email dated February 24, 2014. See Exhibit N, email to counsel. Therefore,
there was a minor delay in providing the answers to the discovery requests until Jerry returned to
Seattle with the documents. Also, the parties had engaged in some settlement negotiations and
therefore, the discovery was placed on hold for a period of time. See Exhibit O, Email from
Counsel indicating a moratorium on discovery.
On March 3, 2014, in response to the request for the most recent account statements,
Jerry produced the following documents to Twilas attorney:
1. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 5/1/13-5/31/13

7. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 2013 Year-End Statement (Tax Information)
8. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, March 2013
9. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, October 2013
10. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary of Accounts, November 2013
11. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, January 20148
8 These accounts statements were provided to Twilas counsel via email and therefore, she could have printed them
out in any order that she chose. Further, as can be seen from the above list o f statements, the contention that Jerry
has not provided any current financial documents for 2 014... is patently false.

Page 10

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
12. D.A. Davidson Account (#6360) 4/1/13-4/30/13

15. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, December 2013
On March 10, 2014, Jerry provided Twila with his written responses to the
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. See Exhibit P, Email to Counsel.
Included in the answers were the references to the Requests for Production of Documents and
Jerry had provided a plethora of documents for inspection at his counsels office. Jerry initially
dropped off the documents at his counsels office so that Twila could inspect and copy them.
However when after a substantial period of time in which Twilas counsel delayed a physical
inspection but sought to have them copied, to accommodate opposing counsel he later picked up
the documents had them scanned so a soft copy could be provided to Twilas counsel.
Undersigned counsel advised Twilas counsel of this in an email dated March 24, 2014. See
Exhibit Q, email from counsel.
On March 25, 2014, in response to the March 24, 2014 email, Twilas counsels office
sent an email indicating:
We would like to have these documents by the end of the week. Please let me know
when they can be picked up for copying or when you expect to send soft copies.
Thank you (Emphasis added).
See Exhibit R, Email from Counsel.
Without waiting until the end of the week as was indicated in the March 25, 2014
email, Twilas counsel then filed the instant motion with the Court! She did not send a letter in
Page 11

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
which she claimed there were deficiencies in the discovery responses, nor did she wait for Jerrys
counsel to provide the soft copies of the files that Twilas attorney specifically requested in her
Requests for Production of Documents (and proceeding email EX Q).
On March 28, 2014 (Friday of the week requested by counsel), undersigned counsel
provided Supplemental Responses to the Requests for Production of Documents to Twilas
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
counsel. In those supplemental responses, Jerry provided a plethora of additional documents to

Twilas counsel in direct response to her Requests for Production of Documents.9 See Exhibit
S, List of Documents provided to Ms. Zaike.
Undersigned counsel also sent Ms. Zaike an email asking her to strike her motion for
failure to abide by CR 26(i). See Exhibit T, email to Ms. Zaike. Despite undersigned
counsels email, Ms. Zaike refused to strike her motion causing Jerry to incur additional and
unnecessary attorneys fees.10 One Monday March 31, 2013 Jerrys counsel additionally
forwarded to Twilas counsel a small handful of the parties early year tax returns (1977-80) that
were scanned but not carried by the server to the correct address.
Alleged Deficiencies in Interrogatory Answers
9 Jerry is providing the Court and Ms. Zaike with a CD with his Answers to the Interrogatories and Requests for
Production including the 3565 pages o f documents he provided to Ms. Zaike as reflected on Exhibit S attached to
this Motion and the Second Supplemental Answers to Requests for Production o f Documents with his working
papers but not filing those documents with the Court.
10 Despite Jerry providing an additional 3565 pages o f discovery to Ms. Zaike on March 28 ,2 0 1 4 , she claimed in her
responsive email that the CD contained all o f the out o f date documents you previously sent. They were not new
documents. Ms. Zaike must not have actually read the documents provided on the CD. Otherwise, she would not
have made that false statement.

Page 12

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
In response to Ms. Zaikes contention that Jerry did not comply with specific
Interrogatories, CR 33(c) provides authority for the answer to reference specific documents
which contain the information requested in the Interrogatory. CR 33(c) states:
Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the
business records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served or from
an examination, audit or inspection of such business records, or from a
compilation, abstract or summary based thereon, and the burden of deriving or
ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the
interrogatory as for the party served, it is sufficient answer to such interrogatory to
specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to
afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine,
audit or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or
summaries. A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating
party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from
which the answer may be ascertained.
With CR 33(c) in mind, Jerry responds to the specific interrogatories identified in the
motion as follows:
Interrogatory No. 22. Jerry specifically referenced the Alaska PERS retirement check
which has all of the deductions for dental, optical and audio and the amounts that were
paid for Medicare part B. Twila is in possession of the Alaska PERS information which
was contained in the Seattle residence and therefore, is in possession of the information
she seeks.
Interrogatory 26. Jerry specifically answered all of the sub parts of this Interrogatory
and referenced the PERS 100-Rs that were in the Seattle residence where Twila resides.
He further referenced the parties income tax returns which are also in Twilas possession
at the Seattle residence. The income tax returns have the information requested in this
interrogatory (see 1040 line 16a) requesting the amounts of pension, retirement,
unemployment compensation and social security Jerry specifically referenced
Interrogatory No. 28. Regarding Jerrys income, he is mostly retired at this time and did
not receive any income from employment for the entire 2013 tax year. Jerry referenced
his prior income tax returns which are in Twilas possession at the Seattle residence. He
Page 13

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
answered all of the sub parts to this interrogatory by referencing the tax documents
reflecting his income.
Interrogatory No. 32. Regarding his Alaska PERS retirement, Jerry specifically
referenced the PERS documents, which are in Twilas possession at the Seattle residence
and also offered to provide a release of information if one was provided. Ms. Zaike did
not provide the release for Jerry to sign until 2 days after she filed the instant motion with
the Court! Jerry has immediately since signed the release and provided it to Ms. Zaike.
Interrogatory No. 37. Contrary to Ms. Zaikes contention, Jerry has complied with this
answer by referencing the account statements provided on March 10, 2014 and March 28,
2014. Further, Ms. Zaike has all of the current account statements along with the
balances as she provided a spreadsheet with the accounts listed with the current balances
with a settlement proposal.11 It is disingenuous of her to claim she does not have this
information when she clearly has all of the documents in the Seattle residence containing
the account statements and balances.
Interrogatory No. 38. Contrary to Ms. Zaikes contention, Jerry specifically answered
this Interrogatory regarding any withdrawals over $1,000 by referencing the bank
statements he provided on March 10, 2014 and March 28, 2014. Further, he also
specifically advised if the bank statements were not revealing enough regarding the
expenditure, he would answer any specific question regarding the transaction.
Interrogatory No. 39. Jerry specifically disclosed all of his accounts including the AK
PERS Retirement plan, Stock in ALPS E&O Mutual Insurance company, College Life policy and
the two retirement accounts (40 IK and 457) from the Municipality of Anchorage as part of his
answer to this Interrogatory. He further indicated he would update all of those identified accounts
with statements to the extent that Twila does not already have them at the Seattle residence.
Interrogatory No. 44 and 46. Jerry specifically references the account statements which
have been provided to Ms. Zaike as part of the discovery responses. He also objected in
that it would be impossible to list out separately all of the stock purchases and sales since
the time of the marriage (33 years). He specifically answered as follows: Objection
unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence.
Without waiving said objection, Ive purchased what Id estimate were thousands of
securities over the course of our marriage and Petitioner had access to many of the1
11 Jerry is in no way disclosing what the proposal was pursuant to ER 408 but the Court can be advised that Ms.
Zaike has the information necessary to have formulated the proposal.

Page 14

ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
brokerage statements pertaining to these and turned them over to Respondent for storage
in Friday Harbor. This information is available through the various brokerage firms
identified in those files but I could not list all of the purchases in this answer.
Interrogatory No. 53. As indicated in the statement of facts above, there have been
numerous real property purchases and sales during this 33 year marriage. Jerry provided
substantial documents that evidence the purchase and sale of this real property in his
disclosure made on March 28, 2014 which include escrow documents and the income tax
returns spanning from 1980 to the present which show the capital gains taxes associated
with the real property. Twila is very aware of all of the current real estate owned by the
parties as the deeds and other documents evidencing the real estate transactions are
located in the Seattle residence where she resides.
Interrogatory No. 55. As indicated in answer to Interrogatory No. 53, Jerry contends that
the real property documents which would be necessary to answer this interrogatory are
located in the Seattle residence in which Twila is in possession. It would be impossible
to answer this question without having those documents. Jerry has asked for Twila to
provide those documents but they have not been forthcoming from Ms. Zaike.
Interrogatory No. 56. Mr. Markhams expenses have been in flux throughout this
proceeding because he no longer is residing in the Seattle residence. He has been staying
at the Friday Harbor residence but all of his expenses are put on a credit card and paid
from the joint account. That is why he referenced the joint account regarding the
expenses that he is currently incurring. There are no mortgages on any of the real estate
owned by the parties and therefore, all his expenses are non fixed living expenses at this
time.
Interrogatory No. 58. Contrary to Ms. Zaikes contention, Jerry specifically indicated
that his income is reflected on the financial statements and in the income tax returns
provided with the answers. Jerry has not earned any income from work in 2013. All his
historical income is reported and reflected on the income tax returns, which Twila has
possession in the Seattle residence.
Interrogatory No. 59. Jerry specifically answered this question to the best of his ability
regarding his separate property. Twila is well aware that Jerry inherited substantial
separate property when his mother passed away. Jerrys answer states, Objection
unduly burdensome and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving said objection,
except insofar as Petitioner owned an interest in cannon Beach Oregon house in her own
name prior to the parties marriage, received a small inheritance from her mother in
Page 15

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Oregon, or given her by A1 Olsen, all real and personal property in Respondents sole
name, all property in the parties joint names, and all property in Petitioners sole name
was either acquired by Respondent in Alaska prior to the parties marriage, inherited from
or given him by Respondents mother in Alaska, given him by A1 Olsen or Von Straut or
purchased with funds earned by Respondent in Alaska while both parties were living and
domiciled in Alaska and hence not community property under the laws of Washington
but separate property the laws of Alaska. To the extent that the parties real property
located in Washington is by law community property then all of their property in
Washington is community property.
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Interrogatory No. 64. Jerry answered this question by answering, no, he has not disposed
of any property by sale or gift having a value of greater than $1,000. Jerry further offered
that any funds that he spent beyond $1,000 would be reflected in the bank and investment
account statements, which Twila has control and possession in the Seattle residence.
Interrogatory No. 70. The College Life Policies referenced to this Interrogatory were
offered for inspection in his counsels office but Twilas counsel did not chose to come
and inspect any of these documents. They are again being offered to Ms. Zaike along
with this Response.
Interrogatory No. 74. Jerry answered this question by referencing the difficulty in
providing a response due to the location of the documents in the Seattle residence as well
as the location of the vehicles. Specifically, Jerry answered as follows, Objection,
unduly burdensome and not answerable in the absence of my files all in petitioners
possession and access to all the vehicles which are in locations too remote from
Respondent presently. As to Tf b. no. d. purchase g. none i. 810 NE 58th except the Jaguar
which Respondent has possession. As he travels to their location he will try to note the
mileage.
Request for Production No. 4: Jerrys Supplemental Answers to the Requests For
Production of Documents provided on March 28, 2014 were in direct response to this
Interrogatory. (See list of additional documents which support the separate property
nature of Jerrys estate). However, Ms. Zaike filed this motion 2 days prior to the weeks
end deadline that she put on receiving the soft copy of the documents being produced.
Request for Production No. 5. As indicated in answer to Request for Production No. 5,
Jerrys Supplemental Answers to the Requests For Production of Documents provided on
March 28, 2014 were in direct response to this Interrogatory. (See Exhibit R, list of
additional documents which support the separate property nature of Jerrys estate).
Page 16
TSAI LAW COMPANY. PLLC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
However, Ms. Zaike filed this motion 2 days prior to the weeks end deadline that she
put on receiving the soft copy of the documents being produced. Undersigned counsel
sent an email to Ms. Zaikes office dated March 24, 2014 in which he offered to provide
soft copies of the documents which were sent on March 28, 2014.
Request for Production No. 7. Jerry is providing additional documents as a Supplemental
Answer to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and would have
done so voluntarily without the need for Ms. Zaike filing the instant motion.
Request for Production No. 9. As the Court can see from the Supplemental Answers to
the Requests for Production of Documents provided on March 28, 2014, and Second
Supplemental Answers to Requests for Production of Documents, Jerry already
supplemented this answer twice after this motion was filed. However, this Request for
Production asked for 12 months of statements and Jerry provided statements including a
year end statement for his Ameritrade and DA Davidson Account. If Ms. Zaike would
have complied with CR 26(11 and identified these documents, this motion would not have
been necessary. Jerry should be awarded his attorneys fees and costs associated with
having to file this response and for Ms. Zaikes failure to comply with the rules regarding
a Motion to Compel.
Petitioners Counsels Failure to Comply with CR 26(il
As can be seen from the above, Twilas counsel is not acting in good faith regarding
discovery issues. CR 26(i) specifically provides:
The court will not entertain any motion or objection with respect to rules 26
through 37 unless counsel have conferred with respect to the motion or objection.
Counsel for the moving or objecting party shall arrange for a mutually convenient
conference in person or by telephone. ...Any motion seeking an order to compel
discovery or obtain protection shall include counsels certification that the
conference requirements of this rule have been met.
Twilas counsel did not even attempt to schedule a discovery conference subsequent to
entry of the Agreed and Stipulated Order in which she agreed to work together and develop a
discovery plan to move forward with discovery. There has been no attempt to schedule a
Page 17

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
discovery conference after she received Jerrys Answers to the 2nd set of discovery responses.
The first time that Jerry knew Twila was contending that there were deficiencies in the answers
was when he received her motion. Twilas counsel has violated the spirit and letter of the
Stipulated Order and failed to comply with the discovery rules.
Jerry has never claimed he would not provide additional responses and/or answers to
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Twilas discovery requests and to the contrary, has attempted to provide responses to all of
Twilas discovery requests. If Twilas counsel believed that there were deficiencies in the
answers, CR 26(i) mandates that she raise those issues prior to filing a motion with the court.
Instead, Ms. Zaike has run rough shot over the rules and filed this motion with the Court causing
Jerry to incur additional and unnecessary attorneys fees.
CONCLUSION
Jerry asks that the Court deny the Motion to Compel and to award him attorneys fees
and sanctions for having to respond thereto. Jerry has provided answers to Ms. Zaikes Second
Requests for Production of Documents on March 3, 2014, Answers to her Interrogatories on
March 10, 2014, Supplemental Answers to her Requests for Production on March 28, 2014 and
Second Supplemental Answers to her Requests for Production of Documents on April 2, 2014.
Respectfully submitted this 4? -^day of April, 2014 by:
C N
Philip C. Tsai, WSBA #27632
Attorney for Respondent
Page 18

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
Exhibit A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
In re the Marriage of
)
)
10
11
TWILA MARKHAM
Petitioner
)
)
No. 13-3-08383-7 SEA
)
12
) RESPONDENTS 1ST REQUESTS

) FOR PRODUCTION
)
13
14
)
)
)
15
16
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM
)
)
17
18
______________________Respondent
19
20
TO: TWILA MARKHAM Petitioner AND TO: MICHAEL W. BUGNI and associates
her attorneys
21
22
COMES NOW RESPONDENT GERALD MARKHAM BY COUNSEL

PURSUANT TO ARCP 34
23
24
Requests for Production of Documents: In accordance with Rule 34 of the Civil

Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the following:
25
28
Produce and pennit video 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 infonnation can be obtained, translated if necessary or
29
Respondents First Requests for production 1.
26
27
L aw O ffices
of
A n th o n y M. U rie , PLLC
18 130 M idvale Ave N Ste A

Shoreline, W A 98133-4536
(206) 542-4066
1
2
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 810 NE 58th, Seattle WA 30 days from receipt hereof.
3
4
5
6
7
The party upon whom these requests for production are served shall serve a
written response within 30 days after service of this request. 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.
10
DEFINITIONS
11
As used in this , the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Person. The term "person" is meant to include any individual and any business
entity.
(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.
(c) Electronic Communications. The tem "electronic communications" is meant
to include, without limiting its generality, e-mails, text messages, voice mails or any
other fonn 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 requests for production, the tenn "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 (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
o f A n th o n y M. U rie , P L L C
18130 M idvale Ave N Ste A
(206) 542-4066
L aw O ffices
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of

REQUEST NO 1:
Produce for video inspection in the condition they were in at the time this Request was
received, the entire content of all documents including electronic documents in the care
custody or control of Petitioner that are or have ever been located at any time during
Petitioner and Respondents relationship in any part of either 810 NE 58th St. or the
areas that Petitioner controls at 809 NE 59th St. or that have been relocated to her son
and agents nearby home at 808 NE 59th Seattle WA 98105 as well as in the
outbuildings or vehicles she controls. This request specifically includes the demand to
inspect all emails (exclusive of communications with counsel) that Petitioner has sent
anyone including her son Adam Logghe at any time during the parties relationship.
RESPONSE:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
REQUEST NO 2:
received, the entire content of all tangible personal property in the care custody or
control of Petitioner that is or have ever been located in any part o f either 810 NE 58th
St. or the areas that Petitioner controls at 809 NE 59th St. or that have been relocated to
of her sonand agents nearby home at 808 NE 59th Seattle WA 98105 and all
outbuildings thereto and all vehicles Petitioner controls.
RESPONSE:
20
21
22
23
24
25
REQUEST NO 3
received, the real property located at 810 NE 58th St. and 809 NE 59th St. and her son
and agents nearby home at 808 NE 59th Seattle WA 98105 as well as in the
outbuildings or vehicles she controls.
26
RESPONSE:
27
28
--- -----29
L aw O ffices
of
A n thony M. U rie , P LLC

Sh ore lin e, WA 98133-4536
(206) 542-4066
1
2
REQUEST NO 4
3
4
5
6
7
received all of the computers or any description (including all old or retired
computers along with their hard drives, and their back up devices such as time
machine or any thumb drives that are or have ever been located at 810 NE 58th St. or
in the control of the Petitioner or her agents including all of her sons computers.
RESPONSE:
10
11
12
13
REQUEST NO 5.
Produce for video inspection and copying statements (including electronic statements)
of all bank accounts, financial accounts, insurance accounts, and brokerage accounts
(T.D. Ameritrade and D.A. Davidson) in petitioners care custody and control
regardless of whose name said funds are reported to be in (including Adam Logghes).
14
15
RESPONSE:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
REQUEST NO 6.
Produce for video inspection and copying all records (including electronic statements)
of all meetings and notes of treatment by Petitioners psychologists or therapists in the
last 50 years in her care custody and control or in lieu thereof an unlimited waiver to
those records along with a detailed account of their names, addresses, phone numbers
and present whereabouts.
RESPONSE:
23
24
REQUEST NO 7
25
28
Produce for video inspection and copying all medical records (including electronic
statements of all health care providers that have treated Petitioner in the past 50 years
including but not limited to all the records that were developed by the Seattle Fire and
Rescue team that was dispatched to 810 NE 58th St., Seattle WA 98105 on the evening
29
26
27
L a w O ffices
Shoreline, WA 98133-4536
(206) 542-4066
1
2
of April 19, 2013 and all the Virginia Mason Hospital and Dr. Tang or other treatment
(including her then ongoing physical therapy treatment) that followed.
RESPONSE:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REQUEST NO 8:
Produce for video inspection and copying all documentation that Petitioner has
received from any women support groups, any victims advocate groups, and the Seattle
police or City Attorneys office and any and all documentation in Petitioners care
custody or control (including all phone and cell phone records) showing the dates,
times and number of communications Petitioner had with these either prior to or
subsequent to Respondents April 24, 2013 arrest.
RESPONSE:
11
12
REQUEST NO 9:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Produce for video inspection and copying all documentation in Petitioners care
custody or control (including all phone and cell phone records) showing the dates,
times and number of communications Petitioner or her son Adam Logghe had with any
and all legal counsel or their staff prior to and after Respondents April 24, 2013 arrest.
In this connection if Petitioner objects to producing documents reflecting what was
communicated, Respondent nevertheless seeks all of evidence of when those
communications occurred, their length, and their number in what ever form including
phone logs or law office time sheets and billing statements as well as a general
discription of the subject matter.
RESPONSE:
21
22
REQUEST NO 10:
23
24
Produce for video inspection and copying all documentation that Petitioner has
received from any and all veterinary care providers related to the parties dog Phinney.
25
26
RESPONSE:
27
28
REQUEST NO 11:
29
o f A n th o n y M. U rie , P LLC
(206) 542-4066
L aw O ffices
1
2
Produce for video inspection the parties dog Phinney.
3
4
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO 12:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Produce for video inspection and copying all documents and papers as well as all
tangible things that were removed from the residence and out buildings at 198 Journeys
End Way, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 titled in Respondents sole name along with and
all documents and papers as well as tangible things that Petitioner or her agents had
removed from any other properties in Alaska or Arizona which they previously came to
jointly occupy. Be advised that further entry upon the property titled in the name of
Respondent that the parties formerly shared either by Petitioner or her agents without
the express written consent of Respondent or his attorneys is prohibited.
RESPONSE:
15
16
REQUEST NO 13:
17
18
19
20
21
Please give custody to or produce for video inspection if you will not, the
Respondents passport, new Rolex watch, photos, stamp collection wall art, ivory and
other personal items located at 810 NE 58th, Seattle or that Petitioner or her agents
removed from 198 Journeys End Way, Friday Harbor or where ever else located.
RESPONSE
22
23
24
25
26
27
Request No 14: Produce for video inspection or otherwise all documents reflecting and
all passwords for access into any and all assets accounts (except those in Petitioners
sole name which may be redacted) and any and all liability accounts in the parties joint
names or in the parties individual names which have ever been paid for out of funds
held in the name of the Respondent individually or Petitioner and Respondent jointly.
RESPONSE
28
Shoreline, WA 98133-4536
(206) 542-4066
L aw O ffices
29
1
2
3
4
Request No 15: Produce all Visa and American Express Card statements (or in either
of the parties names showing transactions for the years 2012 and 2013. This request
is a continuing one throughout this proceedings.
RESPONSE
6
7
Request No 16: Produce for video inspection and copying all financial statements,
earnings statements, and tax returns of Adam Logghe in Petitioners care custody or
control.
8
9
RESPONSE
10
11
12
13
14
Request 17: Produce for video inspection and copying all tax returns for all years since
two years before the parties have resided together in Petitioners care custody and
control or execute a waiver to the IRS for every year Petitioner does not have.
RESPONSE
15
16
17
Request NO 18: Produce for video inspection and copying a documents in Petitioners
care custody and control pertaining to Petitioners son Michael Bennett, his ex-wifes
estate or his children Jade, Juan or Ryan.
18
19
RESPONSE
20
21
22
23
24
REQUEST NO 19: If Petitioner does not personally have possession of any document
Petitioner is requested to provide a detailed list of the person or organization that does
and a clear waiver of access to said documents in a form Respondent will provide on
request.
25
26
27
Dated October___, 2013
28
18130 Midvale Ave N Ste A
S h orelin e, WA 98133-4536
(206) 542-4066
L aw O ffices
29
1
2
3
4
Anthony Urie WSBA #_

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o f A n th o n y M. U rie , P L LC
S h orelin e, WA 98133-4536
(206) 542-4066
L aw O ffices
29
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing, except where
noted, upon the individual(s) listed by the following means:
6
7
Ms. Karma Zaike

11300 Roosevelt Way N.E. Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98125
[ x ] U.S. Postal Service (First Class)

T 1 Facsimile to
[ ] U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
[ ] Hand Delivery
[ ] Via Legal Messenger for service by
10
Dated: October
,2013
11
By: Anthony M. Urie
12
13
Title: Attorney for Respondent
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o f A n th o n y M. U rie , P LLC
(206) 542-4066
L aw O ffices
29
Exhibit B
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gerald Markham [gmarkham@ nwlink.com]

Tuesday, April 01 ,20 14 5:14 PM
Philip C. Tsai
Fwd: Markham: discovery conference-SECO N D request for response
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anthony Urie <anthonvurie@gmail.com>

Date: October 31,2013 3:18:52 PM PDT
To: Karma Zaike <karma@lawqate.net> Gerald Markham <qmarkham@nwlink.com>.
Dice Takahashi <dice.takahashi.washinqton@qmail.com>
Subject: Re: Markham: discovery conference-SECOND request for response
Dear Ms. Zaike
I sent you a 14 page letter yesterday by email, did you not receive it? Could you kindly address any dispute you
have after reading the letter via email. The letter addressed the legal basis of each and every discovery matter
that you have concern with. Before we engage in any premature Rule 37 Conferences, I believe the burden is
upon your office to comply with Respondents Discovery to Petitioner. If Petitioner fails to make Discovery at
that point Respondent would move to Compel after having a Rule 37 Conference. Thus a Rule 37 Conference
is premature as your office has not Responded to Discovery Propounded to Petitioner. If your office produces
requested documents a Rule 37 Conference is entirely unnecessary.
As mentioned in the 14 page letter sent to you yesterday, Respondent, Gerald Markham does not have in his
immediate possession the bank account information that you have requested, however, as stated in the letter all
information you are requesting is easily and "equally" accessible to your client, Mrs. Markham, as she has
access online to all accounts of the parties. Accordingly, the information you are seeking is either presently
(physically) or constructively in your clients possession. Furthermore, as you are aware Mr. Markham has been
denied access to the Wallingford Home, where most of his documents are located.
Please let me know what it is that you believe could be the subject of a Rule 37 conference. I am awaiting
Production of Requested Documents as they are necessary in order for Mr. Markham to rebut your recent
allegations that he is a batterer.
Sincerely,
Anthony Urie
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Karma Zaike <karma@lawgate,net> wrote:
Second request for response.
i
From: Karma Zaike

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Anthony Urie
Cc: Kerry Bowers
Subject: Markham: discovery conference
Dear Mr. Urie.

Yesterday, I received Requests for Production in this matter. I would like to schedule a conference to discuss
objections. I am available tomorrow and Thursday morning before noon. Please advise as to your availability
Additionally, now that we have an e-mail service agreement in place, please provide a word version of the
discovery requests.
Thank you,
Karma Zaike
Exhibit C
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Philip C. Tsai [phil@ tlclawco.com]

Monday, January 13, 2014 3:32 PM
'Karma Zaike'
'Kerry Bowers'
RE: Reschedule phone conference
Karma,
I called and left you a message w ith your receptionist. Regarding y o u r inquiry below, I confirm ed w ith Jerry that he has
set up the deposits to go into the account on the 10th o f the m onth and that they have been made pursuant to the prior
agreement. I am unsure why you contend th at the deposit has not been made in the past month. I assum e th at
because the 10th of January fell on a Saturday that the deposit is m ade the next business day, w hich is today. Please
confirm with you r client that she received the funds and that your em ail contending that m y client has not deposited
anything in the last m onth is inaccurate.
In our conference call last W ednesday, January 8, 2014, w e agreed th at a neutral third party w ould be agreed upon to
remove the records subject to M r. M arkham 's discovery requests from the Seattle residence w here you r client resides in
th eir norm al and regular state fo r the purpose o f inspection and copying. M r. M arkham proposes Christ Pardisio fo r 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
Atto rney at Law
Tsai Law Com pany, PLLC
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560
Seattle, W ashington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit o u r W ebsite at: www.TLCIawco.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: Karma Zaike [mailto:karma(a)lawaate.netl

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Philip C. Tsai
Cc: 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 tlieir revenue account for payment of joint expenses.
Just a yes or no. Is he going to follow through with his prior agreement to deposit $20K a month or not? He
hasnt 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?
l
Thank you,
Karma
From: Philip C. Tsai rmailto:phil@tlclawco.com1

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:47 PM
To: Karma Zaike
Cc: Dona L. Harris
Subject: Reschedule phone conference
Hi Karma,
I just had an issue com e up in another case th at is going to draw my attention at 3:00 p.m. Can we please reschedule
our conference call to M on day at 3:00 p.m. Please confirm. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Atto rney at Law
Tsai Law Company, PLLC
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
V isit our W ebsite at: www.TLCIawco.com
prohibited.
Exhibit D
Philip C, Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Philip C. T sa i [phil@ tlclawco.com]

W ednesday, January 15, 2014 4:53 PM
'Philip C. Tsai'; 'Karma Zaike'
'Kerry Bowers'; 'anthonyurie@gmail.com'
RE: R eschedu le phone conference
Karma,
Can you please respond to the below . Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A ttorney at Law
Seattle, Washington 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our W ebsite at: www.TLCIawco.com
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying o f this communication is strictly
prohibited.*
I
From: Philip C. Tsai [m ailto:phil@ tlclawco.coml

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:32 PM
To: 'Karma Zaike'
Cc: 'Kerry Bowers'
Subject: RE: Reschedule phone conference
Karma,
I called and left you a message w ith yo u r receptionist. Regarding yo u r inquiry below, I co n firm ed w ith Jerry that he has
set up the deposits to go into the account on the 10th o f the m onth and that they have been made pursuant to the prior
agreement. I am unsure w hy you contend th at the deposit has not been made in the past m onth. I assume that
because the 10th o f January fell on a Saturday that the deposit is m ade the next business day, w hich is today. Please
confirm with your c lie n t that she received the funds and that your em ail contending that m y client has not deposited
anything in the last m onth is inaccurate.
In our conference call last W ednesday, January 8, 2014, we agreed th at a neutral third p a rty w ould be agreed upon to
rem ove the records subject to M r. M ark h a m 's discovery requests from the Seattle residence w here your client resides in
th eir normal and regular state fo r the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. M arkham 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
Exhibit E
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

)
)
TWILA MARKHAM
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
and
)
)
GERALD MARKHAM
)
)
Respondent.
)
_________________ :___________________ )
N O . 13-3-08383-7 S E A
MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e)
AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS
TO DISCOVERY PROPOUNDED TO
PETITIONER ON OCTOBER 28,2013
(CR 26(i) Certification)
COMES NOW, the Respondent, Gerald Markham, appearing by and through his attorney
of record, Philip C. Tsai of TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC, and hereby submits this Motion to
Continue the Trial Date and to Compel Answers to Discovery Requests Propounded to Petitioner
on October 28,2013.
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
1.
The Respondent, Gerald Markham, respectfully asks the Court to continue the
trial date in this matter because: (1) undersigned counsel has a personal conflict with the existing
trial date of April 7, 2014 and will be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date;
MOTIONAND DECLARATION FOR

CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSUANT TO
KCLR 40(e) AND MOTION TO COMPEL
Page 1

______ ATTORNl'YS AT LAW .
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
o r i g i n a l
and (2) the significant discovery and valuations that need to be conducted in this dissolution of a
3
5
7
9
33 year marriage will require a trial continuance to June 9, 2014.1
11
13
15
17
19
2.
Respondent also respectfully asks the Court to enter an Order Compelling
Petitioner to provide full and complete answers to his Requests for Production of Documents
which were propounded to the Petitioner on October 28,2013.
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
3.
Respondent also asks that pursuant to KCLR 37 the Petitioner be ordered to pay
the Respondents attorneys fees for having to file this motion.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Petitioner, Twila Markham (hereinafter, Twila) and the Respondent, Gerald
Markham (hereinafter, Gerald) were married on July 6, 1980. They have been married for 33
years. They do not have any children of their marriage. Both parties have adult children which
were not bom of this marriage. Gerald is an attorney licensed to practice in Alaska. Twila has
her Bachelors Degree in psychology. Gerald is 66 years old. Twila is 65 years old.
Twila filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on May 9, 2013. See Exhibit A,
Petition for Dissolution. Twila filed her Petition in King County despite the fact that the
parties primary residence was located in Kodiac, Alaska and they are both residents of Alaska.
In fact, just weeks before Twila filed her Petition in which she asserted Jurisdiction was proper
1 Respondent is filing this motion within the deadline to change trial date on the Case Schedule and is asking to
continue the trial to June 9 ,2014 which is more than 28 days. However, if the Court does not continue the trial to
June 9, 2014, then Respondent is still asking the court to continue the trial to April 28, 2014 due to undersigned
counsels unavailability for trial on April 7, 2014.

Page 2

____ATTORNEYS A T L A W _______
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
in Washington, Twila filed an affidavit swearing under oath that her domicile, residence and
3
5
7
9
permanent place o f abode was in Kodiak, Alaska where Gerald owned the residence the
11
13
15
17
19
Markhams lived in (and their respective sons grew up i n ) located at 211 Mill Bay Road.
Pursuant to Geralds objection to jurisdiction in the state of Washington, he filed a
Motion to Dismiss the King County action asserting Jurisdiction was proper in Alaska. A
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
hearing occurred on October 18, 2014. The Court heard argument regarding Geralds Motion to
Dismiss and entered on Order Denying his motion indicating that the case could proceed in
Washington. See Exhibit B, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
Pursuant to the Courts Order indicating that the divorce action would proceed in
Washington, on or about October 28, 2014, Gerald issued Requests for Production to Twila
asking that she produce specific documents as identified in the discovery requests. See Exhibit
C, Requests for Production of Documents. Pursuant to the Requests for Production, Twila
was required to provide answers to Geralds discovery requests within 30 days of receipt of those
requests. Twila did not provide answers to Geralds discovery requests within the 30 day period.
Instead, Twilas counsel provided a letter in which she objected to the discovery requests. See
Exhibit D, Letter from Counsel. Once again, Twila did not produce any documents in
response to Geralds discovery requests, nor did she file a Motion for Protective Order.
After much difficulty in getting Twilas counsel to agree to a date to have it, on or about
January 8,2014, undersigned counsel conducted a KCLR 37 and CR 26(i) discovery conference
MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR
Page 3
TSAI LAW COM PANY, PLLC

ATTORNEYS A T L A W ------- --2101 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
3 with co-counsel Anthony Urie and Twilas counsel, Karma Zaike.2 During that conference, the
3
5 issue of Gerald having access to the financial records in the Seattle residence in their original
7
9 state where Twila resides was discussed. Twilas counsel denied the request for Gerald to have
11
13
15
17
19
access to the residence to inspect his records. The importance of those records was also
discussed in that there are significant separate property claims that Gerald has in this case.
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Specifically, that the Seattle residence had documents that were necessary and vital to tracing of
Geralds separate property claims that an inspection of the file cabinets was necessary and
requested in Geralds discovery requests. Because Twilas counsel denied the request for Gerald
to appear at the residence and inspect the documents, the parties agreed that each would propose
an independent third party to remove the records and file cabinets from the residence to be taken
to a neutral location where Gerald could inspect and copy the records. It was also specifically
noted that Twila had not provided any documents whatsoever in response to Geralds Requests
for Production and that she could have at least provided documents that were not objected to
within the 30 days required by the rules.
Also discussed in the discovery conference was the issue of obtaining the Twilas
counseling and medical records due to her claims of domestic violence that are denied by Gerald.
2 Even though Gerald is an attorney and was initially on the conference call, Twilas attorney objected and refused
to allow him to be present on the phone during the call despite his personal knowledge o f the discovery being
requested. Twilas counsels objection was not founded in law or fact as Gerald is a party to this matter and had a
right to be part o f the conference call.

Page 4

- - -ATTORNEYS A T LAW______
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Gerald believes that obtaining those medical records will show that Twila had not reported any
issues of domestic violence to any of her health care providers which would disprove her claims
as asserted in her Petition for Dissolution in support of a request for a restraining order.
In the discovery conference, Twilas counsel objected to providing those documents and
claimed she did not assert any claims of domestic violence in her Petition. However, a review of
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
sections 1.10,1.11 and 1.12 of Twilas Petition for Dissolution is clearly contrary to the position
that Twilas counsel asserted in the phone conference and contrary to the declarations that Twila
and her son filed in response to the Motion to Dismiss. Gerald has properly asked for those
medical and psychological records and no Motion for Protective Order has been sought or filed
within the 30 days in which production of those documents was due.
In compliance with the agreement reached with Twilas counsel in the KCLR 37
conference that a neutral third party would be chosen to remove the records and files at the
Seattle residence for inspection, on January 13,2014, undersigned counsel sent an email to
Twilas counsel proposing mutual acquaintance of the parties, Chris Pardisio be chosen to
perform that task. Specifically, the email states:
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. Markhams
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.
See Exhibit E, Email from Counsel.
Page 5

- ATTORNEYS A T L A W -------2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Undersigned counsel did not receive a response from Twilas counsel to the above email
regarding the neutral third party as agreed in the KCLR 37 conference call. In fact, no response
to that agreement to propose a neutral third party has been provided by Twilas counsel at all
regarding that issue. Therefore, on Wednesday, January 15, 2014, undersigned counsel sent
another email to Twilas counsel as follows:
Karma,
Can you please respond to the below. Thank you.
See Exhibit F, Email from Counsel.
Once again, no response to the issue of the neutral third party that was agreed to in the
KCLR 37 conference was sent by Twilas counsel.
On or about January 15, 2014, Twilas counsels office began emailing random
documents to undersigned counsel. The email that Twilas counsels office sent indicated they
were sending 12 emails with responses to Requests for Production numbers 5, 15, and 17.
Undersigned counsel asked Twilas counsel not to email that volume of documents and to please
send copies.
On or about January 16,2014, Twilas counsel provided a CD with the documents she
contended were in response to Requests for Production number 5,15 and 17. However, there
were no signed Answers or a pleading identifying which documents were in response to which
Requests for Production nor was there a certification that the records were authentic or some
Page 6

ATTORNEYS A T LAW --------2101 FOURTH AVENUE SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
other indicia of reliability as to where they came from.3 Although some of the documents that
were requested have been provided, Twila has not complied with the majority of Geralds
discovery requests issued on October 28, 2014 nor did she provide a signed Answer to Geralds
Request for Production of Documents pursuant to CR 34.
On January 17,2014, undersigned counsel sent an email to Twilas counsel regarding the
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
current trial date of April 7,2014. Specifically, Twilas counsel had previously indicated to co
counsel, Anthony M. Urie, that she needed a continuance of the trial date due to the discovery
deadlines and her schedule. (See Declaration of Anthony M. Urie filed contemporaneously with
this motion). Specifically, undersigned counsels email stated:
Karma,
Tony mentioned that you indicated you may need a trial continuance in the
Markham matter. The trial date is currently scheduled for April 7,2014.1 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.
See Exhibit G, Email from Counsel.
Undersigned counsel also followed up with phone calls regarding the issue of the current
trial date leaving Twilas counsel messages to call back. Having not received a call back from
Twilas counsel, undersigned counsel sent another email regarding the issue of the current trial
date:
3 CR 34 specifically requires Twila to provide a written response to the Request for Production and to produce the
documents as they are kept in the usual course o f business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the
categories in the request.

Page 7

____ ATTORNEYS A T LAW______
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Karma,
I have called you twice today to follow up on the below email. I want to know if you
agree that a trial continuance is necessary in this case. I have a conflict with the
current trial date and the deadline for filing a motion is on Tuesday. Tony indicated
that you also wanted to continue the trial date. If you and Ms. Markham agree to a
trial continuance, then we can enter an agreed order which would not then require
me to file a motion with the Court. May I please hear from you on this issue? I 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.
Despite the fact that Twilas counsel had previously indicated she wanted to continue the
trial, her office sent an email indicating that they would not agree to a trial continuance (despite
the fact that undersigned counsel indicated he had a conflict with the current date) and that they
would be opposing any motion to continue. The above statement of facts are the basis for the
instant motion.
III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.
Whether the court should continue the trial date in this matter when: (1)
undersigned counsel has a personal conflict with the existing trial date of April 7, 2014 and will
be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date; and (2) the discovery and valuations
that need to be conducted in this dissolution of a 33 year marriage will require a trial continuance
to June 16,2014.
2.
Whether the court should enter an Order Compelling Petitioner to provide full and
complete answers to his Requests for Production of Documents which were propounded to the
Petitioner on October 28, 2013.
Page 8

_____ ATTORNEYS A T LAW
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
3.
Whether the Court should order Petitioner to pay Respondents attorneys fees for
having to file this motion.

IV. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
1. THE COURT SHOULD CONTINUE THE TRIAL IN THIS MATTER FROM
APRIL 7,2014 TO JUNE 9,2014 DUE TO UNDERSIGNED COUNSELS
CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE AND TO ALLOW
ENOUGH TIME FOR DISCOVERY AND VALUATIONS TO OCCUR
PURSUANT TO THE CASE SCHEDULE.
King County Local Rule 40(e) provides the procedural basis for a continuance of trial.
Specifically, KCLR 40(e) states as follows:
(e) Continuances/Change o f Trial Date.
(1) Limited Adjustment of Trial Date to Resolve Schedule
Conflict. In cases that are governed by a Case Schedule, the trial date may be
adjusted, prior to tire Final Date to Change Trial, by motion, to a Monday no more
than 28 days before or 28 days after the trial date listed in the Case Schedule.
(2) Change of Trial Date. A motion to strike a trial date, or change a
trial date more than 28 days before or after the original date, shall be made hi writing
to the assigned Judge, or if there is no assigned Judge, to the Chief Civil Department,
and shall be decided without oral argument. If a motion to change the trial date is
made after the Final Date to Change Trial Date, as established by the Case Schedule,
the motion will not be granted except under extraordinary circumstances where there
is no alternative means of preventing a substantial injustice. A motion to strike or
change a trial date may be granted subject to such conditions as justice requires.
(3) Amended. Case Schedule. When a trial date is changed, the judge
changing the trial date may amend the case schedule or may direct that the parties
confer and propose a new schedule. Unless some other deadline for submitting the
proposed case schedule is set by the court, the parties must submit a proposed case
schedule for signature by the assigned judge no later than twenty days after the order
changing the trial date is signed.
(4) Change of Trial Date on Courts Motion. The Court on its own
initiative may, if necessary, change the trial date.
Page 9

- ....... ATTORNEYS A T LAV' ______
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
Especially in divorce cases a liberal view toward granting continuances is taken by most
courts, and this is particularly so where the continuance is the first one sought. In re Marriage of
Chamberlin, 44 Wn.2d 689 (1954).
There are two basis to continue the trial in this matter. The first is undersigned counsels
unavailability for the trial on April 7, 2014. Undersigned counsel has non refundable airline
tickets and will be out of the country the week of April 7, 2014. This motion is being filed prior
to the deadline for a Motion to Change Trial in the case schedule. Therefore, the Court should
continue the trial pursuant to KCLR 40(e)(1) cited above.
The second basis is Twilas failure to abide by the discovery rules and deadlines as
indicated above. This case involves substantial assets including two residences and parcels of
real estate in King County, a residence and parcel of real estate in Alaska, a residence and parcel
of real estate in Arizona, a commercial real estate building in Alaska, numerous bank and
investment accounts that all need to be valued and characterized as either separate or community
property. There are significant and important documents in the Seattle residence that have not
been provided and Twila has failed to designate a neutral third party to pick up the file cabinets
and documents in the residence as agreed on the KCLR 37 conference. It is also important to
note that Twila has not provided a Possible Primary Witness List to Gerald, despite the January
6, 2014 due date. Even if the Court grants the Motion to Compel Discovery as requested in this
motion, there will not be enough time to value all of the properties, hire an expert to perform the
Page 10

ATTORNEYSJVTJ-AW______ 2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
tracing that will be necessary regarding Geralds separate property, and participation in
mediation as required by the Court Rules. Therefore, Gerald asks the court to grant his Motion
for Continuance from April 7, 2014 to June 9, 2014. Otherwise, there will be a substantial
injustice to Gerald.
2. PURSUANT TO KCLR 37, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER TWILA TO
COMPLY WITH GERALDS DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND AWARD HIM
FEES FOR HAVING TO FILE THIS MOTION.
King County Local Rule 37 provides authority for the Court to compel a party to provide
answers to discovery. Specifically, KCLR 37 states as follows:
(d) F ailure o f P arty to A tten d at Own D eposition or Serve A n sw ers to Interrogatories
o r R espond to R equ est f o r Production or Inspection. If a party' or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a party or a person designated under rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify
on behalf of a party fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take his or her
deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or (2) to serve answers or objections
to interrogatories submitted under rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories, or
(3) to serve a mitten response to a request for production of documents or inspection
submitted under CR 34, after proper service of the request, the court in which the action
is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and
among others, it may take any action authorized under CR 37. In lieu of any order or in
addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising the
party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney' fees, caused by' the
failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other
circumstances make an award, of expenses unjust.
The failure to act described in this subsection may not be excused on the ground that die
discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a
protective order as provided by CR 26(c). For purposes of this section, an evasive or
misleading answer is to be treated as a failure to answer. (Emphasis added).

CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSEANT TO
Page 11
TSAI LAW COM PANY, PLLC

____________________ ATTORNEYS A T LAW ______
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Twila has not provided any written signed answers to Geralds Requests for Production
of Documents despite them being received by her attorney on October 28, 2014. She has failed
to identify the neutral third party to pick up and remove the file cabinets from the Seattle
residence after the CR 26(i) conference held on January 8, 2014. Twila has also not provided her
medical and counseling records that are clearly relevant to the claim of domestic violence that
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
she plead in her Petition for Dissolution. The fact that her attorney sent a letter objecting to the
production of certain records is not an excuse for her failure to provide the documents requested
as clearly KCLR 37(d) requires her to file a Motion for a Protective Order i f she believes she has
a basis to object to the requested discovery. Because she has not filed such a motion, she has
waived her right to do so. Gerald is entitled to an Order Compelling Discovery and is providing
the court with a proposed order along with this motion.
Respectfully submitted this J2 / ^ day of January 2014 by:
<L
Philip C. Tsiii, WSBA #27632

Page 12

----- ATTORNEYS AT-LAW2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
2 0 6 -7 2 8 -8 0 0 0
09/30/2013
21:39
13603782047
PAGE
02
Exhibit F
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

W ednesday, February 19, 2014 12:39 PM
'Howard, Greg'; 'Kerry Bowers'
'Karma Zaike'; 'Erika S. Reichley'
RE: Markham 13-3-08383-7: Motion for Continuance/Protective O rder
Agreed Order Continuing Trial and Withdrawing Motions.pdf
Dear M r. Howard,
Attached to this em ail is an agreed order regarding a continuance o f the trial date and both parties w ithdraw ing their
m otions to com pel and for protective order as referenced below. Please subm it this O rder to Judge Inveen for
approval. Thank you for your attention to this email.
Very tru ly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A ttorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is
prohibited.*
I
From: Howard, Greg fmailto:Grea.Howard@ kinqcountv.qovl

Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:52 AM
To: Kerry Bowers
Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley; phil@tlclawco.com
Subject: RE: Markham 13-3-08383-7: Motion for Continuance/Protective Order
Judge Inveen is currently at a judicial conference out o f state.
It is my hunch that she has the m aterials w ith her as she took som e o f the pending m otions I believe.
I w ill try and ask her and get back to you as soon as I hear anything new. GH
Greg S. Howard,
Bailiff to the Honorable Laura C. Inveen
King County Superior Court
516 3rd Avenue, Rm W 864
Seattle, W A 9 8 1 0 4 ____
qreq.howard@ kinqcountv.gov
P lease note the c o u rt p h o n e n u m b e r has re ce n tly change d to: (206) 477-1617
From: Kerry Bowers fmailto:kerrv@ lawaate.netl

Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:53 PM
To: Howard, Greg
Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley; Dhil@tlclawco.com
Subject: Markham 13-3-08383-7: Motion for Continuance/Protective Order
M r. Howard,
In the above m entioned case, a M o tio n fo r Trial Continuance and M otion for Protective O rd e r were before Judge Inveen
on 2/6/14 w ith o u t oral argument. Can you advise if Judge Inveen has issued a ruling yet? Thank you.
Legal Assistant
The Law Offices o f Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC
11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other
privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to
any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents;
rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy all copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
In re the Marriage of:
)
)
)
)
)
)
.)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8
9
TWILA MARKHAM,
10
11
12
13
Petitioner,
and
GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM,
Respondent.
14
15
16
17
18
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

STIPULATION AND AGREED
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
DATE
Clerks Action Required
Continue Trial Date from

April 7, 2014 to June 16, 2014
___________________________________________________________________________________________________)
I.
STIPULATION
COME NOW the parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, KARMA L.
ZAIKE and PHILIP TSAI, and hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order continuing the trial
19
20
date in the above-captioned matter from April 7, 2014 to June 16, 2014. A continuance is
21
needed because (1) counsel for Respondent has a personal conflict with the existing trial date
22
of April 7,2014 and will be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date; and (2)
23
the significant discovery and valuations need further time.
24
25
- - -LAWOFFICES - ..........- - - ........... - Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc
Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing Trial Date
Page 1 o f 3
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE.STE. 300 - - SEATTLE, WA 98125

(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
1
2
3
4
5
The parties have agreed to abide by the following agreements pending trial:
1. The Husband will deposit at least $30,000 per month, commencing with the month
of February, 2014 into the joint account (protocol for deposits will be status quo)
for payment ofjoint expenses. If the account balance is at $10,000 or below, the
Husband agrees to make additional deposits to maintain the $10,000 threshold.
The characterization of said deposits and expenditures are reserved for trial. This
order is without prejudice to either party to request changes to the expenditure
deposits; and
6
7
8
2. Both parties motions to compel and for protective order are temporarily
withdrawn to allow the parties to work together and develop a discovery plan to
move forward with discovery. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, either
party may renew his/her motion at a later date.
9
10
11
3. Mail which arrives in Kodiak will be opened by Karl Loeffler and anything that
relates to Ms. Markham will be sent to her. If it relates to both parties, he will
make a copy and send to Ms. Markham. Karl will also be authorized to send all
copies of financial statements and bills to Ms. Markham.
12
13
14
Date: February 12,2014

MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC
15
16
17
KARMA L. ZAIKE, WSBA #31037
18
TWILA MARKHAM
Petitioner/Wife
Electronic Signature Approved
19
20
Date: February_,2014
21
22
23
P - U p
C- (*""*---- -----------PHILIP TSAI, WSBA #27632
^ <-fad~L<d
GERALD MARKHAM
Respondent
24
25
LAW OFFICES------ -------- ........ - - Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc
Page 2 o f 3
- 11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 3 0 0 -----------------SEATTLE, WA 98125

(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
To:19072764661
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The p arties h ave agreed to abide by th e follow in g agreem ents pending trial:
1. H ie H usband w ill d ep osit at lea st $3 0 ,0 0 0 per m onth, com m encing w ith the m onth
o f February, 2 0 1 4 into tile jo in t account (protocol fo r d ep osits w ill b e status quo)
fo r paym ent o f jo in t exp en ses, I f the account b alan ce is at $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 Of b elo w , the
H usband agrees to m ake additional d ep osits to m aintain the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 threshold.
T he characterization o f said dep osits and expenditures are reserved fo r trial. T his
order i* w ithout prejudice to either party to request changes to th e expenditure
d ep osits; and
2 . B oth p arties' m otions to com pel end fo r p rotective order w e tem porarily
w ithdraw n to a llo w the parties to w ork togeth er and d evelop a d isco v ery plan to
m o v e forw ard With discovery. I f th e p arties are unab le to teach agreem en t, either
party m ay renew h is/h er m otion at a later date.
10
11
12
3 . M ail w hich striv es in K odiak w ill b e opened by K arl LoefQ er ao d an yth in g that
rela tes to M s. M arkham w ill b e sen t to her. I f it rela tes to both p a rties, h e w ill
m ake e copy and sen d to M s. M arkham. Karl w ill also be au th orised to send all
______co p ies o f financial statem ents and b ills to M 's.M arkham .
13
D a te February 1 2 ,2 0 1 4
14
M ICHAEL W . B tJQ N l & A SSO C ., PLLC
IS
16
17
K A R M A L . Z A IK E , W S B A # 3 1 0 3 7
TW ILA MARKHAM
Pethionec/Wife
18
19
20
D ate; February
2014
21
22
23
PHILIP T SA I, W SBA # 2 76 3 2
A ttorney fo r R espondent
G ER ALD M A RK H A M
R espondent
24
25
um/,prelaw
IWiCHAM-W. BUtlNl & ASSOC-, PLLC
Stipnktiwi and Agreed Order Continuing Trial Date
Pngs2of3
11M>0R0O6S/&TWNE,STS.W0
8EA.TO&WASB1J5
(;)JM 8oa*W 39lW tE SJ6) 365^007
Exhibit G
<
,r*-
1
3
5
.7
9
11
13
15
17
19
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

TWILA MARKHAM
Petitioner,
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3
and
GERALD MARKHAM
Respondent. .
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

ORDER ON MOTION FOR TRIAL
CONTINUANCE AND COMPELLING
REQUESTS
c , L & jz- rt f s
A c-ft
THIS MATTER, having come before the undersigned Judge of the above entitled court,
the Respondent, Gerald Markham, appearing by and through his attorney of record, Philip C.
Tsai of TSAI LAW COMPANY;, PLLC, and Anthony M. Urie, the Petitioner, Twila Markham,
appearing by and through her attorney of record, Karma Zaike, the Court having reviewed the
records and files herein, and for good cause shown, NOW THEREFORE,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
: U The Motion to Continue the trial is Granted. Trial shall be continued to (check one
box)
:'
[]
'
' April 28,2014

Or
June 9, 2014
ORDER ON MOTIONFOR'CONTINUMCFVF
TRIAL PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e) A N D _____
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO
DISCOVERY
Page I- .
--------TSATTAWCOMPA.'NX'PIXC
. ATTORNEYS AT i A W
210! FOURT! I AVENUE, SUITE 1560
SEATTLE, WA 98121
206-728-8000
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

KING COUNTY
M ARKHAM
Plaintiff/Petitioner
NO. 13-3-08383-7 S E A
Order Amending Case Schedule

vs
M ARKHAM
Defendant/Respondent
Clerks Action Required
T h e tr ia l d a te is r e se t, an d th e C ou rt am en d s th e ca se sch ed u le a s show n b e lo w
Case Events
Amended Due Date
Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses
3/10/2014
Change of Trial Date
3/24/2014
Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses
4/7/2014
Discovery Cutoff
5/5/2014
Deadline for Engaging in Alternative Dispute

Resolution
5/12/2014
Exchange of Witness & Exhibit Lists &

Documentary Exhibits .
5/19/2014
(NOT A PPLICA B LE for cases involving

children) Deadline to file Joint Confirmation of
Trial Readiness
5/19/2014
Inspect Exhibits
5/27/2014
Use of Discovery/Depositions at Trial
6/2/2014
Motions in Limine
6/2/2014
Trial Brief
6/2/2014
2/19/2014
Page 1
Joint Statement of Evidence
6/2/2014
Trial
6/9/2014
Pursuant to King County Local Rules, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the
schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in the King County
Local Rules, may be imposed for failure to comply.
ed:
Dated
Honorable Judge Laura Inveen
2/19/2014-
Page 2
ipVtVW
in*?
1
2
3
4
5
6

9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In re: .
TWILA MARKHAM,
: U '
Petitioner,
:. and
Respondent.
___________)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
I. JUDGMENT SUMMARY
A. JudgmehtCreditor:
\
B. Judgment Dfehtor:
'x
Attorney Fees: \
\
D. '"Attorneys Fees, Costsâud Other Recovery Amciupts
ShaHvEear Interest at 12^kper annum.
E. Attome^sfor Judgment Crediteq::
f : Attorney fobju^gment Debtor: " " x ^ j
22
TWH>AMARKHAM
GERALlXW- MARKHAM
$3,000
\
N.
\
Kqrma L. Zaike
^
PhilipC. Tsai
Antoony-M. Urie
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES _______________
Michael w. Bugni & A ssoc., pllc
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE. STE. 300
SEATTLE, WA 98125
(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDERPa gelof3-
JA L
t\
;SN
1
n.
ORDER
This Motion having been brought by the Petitioner/Wife, for a Protective Order
limiting the scope of the Respondents Requests for Production, the court having reviewed the
Petitioner's motion, Respondents response and Petitioners reply (if any) and the Court being
otherwise fully advised in the premises, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1,
The Petitioners motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. 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.2d 299,858 P.2d 1054 (1993). However/the Husband h S a ^
-attempfeeRtr use the discovery process as a means to burden and harass the Wife and to gain
unauthorized access to the parties home, seeking to impose obligations on the Wife beyond
16 those allowed by any applicable Local Rules or governing case law. Therefore, the objections
17
18
19
20
21
contained in the Wifes letter dated November 18,2013 which is attached hereto are
sustained, and the Husbands Requests for Production are limited in scope to comport with the
objections therein.
'fWs- uo vfd ,5k&jA
iV\
'2.
The~Wife ShatPhave judgment against the Husbandill the ainumrt-of $3;0Q0-fbr
iWvc. \cu_4uo^ rc c-or-d J
4o -4U
22
23
O/t
25
j-psy VcJsJc la/C_
1
LAWOFFICES_________________
Michael W. Bugni & A ssoc., pllc
ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER Page 2 o f 3.
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, S TE . 300

SEATTLE, WA 06125
(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
Tt> Aâ-<-t^!>l4-Ol.(~ a> I: ^4 Wl.puO \ &XcL p i ' A ' ^ i {jj>\-z- [jVcÛ pr^yvck- v /c -ri^ c .j <0-a S '^ 0 5 . -^CMrS-^-c^jV-CC
l_^'
( \ Cj 4
Z> Vpj^_<C^"Lc> ^ S
o*-5i
SS<i>vCrvvCjo- \ <i ( '2->ll> c> nrz& )ponX^ce

1
C d^ ^ S scJ; aM<\Mi
X-cXo/u**^ C |
'^XiAJL^ A- ^ p U r ^
Vo
"pC>/ P"' L/"\ ^4v_si-
THE HONORABLE L. TNVF.EN
3
4
Presented by:
7
8
KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA #31037

Attorney for the Petitioner
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
25
LAW OFFICES_________________
Michael W. Bugni & A ssoc., pllc
ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE O RDERPage 3 o f 3 '
11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300

SEATTLE, WA 9812S
(206) 366-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067
11300 Roostvm WifNonrmusr,Sum 300

SETTLE>'WSHINCTON98125
I*=2D6.365.5500 0:205.363.8067
o f MICHAELW. BUGNI&ASSOCLSJES, PI1C

AnOBNBYU
MiciuuW-Bugh
LuMCmraasEHCouEsc
D*suJ.Goom
Mffl<MiiBrDwu&raicx
JbmubI mbd
BusrattM.lHKS
' CirEBUKEAM
muE
tvEmSiumO'CoMa
liiAraFraff
BrnSom^QiiHniB
K*s2LZiz
NamibM.Beckuann
' November 18,2013

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:
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 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.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 emails 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 59thSt, 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/orappraise 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.
REQUESTNO. 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
j
and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence. The discovery
1
_____________ ___ ,j .requests production.pf photos,.wah.-ati, .md.ojther.personalitems,!..withoutany._________ _______
Mr. Urie
Mir. Takahashi
November 18,2013
Page 4
specificity.
. Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham believes she knows the items to which Jeny
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.
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 nonparty. 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.
j
i
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 NQ.-19:_This Request forProduction 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 ofthe 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 w ithout w aiving the foregoing ob jections, M s. M arkham w ill produce
responsive docum ents b y sending copies o f th e sam e addressed to counsel. Please
im m ediately confirm that neither Mr. M arkham n o r counsel on his behalf w ill be
appearing a t M s. M arkhams home. I f Mr. M arkham or his agents appear, it w ill
be a violation o f the crim inal No Contact O rder currently in effect and law
enforcem ent w ill be im m ediately 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
. KLZresr
Cc: Client
Exhibit H
s STAVAILAgL;<E
r% A' Q;
3
4
5>
5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OP WASHINGTON
In r e -the M arriage o f:
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

T W IL A M A R K H A M ,

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
DATE
Petitioner,
10
11
and
12
Clerks Aettoa Required
GERALD W A Y N E M ARKHAM ,
13 fr-
Continue Tried. Late from

April 7,2014 to Jufte 16,2014
Respondent
14
(NO ENVELOPES PRQVJD.
15
16
STIPULATION
17
COME NOWdie parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, KARMAL.
18 ZAJKE andPHILIP TSAI, and hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order continuing the trial
19
date in the above-captioned matter from April 7,2014 to June 16,2014. A continuance is
20
21
needed because (1) counsel for Respondent has a personal conflict with the existing trial date
22
of April 7,2014 and will be out ofthe country andunavailable for trial on that date; and (2)
23 the significant discovery and valuations need further time.

24
25
---------------------- ------------- --- ----- ------ ------ LAWOFFICES ----- --------------Michael w . Bugni & A sso c., pulg
1130D ROOSEVELTWW HE, STE. 30D
Stipulation andAgreed Order Continuing Trial Date
p '
Sea ttle ; w a
912s
(208) 36M 500 FACSIMILE (208)363-8087
U?
T he p a rties h a v e a g reed to a b id e b y th e h allow in g agreem en ts p en d in g trial:

1 . H ie H u sb an d w ill d ep o sit at lea st $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 p er m onth, com m en cin g w ith th e month,
o f F ebruary, 2 0 1 4 in to th e jo in t accou n t (p ro to co l fo r d ep osits w ill b e status quo)
fo r p a y m en t o f jo in t exp en ses. i f th e acco u n t b a la n ce is a t $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 o r b elo w , th e
H u sband a g rees to m ak e ad ditional d ep o sits to m aintain th e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 th resh old .
T h e ch aracterization o f said d ep o sits and exp en d itu res are reserved fo r trial. T his
order is w ith o u t p reju d ice to either party to req u est ch an ges to th e expenditure
d ep o sits; an d
2 . Berth p a rties m o tio n s to com pel an d fo r p ro tectiv e order are tem p orarily
w ith d raw n to a llo w th e p arties to w ork to g eth er and d ev elo p a d isc o v e iy p la n to
m o v e forw ard w ith d iscovery. I f th e p arties are un ab le to reach agreem en t, eith er
party m a y ren ew h is/h er m otion at a la ter date.
3 . M a il w in c h arrives in K od iak w ill b e op en ed b y K a il L o effler and an yth in g th a t
rela tes t o M s. M arkham w ill b e sen t to h er. I f i t rela tes to b o th p a rties, h e w ilt
m a k e a c o p y and sen d to M s. M arkham . K arl w ill also b e au th orised to sen d a ll
c o p ie s o f fin a n cia l statem ents and b ills to M s. M arkham .
'D a te: F ebruary 1 2 ,2 0 1 4
M IC H A E L W . B U G N I & A S S O C ., PLLC
KARMA L. ZA3KE, WSBA# 31037
TW KAM AEKHAM
Petitionex/W ife
E lectro n ic Signature A p p roved
D ate: F eb ru ary,__ ,2 0 1 4
^ tfa
PH ILIP T S A I, W S B A # 2 7 6 3 2
A ttorn ey fo r R esp o n d en t
GERALD M ARKHAM
R esp on d en t
-LAWOFFICES.......... ............. ...

Michael W. Bugni &. Assoc, pllc
Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing M ai Date
Page 2 o f3
11300 ROOSEVELTWAV RE, STE. 300

SEATTLE,WA 83125
(206) 3533500 FACSIMILE (206)333-8087
To119372754691
Pa?o:2-'3
l i e parties have agreed to abide by tta follow ing usp&mmts pending trial;
2
3
4
5
L Tbs Hnsfcatid w ill depositat least $30,000

month, com m encingw ith fee laordh
o f Febiw ay, 2014 into the join t soeemnt (protocol for deposits wall fee status <juo)
for psam art o f jo in t expanses, Ifth a account bafanae is at $10,000 Of below , foe
33 oharactaizefion o f Id deposits aftfi expandltares m reserved for trial, This
o tfo sis withontprejadloe to either party to rerpast changes to fo e expenditure
dsposfcg and
7
5
9
10
n
'13
13
14
2. B eth jJartioB* m otions to compel tmd for protective order ere tampararBiy
m oveforw w d with tHacoVei?. K fo parties tenable to reach agreem cat, either
psrty m ay renew hMi&rmotion a t a tensr date,
3. M ail which Strives in Kodiak-will b e Opened by K atl Loafficr ap d anything that
relates to M k Markham will bo sent to her. I f itretatpsto both p arties, hsw ilf
Biako a copy and send to Ms. jVfrrkhflra. Kwl -wit! s f e fe? authorised to send all
__
copies o f financial statements and blits to M bj ytWkfrm ..,,
February 12,2014
M KH AH b W , B U G N I* ASSOC^TIiJC
15
16
17
i A X , ZATKE* W S B A j 3X 037
E fceten io Slgsatesre Approved
18
19
20
21
Date; Fbmmy^20I4
22
23
2*|
PHILIP TSAI, WSBA#27<?32
tXERAITJ MARKHAM
Attorney fo r Respondent
Respondent
255
L&umrasiSL
WlCMSleLW.9UOW&ASSOC.,PLLC
newRoossvEtrvwrNBsrc.we
atipnlrtfen andAgreed OrderContinuingTwiJBate

B aj2ef3
iEmwiif
,?f
(BDWMtttrfAOSHUS<Wt>
>S!!B7
H.
ORDER
THIS MATTER, having come on by Stipulation ofbofliparties, through their
4 respective counsel of record, and for good cause shown, it is hereby

5
ORDERED that the trial date in this matter, cunrently setfor April 7,2014, is
6
7
S
continued until June 16,2014. The stipulations above are adopted as the order of the court as
if set forth fully herein.
9
10
11
It is further ORDEREDthat the Judicial Assistant shall prepare an Amended Case

Schedule.
Date:
3 / (1 j /
12
13
M
J I (^ C O M M IS S IO N E R
Presented by:
14 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC

15
16
17
K A R M A L . Z A I K E ,W S B A # 3 1 0 3 7
18
19
20
21
22
Copy Received; Approvedfor Entry;

Notice ofPresentation Waived by:
CL p -
PHILIP TSAI, WSBA#27632

23 Attorney for Respondent
24
25
----------LAW OFFIGES.............. .............. - Michael W. Bugni & A ssoc, pu .c

Page 3 o f 3
11300 ROOSEVELTWAY NE, STJH. 300

SEATTLE, WA 83125
(208) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (208)333^057
1
2
3
4
*y
5
In re the Marriage of:
9
10
11
12
13
NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA
TWILA MARKHAM,

ORDERVACATING AND
SUBSTITUTING ORDERS
Petitioner,
and
Clerks ActionRequired
Continue Trial D ate from

June 9, 2014 to June 16, 2014
Respondent
14
(MO ENVELOPES PROVIDED.I
15
16
17
18
I.
STIPULATION
COME NOW the parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, KARMA L.
ZAJKE and PHILIP C. TSAI, and hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order vacating certain
19
20
orders of the court and substituting the CR 2A Agreement of the parties which is attached
21
hereto. Both parties had filed discovery motions in January, 2014 and the Respondent filed a
22
motion to continue. While the motions were pending, the parties worked to resolve the
23
pending issues. One of the issues is that counsel for the Wife is unavailable during the week
24
25
LAWOFF1CES
___________
Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc
Page 1 o f 3
1130D ROOSEVELT W A YN E, STE, 300

S e a t t l e , w a B812S
f\(
W63-B0S7
of June 9 (specifically June 11 -13), thus the parties agreed to set over trial to June 16,2014
in the event trial is necessary. Additional negotiations resulted in a signed CR 2A Agreement
which was not submitted to the court before orders on the pending motions were issued.
Date: March 10,2014
6
7
8
KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA # 31037
10
11
12
Date: March I* ,2014
\ r ^ P ' L
PHILIP C. TSAI, WSBA #27632
14 Attorney for Respondent
13
FWILA MARKHAM
Petitioner/Wife
GERALD MARKHAM
Respondent
15
XL
16
17
ORDER
THIS MATTER, having come on by Stipulation of both parties, through, their
18 respective counsel of record, and for good cause shown, it is hereby

19
20
ORDERED that the court approves tire CR 2A Agreement attached hereto. The court
incorporates said agreement into this order and mates it an order of the court The following
21
22
23
orders shall be and the same are hereby VACATED:

Docket Sub 49
Order Amending Case Schedule
24;
25
LAW OFFICES______________________
Michael W. B ugni & A ssoc., pl l c
Page 2 o f 3
11300 ROOSEVELT W AY NE, STE. 300

SEATTLE, WA 36125
{205)365-5600. FACSIMILE (206)363-803?
1
2
Docket Sub 50
Order Granting Petitioners Request for Protective Order
Docket Sub 51
Order on Motion for Trial Continuance
4 Date:
5
11/20 N
^
1
C=C^ >
Tftfi HONORABLE LAURA INVEEN
Presented by;
9
10
11
12
KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA # 31037

Copy Received; Approved for Entry;
Notice of Presentation Waived by.
13
y g
t-,
14 PHILIP TSSÎ, WSBA 427632

15
1.6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAW OFFICES
Mich a el W. B ugni & Assoc., pl l g
Stipulation and AgreedXDrder Continuing Trial Date
Pag' 3rf3
r?
fy
11300 ROOSEVELT W AY NE, S TE . 30D

SEATTLE, W A 38125
(206) 3B5-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 333-8087
Exhibit I
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

W ednesday, February 12, 2014 10:50 AM
'Karm a Zaike'; 'Erika S. Reichley'
RE: Markham: File Review
Kerry,
This email will confirm that yo u r office unilaterally canceled the m eeting in you r office to da y at 12:00 noon in which you
had originally proposed to allow us to inspect and copy the docum ents that w ere located in the Seattle residence. You
indicated that you did not have an office in w hich w e could inspect the docum ents. I asked why we could not have used
M s. Zaike's office as you stated there w ere 5 crated o f docum ents and you did not provide an answer. It is very
inconvenient for you to have canceled this im portant event at the last m inute.
I ask that we be able come com e to m o rrow at 9:30 a.m. to inspect and copy the docum ents instead o f 12:00 noon.
Please confirm that tim e w ill w ork. M r. M arkham is making schedule changes to make th is w ork so your cooperation
w ou ld be appreciated.
V ery truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A tto rne y at Law
Seattle, Washington' 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
prohibited.
From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(ailawaate.netl

Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:21 AM
To: phil(5)tlclawco.com: anthonvurie@ amail.com
Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley
Subject: Markham: File Review
M r. Tsai,
This email will confirm that w e w ere unable to reach agreem ent over the logistics o f facilitating the review o f the
parties' files today. Please let me know if you w ould like to reschedule fo r to m o rrow a fter 12:00, and I w ill reserve a
conference room. If to m o rrow is not a possibility, please propose another date that w ould w ork fo r you and your
client. Thank you.
.epjqf- *.
l
Legal Assistant
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Philip C. T sai [phil@ tlciawco.com ]

Tuesday, February 11 ,20 14 6:32 PM
'Karma Zaike'
'Kerry Bowers'
RE: Markham
Karma
Yes, tomorrow (Wednesday) works to come and view the documents.
around 10:00 a.m. Thank you.
We will plan to be there
Very truly yours,

Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
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 25102521 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.
---- Original Message.....

From: Karma Zaike rmailto:karma(Slawgate.netl
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Philip Tsai
Cc: Kerry Bowers
Subject: Markham
Phil
I will send you tonight or tomorrow morning the proposed agreement regarding discovery and a
new trial date provided your client will standby the proposals we discussed today.
Ms. Markham has delivered files to my office, consistent with the request for production.
Please let me know when you would like to schedule a time to come in. I still have Wednesday
morning blocked off if you want to stop by that morning in lieu of the deposition.
-Karma=
Exhibit J
PhnjjDj^JTsaii
F ro m :
S e n t:
T o:
C c:
S u b je c t:
Philip C. Tsai [phil@ ticlawco.com ]

W ednesday, February 19, 2014 11:24 AM
'Karm a Zaike'
RE: Markham Dissolution
Karma,
W hat is frustrating is your failure to allow my professional copy com pany to sim ply retrieve the docum ents for copying.
W hy would Jerry com e out and mark all of the docum ents for copying only fo r you to claim th at you now do not have
possession o f the docum ents to copy? You still have not advised me w here the docum ents are located if they are not in
your office. W e agreed to have Jerry inspect and copy the docum ents. Please com ply by producing the docum ents for
copying. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
prohibited.
From: Karma Zaike [mailto:karm a@ lawaate.nefl

To: Philip C. Tsai
Cc: Kerry Bowers; anthonvurie@ amail.com
Subject: RE: Markham Dissolution
Sorry Phil, but this is really frustrating. First, the discovery requests are for video inspection, not copying.
Next, we sent you thousands of pages of electronic statements and you complained. Then, I have Ms. Markham
haul the entire file cabinet down to my office so your client can do his video inspection - which, incidentally,
he spent two hours doing - and, finally, you complain about it.
Let me know what you want copied and I will arrange to have it pulled for Sound.
-Karma
From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:phil@tlclawco.coml
To: Karma Zaike
l
Cc: Kerry Bowers

Subject: Re: Markham Dissolution
Karma,
I have no idea w hat you are talking about regarding your below email. Obviously, the reAson that Jerry inspected and
marked the files w as so they could be copied. It also makes no sense that you say the files are no longer available.
W here are they?
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Seattle, W A 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
V isit our website: www.TLClawco.com
This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Com m unications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally'privileged.
This inform ation is confidential and is intended only fo r the use o f the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this message is not th e intended recipient, you are hereby notified th at any dissem ination, distribution or copying o f this
com m unication is strictly prohibited.
On Feb 19, 2014, at 9:17 A M , Karma Zaike <karma(a)lawgate.net> wrote:
Phil,
When asked, there was no confirmation that the files needed to be copied, so they are no longer
available. Please let me know what files Jerry wants from the list he made and the files will be
made available.
Thanks,
Karma
From: Philip C. Tsai fm ailto^ hilOitlclaw co.com l
Sent: W ednesday, February 19, 2014 8:31 AM
To: Karma Zaike
Cc: Kerry Bowers
Subject: Markham Dissolution
Dear Karma,
I am sending Sound Copy to your office this morning to retrieve the files so they can be copied and then
returned to yo u r office. Are you available at 12:00 noon fo r a phone conference to discuss th e other
issues in this case? Please confirm . Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law

Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLCIawco.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.
Exhibit K
Philip C. Tsai
S ub ject:
Markham: 2013 taxes-Deadline for disclosure of Jerry's plan
From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:phil@tlclawco.com]

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:50 PM
To: 'Karma Zaike'
Cc: 'Erika S. Reichley'; 'Kerry Bowers'
Subject: RE: Markham: 2013 taxes-Deadline for disclosure of Jerry's plan
Dear Karma:
In reply to y o u r email of M arch 19, 2014, some o f the issues raised in th at email we addressed in our counter offer o f
last night. As to our providing you the inform ation to file a jo in t tax return as requested in y o u r em ail o f M arch 19, 2014,
please be advised that we are not possessed of any com m unication on that date or any o th e r date requesting any
specific inform ation o f M r. M arkham . The only request I am aware o f dealing w ith tax returns is *fl 12 o f you r settlem ent
offer o f February 21, 2014 and it propose that Jerry prepare a joint tax return for the parties (as he has throughout their
33 years o f marriage).
Tw ila's role in that process has been to organize the parties' expenditures by categories and providing Jerry the copies o f
the parties 1099's or o ther evidence o f revenue. Jerry's role has been to review all o f the m aterial Twila has prepared to
see if she properly categorized them, total up the revenues fo r both his law practice (SCH C) the rentals (SCH E), and
prepare the depreciation schedules for both and then prepare the necessary supporting schedules fo r the interest,
stock, Ltd. Partnerships and bond revenues and th eir sales on schedule D. To do this he needs the w ork paper's Twila has
tradition ally prepared and her 1099's.
Accordingly, it's not Jerry w ho has delayed this process. N or based on o u r prelim inary analysis o f the parties respective
incom e this year, is filing a jo in t tax return to Jerry's individual financial advantage! Certainly not if the com m unications
necessary to do th at has to be conducted through attorneys and involve CPA's necessitating substantial fees.
Nevertheless because they have done so it the past as part o f the global settlem ent just m ade he was w illing to attem pt
to do that th is last year.
In th at spirit, I should also point out to you because it occurs to us th at Tw ila might soon be thinking o f applying fo r her
social security, that there are some unusual rules that m ight effect that unless she waits u n til the parties divorce
becom es final after she turns 65.
In furtherance o f that spirit o f possible future cooperation, we w ould make the further request that Twila release Jerry's
cell phone num ber 206-669-1607 so th at he may in anticipation of th eir divorce transfer it to another plan. He has given
this num ber to the Alaska Court's, fam ily and business associates and it appears on his pleadings and letterhead. The
num ber was initially his and on his own separate plan until the parties joined it on Tw ila's to get Jerry an new cell phone.
Now he's advised he can't transfer it, in the absence o f an authorization from Twila. If she w ou ld give the okay, he could
go to an AT&T office and have the num ber transferred.
Also in th at vein, in view o f Jerry's belated discovery o f evidence (in both th eir filing separate tax returns in 1980 and
th eir 25th anniversary "rem arriage" certificate leading him to the belief th at Twila Petition alleging a 7/6/80 marriage
date was in error by a year (an error incidentally that she frequently made), could she e ith e r produce th eir marriage
certificate confirm ing her petition or if she doesn't have it at least agree to stipulate that Jerry may am end his answ er to
conform to the evidence at the Las Vegas Nevada M arriage registry (to avoid the need fo r a m otion) and w e'll order that
up?
Next, in connection w ith the original docum entation and additional discovery requested in m y in my settlem ent letter
(the M ill Bay Road condem nation file, th e 4001 Borland Drive sale file and all o f the files containing all prior year Federal
Tax Returns in the 810 58th Street, Seattle residence together w ith th eir supporting w ork papers) I am going to add to
the list o f specific needed docum entation the parties "estate planning" file that needs to be produced. Jerry reports it
was also in his office in the tall standup file cabinet in his "old" (spare bedroom) office. But since it was not in w hat you
have represented was that entire file cabin et (which he now believes was incom pletely produced as shown by the
conspicuous the om ission o f num erous years o f files containing the parties "Seattle copy" o f th e ir jo in t tax returns
together w ith th e ir w ork papers). Accordingly, he asks that a search be made of both his e n tire "old" and "new" office
area (in w hat was form erly the garage) as w ell as in the furnace room and any other possible location for this and the
o ther files m entioned in his settlem ent le tte r that he's indicated he needs to both fairly d o cu m e n t his settlem ent
proposal and if necessary his case.
Finally, there is the m atter of Twila's deposition and the o ther m otions that w e'd agreed to suspend before the court
ruled on them but w ere nevertheless addressed by the court. I agree with you given the im pending trial date, the time
to try to get this case settled fairly and am icably w ithout incurring a great deal o f expenses is right now. Having as
you've pointed out taken 30 days to respond to Twila's offer (because o f the need to secure m any necessary documents
first from you, and w hen those were discovered to be incom plete from Alaska), w e d o n 't w ish to have it appear that we
are unfairly rushing her to respond to ours. Nevertheless, w e do not perceive she has the sam e docum ent impediment.
Accordingly, I w ill note Twila's video dep osition with the required 20 days in the future and se t a deadline to renew my
m otions by April 1, 2014 if there is no responsive indication from you that leads us to believe this m atter can be settled
before th en and unless discovery is provided w ith all docum ents in the Seattle residence.
I w elcom e any suggestions from you th at m ight allow the parties to address se ttlem en t o r failin g th at discovery, in a
more orderly fashion including another (brief) continuance o f the trial. But we know and ap preciate your client's desire
to pro m p tly be "divorced" from Jerry and on w ith her own separate life as she has made th a t clear by her actions in this
case. That being her desire, Jerry too w ants to facilitate that. However the parties m arriage w as a long one and its
history involves the analysis o f a substantial num ber o f docum ents (much of w hich Jerry o n ly now has obtained due to
no lack o f his own diligence). And fo r all we can foresee presently the current trial date sh ou ld not present an
im p edim ent to the fa ir trial o f his claim s if th at is w hat Twila w ants as long as the additional docu m ents are provided.
H ow ever if she w ants to have the o pp ortunity to fairly (and inexpensively) explore th e prosp ects o f an am icable
settlem ent, given the current trial date m erely 2.5 m onths away, both may not be possible. It w ould be a shame after a
loving m arriage o f 33 years, which Jerry w ants only to end w ith the knowledge that his w ife is being fairly provided for
both under the law and under the e quities here. If you have any o ther suggestion as to h o w w e m ight fairly affect that, I
w ould be open to th at as well.
Very tru ly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A tto rn e y at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
prohibited.
Exhibit L
From: Philip C. Tsai fmailto:phil@tlclawco.com1

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PM
To: Karma Zaike
Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers
Subject: Re: Markham: Confirming discovery conference
Karma,
Pursuant to my calculation, Mr. M arkham 's responses are not due until February 24, 2014. Also, I am
not available on Friday at 10:00 am fo r a premature discovery conference. I have to discuss the status of
the answers to your discovery requests with Mr. Markham before any such conference and w ill let you
know on Monday when I am available to do so.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Seattle, W A 98121
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our website: www.TLCIawco.com
This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is
legally privileged. This inform ation is confidential and is intended only for the use o f the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
th at any dissemination, distribution or copying o f this communication is strictly prohibited.
Exhibit M
Emily ]. Tsai , esq /

Philip C. Tsai , Esq ,.
T O D D D E VALLANCE, E S C L
LUCKY LU FKIN , ESCL
DAVID W . KITCHELL, ESCL.
TSAI LAW CO M PANY, PLLC
2101 FOURTH A VE N U E , SUITE 1560

SEATTLE, W A 98121
PHONE: (206) 728-8000
FAX: (206) 728-6869
A SCOTT MARLOW, ESO.

MARCIA FISCHER, ESQ.________
ALSOadm itted in
California
WWW.TLCLAWCO.COM
February 20,2014
Karma Zaike, Esq.
Michael W Bugni & Associates
11300 Roosevelt Way NE Ste 300
Seattle, WA 98125-6243
Re: Markham Dissolution
Dear Karma,
This letter shall serve as a partial response and objection to the Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents you sent via email on or about January 21,2014. First, I calculate the
due date for your discovery requests as February 24, 2014 which includes 3 days of mailing
pursuant to CR 5. Your Interrogatories unilaterally set a CR 26(i) conference for Friday,
February 21,2014 without consultation with me. As I indicated in my email to you yesterday, I
am not available for a premature discovery conference at 10:00 a.m. on February 21,2014 as I
need to discuss the status of the responses with Mr. Markham. However, I anticipate having
further responses to your discovery requests by the due date of February 24, 2014.
With respect to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production you submitted, I provide the
following objections at this time. Specifically, Mr. Markham objects to your discovery on the
basis of:
1. The discovery is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, fails to describe the
documents sought with reasonable particularity, and is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2. The discovery asks for irrelevant, immaterial, oppressive or information that is
equally available to the Petitioner.
3. The discovery seeks information protected by attorney work product, attorney-client
privilege and/or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.
4. The discovery fails to provide adequate time to comply with the request.
Karma Zaike, Esq.

February 20,2014
Page 2
5. The discovery seeks a premature disclosure of experts to the extent that the
respondent has not determined which expert witnesses may be called at trial if not
already disclosed in prior discovery.
Without waiving any of the above objections, Mr. Markham will provide answers to your
discovery requests on or about February 24,2014. If you believe a CR 26(i) conference is
necessary after receiving Mr. Markhams discovery responses, please contact me so we can
schedule a mutually agreeable date and time.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Very truly yours,
PI ^
Attorney at Law
cc:
client
Exhibit N
From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:phil@tldawco.com!

Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:45 PM
To: Karma Zaike
Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; anthonvurie@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Markham: Confirming discovery conference
Dear Karma,
I write to advise Jerry was not able to get to Kodiak, Alaska over the weekend to obtain the documents
that are responsive to some o f the discovery requests due to heavy wind that grounded all the
airplanes. Therefore, I will need additional tim e to obtain the documents from Jerry and provide
answers. This delay was not anticipated by anyone as in fully intended to have the discovery responses
to you today but for Jerry not getting to Kodiak. Please advise whether a 7 day continuance
o f providing the responses (to next Monday) is agreeable in light of the continued trial date. I may be
able to get them to you sooner, but would rather have sufficient tim e to do so rather than request a
further extension.
I also appreciate your sending the settlem ent proposal on Friday evening and w ould like to focus the
energy in this case towards providing a response to your proposal and settlem ent instead of engaging in
formal discovery. Given th at you put together the proposal with specific values fo r the property, I need
to review with Jerry w hether appraisals are necessary or w hether we can proceed with, using those or
modified values. Please confirm w hether you still want to have the boats and aircraft appraised now, or
w hether that can wait until you receive our substantive response to your settlem ent proposal. If we
wait to have those done until after you receive our response, it may save the parties money. Please let
me know. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax:206-728-6869
Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
Exhibit O
From: Karma Zaike

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:13 PM
To: 'Philip C. Tsai'
Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; anthonvurietaamail.com
Subject: RE: Markham: Confirming discovery conference
Phil,
Ms. Markham will agree to a moratorium in discovery until Monday, March 3.
-Karma Zaike
Exhibit P
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Monday, March 10, 2014 6:23 PM
'Karma Zaike'
'Kerry Bowers'
Markham Dissolution
Answ ers to Interrogatories Gerald Markham .pdf
Dear Karma,
Please see the attached Answers to Interrogatories and Requests fo r Production. I am sending over the originals via ABC
m essenger along w ith some o f the docum ents w hich are responsive to the requests. I have m ore docum ents in my
conference room th a t are available for you to inspect. Please contact me regarding a m u tually agreed date and tim e to
perform the inspection. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A ttorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
V isit our W eb site at: www.TLCIawco.com
prohibited.
Exhibit Q
From: Philip C. Tsai rmailto:phil@tldawco,com1

Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:24 PM
To: Kerry Bowers
Subject: RE: Markham: File
Kerry,
I do not have the hard copies in my office any longer. Let me see when I can get them back or whether I
can get soft copies for you. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
From: Kerry Bowers fmailto: kerrv@lawaate.net]

S e n t: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:45 PM
To: Philip C. Tsai
Subject: Markham: File
Mr. Tsai,
I am arranging for Sound Legal Copy to come and pick up the documents from your office for copying. I
would like to have them picked up tomorrow. Can you let me know how many files/boxes there
are? They should be able to return the documents in one to tw o days depending o n the volume. Thank
you.
Kerry Michael Bowers

Legal Assistant
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
Exhibit R
Philip C. Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kerry Bowers [kerry@lawgate.net]

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:20 AM
Philip C. Tsai
Karm a Zaike; Erika S. Reichley
RE: Markham: File
M r. Tsai,
W e w ould like to have these docum ents by the end o f the week. Please le t me know when they can be picked up for
copying or when you expect to send soft copies. Thank you.
C*
O*
yowern
Legal Assistant
.11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIA.L: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other
From: Philip C. Tsai rmailto.'phikaitlclawco.coml

To: Kerry Bowers
Kerry,
I do not have the hard copies in my office any longer. Let me see w hen I can get them back or w hether I can get soft
copies for you. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A ttorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
V isit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com
prohibited.
From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(a)lawaate.netl

To: Philip C. Tsai
M r. Tsai,
I am arranging fo r Sound Legal Copy to come and pick up the docum ents from your office fo r copying. I w ould like to
have th em picked up tom orrow . Can you let me know how m any files/boxes there are? They should be able to return
the docum ents in one to tw o days depending on the volum e. Thank you.
L&r-np sm e/iaet. k.-yoowew

Legal Assistant
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note'that forwarding or showing this email to
Exhibit S
Markham Discovery Document Index
1.
2010 Income Taxes
Number of
Pages
308
2.
2011 Income Taxes
323
3.
2012 Taxes
512
4.
Markham 2013 Taxes
157
5.
Markham 2014 Taxes
10
6.
1978 contract sale of 211 Mill Bay Rd
26
7.
1981 Gerald and Twila Part 2
23
8.
1981 Gerald and Twila
9.
35
10.
11.
23
12.
29
13.
24
14.
29
15.
23
16.
17.
34
18.
1988 Mildred Markham Fiduciary Income Tax
15
19.
1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Legal papers Part 2
20.
1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Legal papers
36
21.
1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Work Papers part 2
NO. Document Title
22.
1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Work papers
19
23.
1989 Mildred Markham Fidudiary Income Tax
24.
1989 Mildred Markham(audited) Estate Tax
14
25.
22
26.
15
27.
21
28.
1993 Gerald and Twila part 2
29.
36
30.
37
31.
2010 Tax Retum.pdf (from twila)
135
32.
2010 X letter
33.
Contract Bristal Bay permit 2013
31
34.
Contract Bristol Bay Permit 2015 pt. 2
26
35.
First Davidson IRA calc.
36.
Markham (2009) 10.18.10 Amm
142
37.
Markham 1995 pt. 2
21
38.
Markham 1995 pt. 4
39.
Markham 1995 taxes part 3
40.
Markham 1995 taxes
46
41.
Markham 1996 pt. 4
42.
Markham 1996 pt. 5
12
43.
Markham 1996 Taxes Pt. 2
29
44.
Markham 1996 Taxes Pt. 3
45.
Markham 1996 Taxes
35
46.
Markham 1997 Pt. 2
32
47.
Markham 1997 pt. 3
11
48.
49.
Markham 1997 pt. 4

Markham 1997 Taxes
1
40
50.
Markham 1998 pt. 2
50
51.
Markham 1998 pt. 3
46
52.
Markham 1998 taxes
50
53.
Markham 1999
34
54.
Markham 2000 taxes
45
55.
Markham 2001 taxes
44
56.
Markham 2002 Pt. 2
31
57.
Markham 2002 taxes
31
58.
Markham 2003 Taxes
53
59.
Markham 2004 Tax
45
60.
MAKKHAM 2005 Taxes
31
61.
Markham 2006 Taxes
32
62.
Markham 2007 Taxes
49
63.
Markham 2008
144
64.
Markham 2008 Taxes
50
65.
Markham 2009 Amm. 10.18.10
142
66.
Markham 2009 as filed 10.15.10
138
67.
Markham 2010 (Autosaved).tax2010
68.
Markham 2010 Amm. (final)
172
Exhibit T
Philip C Tsai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

W ednesday, April 02, 2014 8:39 A M
'Philip C. Tsai'; 'Karma Zaike'
'Erika S. Reichley'; 'Kerry Bowers'; 'anthonyurie@gmail.com'
RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery
Dear Karma,
Following up on the below, I address additional issues you raise below:
1) Yesterday, I provided you w ith the PERS release you provided last Friday. Also, M r. M arkham is unaware o f any PERS
docum ents that he has that haven't been provided you. A large w orking files o f his com m unications w ith his
em ploym ent w ith the M unicipality o f Anchorage in 2003 and PERS since his retirem ent in 2004 was in his basem ent
office at the parties Seattle house at 810 NE 68th. Despite our requests that you perm it us to make an inspection o f this
office you've refused th at and specificaily you've failed to produce this file of docum ents. Thereafter, w hen Mr.
M arkham responded he had no o ther docum ents other than w hat was in this office (which he had no access to) but
offering to provide a release to PERS, none was proposed to him before you filed your M o tio n to compel.
2) The. boat is available for appraisal at 198 Journeys End W ay in Friday Harbor on 48 hours notice on any day th at Mr.
M arkham is. not aw ay from Friday Harbor attending his sessions w ith Dr. M aiuro, m eeting w ith his counsel or o ther legal
matters. It is how ever in a state of repair. He currently has no plans A pril 7-9 but unavailable the rest o f the week. Do
you w ant to have it inspected then? Please advise.
3) The plane is likew ise available for inspection in Friday Harbor on like notice, but given the name o f your appraiser we
assume you w ould like it inspected at th eir location at Crown aviation in Everett. M r. M arkham can make it available for
inspection there at 1PM tom orrow until 3PM on Thursday this w eek. Otherwise he needs the plane to make his frequent
trips into Seattle but can probably make it available on any day he is scheduled to be there. If to m o rrow is too soon,
perhaps April 1 6 ,2 0 1 4 ? Please advise.
4) This is the first you've made m ention o f the Appraisal of the Alaska properties since w e agreed to suspend discovery
pending our exchange o f settlem ent offers. However it has com e to our attention that shortly before th at suspension
occurred Mrs. M arkham apparently had no reservations directing Appraisal Company of Alaska (perhaps w ith M rs.
M arkham or o ther agents present) to enter the 2201 Bancroft Condo and appraise it on or about February 15, 2014
w itho ut our advance knowledge or opportunity to be present or have our own appraiser present. This was done despite
the fact that Mrs. M arkham 's awareness th at M r. M arkham w as scheduled to be in Anchorage February 16, 2014 (in
anticipation of arguing before the Alaska Supreme Court on February 18, 2014) w hen he conveniently could have been
there for the inspection. M oreover as a result o f this appraiser's carelessness w hen this appraiser returned the keys to
the car port com bination hidden key box w here M r. M arkham kept a set o f keys for his access to this property when
w orking there (which Mrs. M arkham unilaterally provided this appraiser the com bination to), her appraiser jam m ed the
keys in the box making it impossible for M r. M arkham to open it w hen he arrived and necessitating he stand o ut in the
bitter Anchorage cold for several house calling a mutual friend to determ ine w hether Mrs. M arkham had changed the
com bination to the lock. It is fo r reasons such as this (as w ell as com m on courtesy) that w e have a Rule 34. M oreover,
w e see that Mrs. M arkham further had the charge o f that appraisal to M r. M arkham 's "office expense" credit card. That
was not appropriate.
5) You likewise disobeyed rule 34 last summer, when after your divorce litigation w as filed in M ay, Mrs. M arkham
w aited until she knew M r. M arkham had left Friday Harbor for Alaska and then drove there and entered the 198
Journey's End W ay property in Friday H arbor (titled in M r. M arkham 's name) w itho ut his knowledge (but certainly with
yours) and rem oved num erous items from it (purchased w ith w hat you now contend w ere com m unity funds). Then
more recently, this February before w e agreed to suspend discovery to exchange settlem ent offers you unilaterally
l
attem pted to send your appraiser there again in violation o f Rule 34. In response M r. M arkham didn't threaten anyone
th at day but m erely indicated the appropriate action that w ould be taken if the civil rules w ere not follow ed. You have
since given proper notice o f your intent to conduct the inspection and to inventory the personal property there and
indicated this w ould occur on April 21-23, 2014. One o f those days w ould be acceptable to us but fail to to see w hy you
need to tie M r. M arkham and this property up fo r all three. Please choose one date.
6) There is also the issue o f your prior request to have M rs. M arkham present during this appraisal. As you are aware
the restraining order put in place prevents M r. M arkham from being present w here Mrs. M arkham is w ithout a third
party present. But when we sought to com ply w ith that o rder by having him present at her deposition you objected to
th at? Clearly she cannot w illfully go to a location w here she knows he is and thereby force him to leave at the risk of
being held in contem pt. And we fail to see w hy her presence in Friday Harbor is necessary. In her unannounced July
2013 entry, M rs. M arkham removed all o f the parties personal property she apparently w anted she (I'm sure w ith your
knowledge) entered the Friday Harbor house (again titled in his name) and rem oved the various items o f personal
property she w anted (w ithout leaving any "inventory" o f w hat she took). The value of the rem aining household items
th at she didn't take is insignificant. She certainly had the opportunity to make any "inventory" she w anted then.
M ore o ve r you have denied Mr. M arkham a like opportunity to be present during any appraisal, inspection or inventory
o f the properties at 810 NE 58th and 809 NE 59th by sim ply agreeing the Mrs. M arkham w ould absent herself (but have
an agent present) w hile he does so and entering a sim ple stipulation in the crim inal proceedings to allow him th at fair
opportunity. Accordingly we feel that if Mrs. M arkham wishes to persist in this that any "inventory" be perform ed
by "M aria M adrigal the housekeeper Ms. M arkham chose to em ploy fo r several years in Friday Harbor (at Ms.
M arkham 's expense in w hat will undoubtedly exceed the value o f any personal property you are not already aw are o f
there) and th at this inventory should be done sim ultaneously w ith your appraisal both w hile M r. M arkham is present.
Accordingly, despite your m isrepresentations, as the forging reflects w e have and we will continue to attem pt to
professionally cooperate w ith you (w ithout the drama) tow ard a full and fair exchange o f discovery, but m eanw hile we
w ould like to see your like responses to our (long) outstanding requests m entioned in our m ost recent emails. And when
w e conclude M rs. M arkham 's deposition, w e w ould like to attem pt further settlem ent discussions or participate in
m ediation w hich I can assure you has been so for attem pted by us in the utm ost good faith.
Regarding m ediation, Cheryll Russell indicated she is available on M ay 9, 2014 and M ay 16, 2014 available fo r
m ediation. Please let me know if either o f those dates w orks w ith your schedule. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A ttorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
Visit our W ebsite at: www.TLClawco.com
prohibited.
From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:phil@tlclawco.com]

To: 'Karma Zaike'
Cc: 'Erika S. Reichley'; 'Kerry Bowers'; 'anthonyurie@gmail.com'

Subject: RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery
Karma,
Contrary to your below contention, the docum ents on the CD are the docum ents th at are in response to your Requests
for Production. You must not have review ed them if you are contending they are the same docum ents that I previously
sent. Please perform a careful review o f the docum ents before you make statem ents th at are com pletely false. I sent
you approxim ately 200 M B of files today on the CD and w hat you characterize as "o ut o f date" are the docum ents w hich
are part o f the tracing analysis in specific answer to your discovery requests.
As i previously indicated to you, the CD I provided contains a plethora o f docum ents w hich show the tracing and nature
o f M r. M arkham 's separate property.
W e have not had a CR 26(i) conference regarding any o f the discovery issues raised in your below em ail and the issues
raised in the m otion you filed w ith th e court. The reason that CR 26(i) exists is to allow the parties to w ork together
cooperatively to reduce the need fo r m otions and needlessly involving the Court in discovery issues. Your failure to
com ply w ith CR 26(i) is evidence th at you are not acting cooperatively regarding discovery and not understanding the
difficulty in com piling docum ents in m ultiple locations spanning over a 30 year period. The bottom line is that you have
not com plied w ith the civil rules regarding discovery m otions w hich I w ill point o ut to the Court in the response to be
filed on behalf or M r. Markham.
Regarding your questions below regarding appraisals, if you w ould have com plied w ith CR 26(i) prior to just unilaterally
filing a m otion, i w ould have been able to provide you w ith dates and possibly an agreem ent to have jo in t appraisals to
reduce the costs o f this proceeding. However, once again, your failure to abide by the civil rules has prevented th is from
happening.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
prohibited.
From: Karma Zaike fmailto:karma@ lawaate.netl

To: Philip C. Tsai
Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; anthonvurie@amail.com
Phil,
3
Cooperation? Youre asserting that / have failed to cooperate? Wow, that is bad faith if Ive ever seen it. You
know how Ive worked to get you access to documents, sent you OUR spreadsheet, given you OUR WORK
PRODUCT, plus given you delay after delay and you have the nerve to assert that / havent cooperated? Ive
seen you do many things, but thats a new low.
The CD contained all of the out of date documents you previously sent. They were not new documents. Dont
try to pretend that youve made any effort that could remotely be construed as due diligence. Its just not there.
Try obstruction, obfuscation and delay.
I ask you again: when are the documents going to be available?
When is Mr. Markham going to make the boat available for appraisal?
When is Mr. Markham going to make the plane available for appraisal?
When is Mr. Markham going to make the Alaska properties available for appraisal?
Is Mr. Markham going to comply with the Notice of Entry for the Friday Harbor property or is he going to
threaten the appraiser again?
I didnt want to file the motion, but I need to move Ms. Markhams discovery forward. Since your client has
refused to cooperate, the judge must intervene.
Oh, and where is that PERS form? Are you going to respond?
-Karma Zaike
From: Philip C. Tsai f mailto:phil@tlclawco.coml
To: Karma Zaike
Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; anthonyurie@Qmail.com
Dear Karma,
As prom ised, I sent via messenger a CD containing a plethora o f docum ents in response to the discovery requests you
sent over. Contrary to your contention, you have not attem pted to schedule a CR 26(i) conference w ith me to discuss
any discovery issues w ith me since the tim e I provided M r. M arkham 's Answers to Interrogatories and since we entered
the Agreed O rder and Stipulation regarding discovery. Your m otion was prem aturely filed and failed to com ply w ith the
discovery rules regarding cooperation. Your below em ail is only an attem pt to try and excuse the failure to com ply w ith
the discovery rules despite our attem pts to w ork together m ore cooperatively w ith respect to this case. M r. M arkham 's
settlem ent offer was in good faith and was an attem pt to achieve a fair and equitable division o f property. Once again, I
provided a plethora o f docum ents today in good faith com pliance w ith the discovery requests. I ask that you strike your
M otion to Com pel as it fails to com ply w ith the rules regarding discovery. Otherwise, I w ill have to ask for attorney's
fees and costs.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
A tto rn e y at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
V isit o u r W ebsite at: www.TLCIawco.com
prohibited.
From: Karma Zaike f mailto:karma@ lawaate.netl

To: Philip C. Tsai
Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; anthonvurie@ amail.com
Phil and Tony,

As you can see in the motion, Ive bent over backwards trying to speak with you. You put me to voice mail,
you bait and switch your availability or you simply ignore the requests. For example, yes, the inquiry below
was sent to you. But it has been sent at least twice this week for the records you promised were available in
your office. What was your response? Radio silence.
Ive been asking since February that you disclose when Mr. Markham will make his vessels, aircraft and the
Friday Harbor property available for appraisal. Your response? Radio silence.
Ive been trying to coordinate appraisals with you since February, possibly January for the Alaska properties.
Your response? Radio silence.
At your request, my client put discovery on hold so that you could respond to our settlement offer. You know
as well as I that your response was bad faith. It smells of angry ex-husband, not seasoned family law litigator in
tone and content.
You got your continuance and now youre squandering it by setting up roadblocks to Ms. Markhams
discovery. Enough is enough. I cant force you to respond, but I can request the assistance of the court in
obtaining information to allow Ms. Markham to prove her case.
By the way, where is the PERS release sent earlier today that your client promised to sign? What, no answer??
Not surprising. Unfortunately, I cant wait any longer.
-Karma Zaike
From: Philip C. Tsai f mailto:phil@tlclawco.coml
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 9:08 AM
To: Kerry Bowers
Karma
I am perplexed regarding w hy you sent the below email yesterday m orning and then filed a M otion in the afternoon
claiming we are not cooperating w ith discovery. I will send a soft copy o f the docum ents being gathered in response to
the discovery requests today. We are gathering all o f the docum ents, w hich span fo r over 30 years. W e are acting in
good faith. If you do not strike the m otion, we w ill ask fo r attorney's fees and costs fo r your failure to com ply w ith CR
26(i) and th e O rder w e just entered declaring w e w ould w ork together to develop a discovery plan. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
prohibited.
From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(5)|awaate.netl

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Philip C. Tsai
Mr. Tsai,
W ill the docum ents be available tom orrow if I arrange for Sound Copy to pick them up? Let me know if you w ould
rather send a soft copy. Thank you.
Legal Assistant
The Law Offices o f Michael W. Bugni & Associates. PLLC
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you arc the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to
From: Philip C. Tsai f mailto:phil@tlclawco.com1

To: Kerry Bowers

Kerry,
I do not have the hard copies in my office any longer. Let me see when I can get them back or w hether I can get soft
copies for you. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Philip C. Tsai
Attorney at Law
Phone: 206-728-8000
Fax: 206-728-6869
prohibited.
From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(5)lawaate.netl

To: Philip C. Tsai
M r. Tsai,
I am arranging for Sound Legal Copy to com e and pick up the docum ents from your office fo r copying. I w ould like to
have them picked up tom orrow . Can you let me know how m any files/boxes there are? They should be able to return
the docum ents in one to tw o days depending on the volume. Thank you.
Legal Assistant
P.206.365.5500
F. 206.363.8067
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENT1AL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other
rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy ail copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

22 Twila Markham V Gerald Markham RES RESPONSE Compel Discovery 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22 Twila Markham V Gerald Markham RES RESPONSE Compel Discovery 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

to Compel submitted by the Petitioner as although discovery is ongoing, he has substantially

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

complexity of the discovery issues in this case.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

part of the agreement stated:

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

believes was incompletely produced as shown by the conspicuous the omission of

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

1. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 5/1/13-5/31/13

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

12. D.A. Davidson Account (#6360) 4/1/13-4/30/13

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

counsel. In those supplemental responses, Jerry provided a plethora of additional documents to

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

TSAI LAW COMPANY. PLLC

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

No. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

) RESPONDENTS 1ST REQUESTS

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM

COMES NOW RESPONDENT GERALD MARKHAM BY COUNSEL

Requests for Production of Documents: In accordance with Rule 34 of the Civil

Respondents First Requests for production 1.

18 130 M idvale Ave N Ste A

Respondents First Requests for production 2.

possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of

Respondents First Requests for production 3.

A n thony M. U rie , P LLC

18 130 M idvale Ave N Ste A

Respondents First Requests for production 4.

Respondents First Requests for production 5.

Produce for video inspection the parties dog Phinney.

Respondents First Requests for production 6.

Dated October___, 2013

Respondents First Requests for production 7.

Anthony Urie WSBA #_

Respondents First Requests for production 8.

Ms. Karma Zaike

[ x ] U.S. Postal Service (First Class)

By: Anthony M. Urie

Title: Attorney for Respondent

Respondents First Requests for production 9.