David M. Gurewitz/State Bar No.

76641
1 at Law
Attorney
4675 Wailapa Road
2 1267
P. O. Box
Kilauea, Hawaii 96754
3
Telephone:
4 (310) 545-5696
Fax: (808) 828-6299
5
Attorney for Defendant
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
10 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
11

REGENCY12 CENTERS, L.P. a Delaware ) CASE NO. 30-2008-00108237-CU-BC-CJC

limited13partnership, )
)
14 Plaintiff, ) RESPONSE OF JOY A. MIEDECKE TO
) FORM INTERROGATORIES
15 -vs- )
) (SET NO. ONE)
JOY A. 16MIEDECKE, individually and dba )
PUDDLEDUCKS; and DOES 1 through 20, )
inclusive,
17 )
)
18 Defendants )
___________________________________ )
_ 19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.
21
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant JOY A. MIEDECKE
22
SET NO: ONE
23
Defendant Joy A. Miedecke (“Responding Party”) responds to Plaintiff Regency
24
Centers, L.P. (“Propounding Party”) Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) as follows:
25
GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
26
1. To the extent that any specific Interrogatory may be construed to seek
27
information which is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 1 Responses to Form Interrogatories

 1
work-product doctrine or any other privilege, rule or doctrine, Responding Party objects to the
2
Interrogatory and will not provide the information.
32. Insofar as any specific Interrogatory may be construed to seek information which
4
is not within the possession, custody or control of Responding Party, Responding Party objects
5
to the Interrogatory.
6
3. Responding Party has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this
7
case, has not completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for trial.
8
Accordingly, all responses contained herein are without prejudice to Responding Party’s right
9
to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts and to produce expert testimony on
10
any issue. Furthermore, the answers contained herein may be based in whole or in part on
11
hearsay data and other information inadmissible at the time of trial, although discoverable.
12
134. All responses contained herein are based only upon such information and

documents
14 which are presently available to and specifically known to Responding Party and
disclose
15 only those contentions which presently occur to it. It is anticipated that further

discovery,
16 independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts,
add meaning
17 to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal
18
contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in and variations from
19
the contentions herein set forth.
205. The following Interrogatory Responses are given without prejudice to
21
Responding Party’s right to produce evidence of any fact or facts which may be recalled later.
22
Responding Party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as
23
additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed and contentions
24
are made.
25
6. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much
26
factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known but
27
should in no way be to Responding Party’s prejudice in relation to further discovery, research
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 2 Responses to Form Interrogatories

 1
or analysis.
27. Each Response is also subject to all appropriate objections (including, without
3
limitation, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and
4
admissibility) which would require the exclusion of the responses if such responses were to be
5
introduced at any hearing or trial of this matter. All such objections and grounds for objections
6
involving or relating to the matters raised herein are reserved and may be introduced at the time
7
of trial or other hearing.
8
8. Responding Party objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it
9
calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work
10
product doctrine or other applicable privilege, and Responding Party’s responses herein shall
11
not be deemed to be a waiver of any such privilege or protection.
12
139. Responding Party objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it

calls for
14 information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and/or reasonably
calculated
15 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
1610. Responding Party objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that a

response
17 would necessitate the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of, or
from 18
documents in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control (including those
19 in this litigation) and Responding Party hereby exercises its option, pursuant to
produced
20 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.230 to specify those documents from which an
California

answer21may be derived or ascertained.

22
11. Responding Party objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it
23
seeks confidential or proprietary business information.
24
12. Responding Party objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it
25
seeks the disclosure of information, communications and/or documents in violation of
26
Responding Party’s, its current or former employees’ or third parties’ rights of privacy. Any
27
responses herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of Responding Party’s or any third party’s
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 3 Responses to Form Interrogatories

 1 respect to such information.
rights with
213. The foregoing General Objections and Responses apply to each and every
3
interrogatory herein and are incorporated herein by reference to the extent applicable in each of
4 responses set forth below as though fully set forth therein. The failure to mention
the specific
5
one of the foregoing objections in any of the specific responses set forth below shall not be
6
deemed a waiver of such objection. Subject to, and without waiving any of, the General
7
Objections and Responses, Responding Party responds to Propounding Party’s Form
8
Interrogatories as follows:
9
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 1.1:
10
Joy A. Miedecke, c/o David M. Gurewitz, Attorney at Law, P. O. Box 1267, Kilauea, HI 96754
11
(808) 828-6288
12
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.1:
13
Joy A. Miedecke
14
Response
15 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.2:
November
16 13, 1944 in Hollywood, CA.
Response
17 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.3:
Yes 18
Response
19 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.4:
No 20
21 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.5:
Response
(a)2280268 Golden Horseshoe, Indio, CA 92201
23
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.6:
24
(a) Not employed
25
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.7:
26
California High School, Whittier, CA, 1968-1962,
27
Cerritos College, Norwalk, CA, 1962-1964
28 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.8:
Response

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 4 Responses to Form Interrogatories

No 1
2 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.9:
Response

Yes 3
4 to Form Interrogatory No. 2.10:
Response
5
Yes
6
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.11:
7
No
8
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.12:
9
No
10
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.13:
11
No
12
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1:
13
No 14

Response
15 to Form Interrogatory No. 4.2:
No 16
Response
17 to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1:
(a)-(d)18Joy A. Miedecke; Katie Harris, 391 So. State College Blvd., Brea, CA 92821,
19
(714) 672-6999; Steve Hong, address unknown, (714) 713-9600; Stephen Hargrave, Shirley
20 Madden and Josh Darby, all with Regency Centers, L.P. There may be additional
Lye, Erin
21whose names are responsive to Interrogatory 12.1, whose identities are not known to
persons
22
Responding Party.
23
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.2:
24
No
25
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.3:
26
No
27
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.4:
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 5 Responses to Form Interrogatories

No 1
2 to Form Interrogatory No. 12.5:
Response

No 3
4 to Form Interrogatory No. 12.6:
Response
5
Yes. Responding Party made reports to Stephen Hargrave, Erin Madden and Josh Darby of
6
Regency Centers, L.P. Copies of such reports in Responding Party’s possession are being
7
produced in response to Propounding Party’s Request For Production Of Documents.
8
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.7:
9
Yes
10
(a) Joy A. Miedecke
11
(b) Continually while lease was in effect.
12
Response
13 to Form Interrogatory No. 13.1:
No 14
Response
15 to Form Interrogatory No. 13.2:
N/A 16

Response
17 to Form Interrogatory No. 14.1:
18
Responding Party is not aware of any such violation at this time.
19 to Form Interrogatory No. 14.2:
Response
20Responding Party is aware.
Not that
21 to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1:
Response
22
On or about August 18, 2005, Responding Party sought the consent of Propounding Party to
23
sublet approximately 50% of the premises to a hair salon. After approximately one year of not
24
receiving a response to said request to sublet approximately 50% of the premises to a hair salon,
25
during which time Responding Party continuously checked with Propounding Party’s Leasing
26
Division to see if it would respond to said request to sublet approximately 50% of the premises,
27
Responding Party ultimately spoke with Stephen Hargrave of Propounding Party who told
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 6 Responses to Form Interrogatories

 1
Responding Party that Shirley Lye, of Propounding Party’s Leasing Division, had gone to the
2 unannounced and determined that Propounding Party would not allow Responding
premises

Party to3sublet the premises to a beauty salon since it would “look funny” to have a beauty
4
salon inside the premises. Thereafter, Responding Party requested that the Propounding Party
5
consent to a sublet of the entire premises to a yogurt and tea shop. After many months delay in
6
responding to this request, Propounding Party refused to grant consent stating to Responding
7
8
Party that such use would conflict with an existing tenant, Baskin Robbins, when in fact, the
9
requested subtenant was primarily a tea shop.
10
The persons indentified in Response to Form Interrogatory 12.1 have knowledge of these facts.
11
The documents in the possession of Responding Party in support of these facts are being
12
produced
13 in response to the Propounding Party’s Request for Production of Documents.
Responding
14 Party has not yet conducted any discovery, and is accordingly unable, at this time,

to further
15 respond to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1.
Response
16 to Form Interrogatory No. 50.1:
The agreement
17 alleged in the complaint is not the agreement between the parties in that it was
18 by a written lease dated September 28, 1998 between Propounding Party’s
superseded
19 in interest and Responding Party.
predecessor
20 to Form Interrogatory No. 50.2:
Response
21
Not applicable
22
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 50.3:
23
Not applicable
24
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 50.4:
25
Not applicable
26
Response to Form Interrogatory No. 50.5:
27
Not applicable
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 7 Responses to Form Interrogatories

 1 to Form Interrogatory No. 50.6:
Response
2
Not applicable
3

Dated: 4February 8, 2010 DAVID M. GUREWITZ, Attorney at Law

5
6
7
David M. Gurewitz, Attorney for Defendant
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4617 Rsp FR 1 28 09 8 Responses to Form Interrogatories

 1
VERIFICATION
2
I, Joy A. Miedecke say and declare:
3
I have read the foregoing RESPONSE OF JOY A. MIEDECKE TO FORM
4
INTERROGATORIES,
5 SET NO. ONE and know its contents. The matters stated in the

6 document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated
foregoing
7
on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
8
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
9
foregoing is true and correct.
10
11Executed on this _____ day of January 2009 at Indio, California.
12
13
14
Joy A. Miedecke
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE3OF HAWAII }
} ss.
COUNTY
4 OF KAUAI }
I5 am employed in the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii. I am over the age of 18 and not
a party to the within action; my business address is P.O. Box 1267, Kilauea, Hawaii.
6
On, February 2, 2009 I served the foregoing document, described as: RESPONSE OF
JOY A.7 MIEDECKE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET NO.: ONE) on the interested
parties in this action by placing the original thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
8
Ernie Zachary Park
Bewley,9 Lassleben & Miller, LLP
1321510 East Penn Street
Suite 510 Whittier Square
Whittier,
11 CA 90602
□ 12BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
13□ I deposited such envelope in the U.S. mail at Kilauea, Hawaii, with postage and
certified fees fully prepaid, and with U.S. Postal Service identification and receipts marked
14
“CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.”
15 As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing
16 of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U. S.
postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Kilauea, Hawaii in the
ordinary
17 course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit18for mailing in affidavit.
19Executed on, February 2, 2009 at Kilauea, Hawaii.
20
 STATE - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the21above is true and correct.

□ 22FEDERAL - I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
court at whose direction the service was made.
23
24
Rebecca Lans ____________________________________
Print Name
25 Signature

26
27
28