16 Twila Markham v Gerald Markham PET MOT Compel Discovery 13-3-08383-7 SEA

FILED14 MAR 27 PM 4:28

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

E-FILEDCASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383-7 SEA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

)In re the Marriage of: ) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

)TWILA MARKHAM, )

Petitioner, ) MOTION AND DECLARATION) FOR ORDER TO COMPEL

and ) DISCOVERY FROM PETITIONER)

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, ))

Respondent. )________________________________________ )

I. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1. Relief Sought. Twila Markham, the Petitioner/Wife herein, by and through her

attorney of record, Karma L. Zaike, o f Michael W. Bugni & Associates, moves this Court,

pursuant to Civil Rule 37(a), for an order compelling the Respondent/Husband, Gerald W.

Markham, to serve his full and complete answers to interrogatories and Requests for

Production that were submitted pursuant to Civil Rules 33 and 34. The Wife also requests the

appointment o f a Discovery Special Master, pursuant to CR 53.3. The Wife further moves,

pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4), to have the Husband pay the reasonable expenses, including

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDERCOMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 1 o f 11

LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W. B ug ni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

attorneys fees, incurred in obtaining this Order along with sanctioning the Husband $100 per

day for every day he does not submit his answers to the Wife once an Order is entered.

2. Grounds.

First set of Interrogatories. The Husband was served with the Wifes first set of

interrogatories and requests for production on August 30, 2013. Exhibit 1. Though the

Husband did provide responses to many of Wifes first interrogatories and requests for

production, he failed to provide a complete response to the Wifes Request for Production

(RFP) Number 3, which contained a request for statements for all of the Husbands bank

accounts for the past two years. With a marital estate totaling ~ $10 million, financial records

are of particular importance in this matter. Therefore, a deficiency letter was sent to the

Husbands attorneys on October 23, 2013. Exhibit 2.

On October 30, 2013, in response, one o f the Husbands attorneys, Mr. Anthony Urie,

sent Wifes counsel a 14-page letter explaining that the Husband would not be providing

statements for his brokerage or retirement accounts because the RFP requested statements for

all bank accounts, as opposed to other types of financial accounts, and notified Wifes

counsel that the Husband was refusing to participate in a discovery conference. Exhibit 3.

Due to Mr. Uries refusal to conduct a discovery conference by phone, a detailed letter was

sent to the Husbands attorneys on November 18, 2013, outlining the Wifes specific

objections to the Husbands outstanding Requests for Production. Exhibit 4. The letter

expressed a willingness to work together in good faith to determine the appropriate scope of

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 2 o f 11 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC

11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEASTSEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the Husbands discovery requests, as well as provide a list of documents the Wife was willing

to produce.

For months, Respondents attorneys, Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi, refused to respond

to the 11/18/13 discovery letter. Counsel for the Wife was unable to bring a motion for

protective order because the CR 37 conference had not been completed. A partial discovery

conference did occur on January 8, 2014, with Mr. Tsai and Mr. Urie, but was incomplete.

The wife has willingly produced 1,834 pages of documents neatly organized and bates

stamped. Said documents include but are not limited to all of the parties tax returns in her

possession, bank statements, credit card statements and other financial statements in her

possession for a minimum of two years for all of the colossal number o f accounts in which the

parties have an interest, and has packed up much of the Husbands personal property, which

remains ready to be delivered. In addition to Ms. Markhams initial discovery responses

which were produced, she has also timely supplemented financial documents and answers as

new information becomes available.

Second Set of Interrogatories propounded to Husband. In response to bad faith

gamesmanship on the part o f the Husband, a second, very specific set o f Interrogatories and

Requests for Production were served on his counsel on January 21, 2014. Exhibit 5. On

February 10, Wifes counsel proactively inquired as to whether timely and complete

responses would be provided by the discovery due date, or whether the Husband would be

seeking an extension. Exhibit 6. Wifes counsel also asked in this e-mail whether a

discovery conference would be necessary. Ten days later, after receiving no response, Wifes

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 3 o f 11 MICHAEL W . BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

counsel sent the Husbands attorney another e-mail inquiring as to the Husbands ability to

meet discovery deadlines. Exhibit 7. On February 19, the Husbands attorney responded by

simply stating that by his calculations, responses were not due until February 24, and that he

was not available for a discovery conference at the scheduled time. Exhibit 8. On February

20, the day before responses were due, Wifes counsel again requested that the Husbands

counsel either advise that his responses would be provided on time, or that a discovery

conference be scheduled. Exhibit 9. The Husbands counsel again refused to schedule a

discovery conference at that time, and instead, sent Wifes counsel a letter containing a vague

list of objections to the W ifes discovery as a whole, stated that more substantive answers

would be provided by February 24, and declared that if a discovery conference is needed at

that time, one would be scheduled. Exhibit 10.

On February 24, 2014, the Husbands attorney requested via e-mail that Mr. Markham

be granted a 7-day extension. Exhibit 11. This was concerning because the majority o f the

documents the Wife has requested can simply be downloaded by the Husband from accounts

which are accessed on-line. The Husband was given the benefit of the doubt, and agreed to a

moratorium in discovery until March 3, 2014. Exhibit 12.

On the evening o f March 3, the Husband produced a meager number of financial

documents as his only response to the Wifes discovery requests. Exhibit 13: Summary of

documents produced. Despite the fact that the Husband had plenty of time in which to

respond to the Wifes discovery requests, and the Wifes counsel even agreed to an extension

to allow him to do so, the Husband failed to provide any responses to the Wifes second set of

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 4 of 11 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

interrogatories until March 12, 2014. Though the Husbands attorney suggested that the

Husband would be producing more of the documents requested by the W ifes Requests for

Production, hard copies o f the same meager financial documents that were received on March

3 were delivered to the office of the Wifes attorney on March 12 as well. O f concern is that

the Husband has failed to produce two years of statements for any account and no statements

more recent than early January, 2014. The Husband has failed to produce any current

financial documents for 2014, including not one single credit card statement or financial

account statement.

Furthermore, Respondents attorney has repeatedly failed to cooperate in scheduling a

discovery conference. Wifes counsel provided notice of a discovery conference over a month

ago when she served the Husband with the discovery requests. She has made continuous

efforts to accommodate the schedule o f the Husband and his attorney, but the Husbands

attorney has failed to respond to her e-mails, return her phone calls, or even to make himself

available to discuss this matter at previously scheduled times. Additionally, counsel refuses

to respond to repeated requests to make documents available. Exhibit 14.

At no time prior to the filing of this motion has the Husband requested a protective

order or request to limit the scope of discovery. The following Interrogatories and Requests

for Production of Documents were not fully answered and are in need o f a response:

Interrogatory No. 22: The interrogatory requested that Mr. Markham identify the amount of any charge imposed for medical coverage for each member o f his family. Mr. Markham stated that there is an amount deducted from his AK PERS retirement check for dental, optical and audio, as well as amounts paid for Medicare, Part B. However, Mr. Markham failed to provide these amounts.


LAW OFFICES_____________________MiCKAEL W. BUGNi & ASSOC., PLLC11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Interrogatory No. 26: The interrogatory requested that Mr. Markham state the amounts o f all pension, retirement, unemployment compensation and social security payments received by him for each year since he was last employed. Mr. Markham stated that he receives a PERS retirement check, and that such amounts for prior years (since 2003) are contained in PERS 1099-R tax forms. However, he has failed to provide the amounts requested or to produce any 1099-Rs for any previous years.

Interrogatory No. 28: The interrogatory requested that Mr. Markham state the source and amount of any income he received in each o f the last three years, including the current year, from any source not disclosed in his answers to the previous interrogatories. Mr. Markham merely states, See prior tax returns in Petitioners possession. He does not state the sources of any additional income, nor does he provide amounts received.

Interrogatory No. 32: Mr. Markham fails to provide information regarding his retirement; states he will sign a release, but has failed to do so. The source of this asset is essential since the Wife believes that the Husband will make a separate property claim on this asset at the time o f trial when it is fully a community asset.

Interrogatory No. 37: The interrogatory requests that Mr. Markham list any financial accounts in which he has had an interest in the past three years, and for each such account state: (a) the name and address o f the bank or financial institution at which the account(s) is/are maintained; (b) type of account; (c) date the account was opened; (d) date the account was closed (if not still opened); (e) present balance; (I) persons authorized to draw on the account; and (d) account numbers. Mr. Markham generally referred to accounts for which the Petitioner has produced records, and referred to statements for accounts produced within his responses. Not only did Mr. Markham merely produce spotty records for only a few of his financial accounts, he failed to answer the interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 38: The interrogatory seeks information regarding any withdrawals from Mr. Markhams financial accounts in excess of $1,000 during the past 12 months. Mr. Markham has failed to answer the interrogatory and has not provided comprehensive statements for his accounts for the past 12 months such that this information can be gleaned from documents he has produced, as he indicates can be done his response.

Interrogatory No. 39: The interrogatory requests information regarding Mr. Markhams investment plans. Mr. Markham stated that he has an interest in the following accounts: (1) AK PERS retirement plan; (2) stock in ALPS E&O Mutual Insurance Company; (3) College Life policy; (4) Two retirement accounts from the

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 6 of 11 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Municipality o f Anchorage (a 401K and 457); and (5) a SEP/IRA through D.A. Davidson. However, Mr. Markham has failed to provide the terms of such plans, his investment to date in such plans, or his estimate o f their present value. Nor has Mr. Markham provided statements for these plans, despite the fact that his response states that documents regarding these plans will be provided.

Interrogatory No. 44 and 46: Mr. Markham fails to disclose any securities or stocks purchased/sold during marriage and fails to disclose savings or investment accounts. Mr. Markham has stated that he intends to claim the majority o f the parties estate is his separate property. His failure to produce statements or identify accounts in his sole name preclude the Wife from obtaining evidence to show that the funds have a community source.

Interrogatory No 53: The interrogatory seeks information regarding Mr. Markhams ownership interests in any real property. Mr. Markham states that he will produce all files in his possession in response to the interrogatory but has failed to produced said documents.

Interrogatory No. 55: The interrogatory seeks information regarding Mr. Markhams ownership interests in any real property which he claims is not community property. The interrogatory lists questions a-h regarding such interests. Mr. Markham merely makes conclusive statements about the characterization o f the partys property generally, but fails to provide the information requested by the interrogatory for each ownership interest he claims is not community property.

Interrogatory No. 56: The interrogatory requests that Mr. Markham list his average monthly expenses utilizing categories in a chart provided by the interrogatory. Mr. Markham merely states that he makes these payments by credit card and that the Petitioner has access to such statements. Mr. Markham fails to take responsibility for his own expenses or acknowledge that he has kept the majority of the parties estate in his sole name.

Interrogatory No. 58: The interrogatory asks for Mr. Markhams total average monthly income from ah sources. Mr. Markham merely refers to his tax returns.

Interrogatory No. 59: The interrogatory requests that Mr. Markham identify and describe all property he claims to be his separate property. Mr. Markham has failed to provide the requested information.

Interrogatory No 64: The interrogatory seeks information regarding a change in location o f any funds or other liquid assets having a value greater than $1,000. Mr.

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 7 of 11 MICHAEL W . BUGNi & ASSOC., PLLC

11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Markham has stated that such transfers are obvious from his financial statements. However, Mr. Markham has neither answered the question nor provided comprehensive financial statements for his accounts.

Interrogatory No. 70: The interrogatory requests information regarding any life insurance or annuity policies. Mr. Markham merely states, See college life policies produced herewith. No such policies were produced.

Interrogatory No. 74: The interrogatory seeks information regarding each of the vehicles in which the parties have an interest. Mr. Markham has failed to even list all of the vehicles in which he has an interest, and has not provided any of the information about each vehicle sought by the interrogatory.

Request for Production No. 4 : The RFP requested that Mr. Markham produce legible copies of all documentary evidence supporting his interest in assets acquired prior to the date of marriage or after separation which are now in his spouses name or control. Mr. Markham has responded that documents relating to his interest in such assets are located at this office of his attorney.

Request for Production No. 5: The RFP requested that Mr. Markham produce legible copies of all documentary or physical evidence supporting his contention that he is entitled to receive more than 50% of the net value of the marital estate. Mr. Markham has responded that these documents will be available for inspection and copying at his attorneys office at an agreed upon date and time. Mr. Markhams attorney has refused to respond to inquiries as to document availability.

Request for Production No. 7 : The RFP requested that Mr. Markham produce copies o f all monthly statements for all debts prepared by any creditor for each account listed in his answers to interrogatories for the preceding twelve (12) months. Notably, Mr. Markham failed to produce any statements for his American Express credit card.Please produce statements for his American Express card for the preceding 12 months. These statements can be acquired by simply downloading them online.

Request for Production No. 9 : The RFP requested that Mr. Markham produce important financial documents, most of which will be required to be produced under KCLFLR 10. On March 3, Ms. Markham received only the following financial documents:

1. Statements for Mr. Markhams Ameritrade Account ending in #4823 for May, 2013, September, 2013 through January, 2014, and a 2013 year-end statement containing tax information;


LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W. B ug ni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2. Statements for Mr. Markhams D.A. Davidson Account ending in #6360 for April, 2013, and January, 2014;

3. A statement for Mr. Markhams D.A. Davidson SEP IRA Account ending in #8425 for January, 2014

4. Consolidated Summary o f Accounts for the parties four D.A. Davidson accounts for April, 2013, and October, 2013 through January, 2014.

On March 12, Ms. Markham received hard copies of the same documents. On both occasions these documents were provided in a completely random order, with several outdated statements duplicated two or three times while no current statements were produced.

The RFP requested full statements for all o f the above accounts for the past 12 months, as well as:

a. Legible copies of all income tax returns filed by you or on your behalf for the last three (3) years, including, but not limited to, personal, corporate, partnership or other such returns;

d. The most current statement that you have access to of accrued benefits in connection with your retirement plants);

e. Legible copies of originals o f any and all brochures, contracts, or other explanatory documents regarding any retirement benefits to which you are entitled or will become entitled to;

f. All documents or records regarding any savings or investment plans that you are participating in at the present time which have been prepared for or received by you during the past 12 months;

g. All check or savings registers in your possession or to which you have access which relate to any checking or savings accounts into which you have deposited or from which you have withdrawn funds during the past 12 months with such registers to cover the most recent 12-month period;

h. All monthly statements and canceled checks in your possession or to which you have access which relate to any checking, savings or credit union accounts into which you have deposited or from which you have withdrawn funds during the past 12 months covering the most recent 12- month period;

i. All passbooks, monthly, quarterly and annual statements, deposit slips and other records from any savings accounts into which you have deposited funds or from which you have withdrawn funds during the past eight (8) months;

j. Copies or originals o f all savings bond certificates together with any other records in your possession or to which you have access regarding savings bonds that you presently have an interest in.

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR ORDER LAW OFFICES________________________COMPELLING DISCOVERY - Pg. 9 o f 11 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Notably, Mr. Markham has failed to produce any documentation regarding his retirement benefits through the Municipality of Anchorage, his PERS files and his ALPS and College Life files, though he acknowledged their existence in his response. Ms. Markham is not in possession of any records o f these financial accounts prepared since the date o f separation.

Request for Production No. 10: The RFP requested that Mr. Markham produce any original or legible copy o f any community property agreement or prenuptial agreement entered into between himself and his spouse, as well as any documentary evidence that the terms o f any community property agreement or prenuptial agreement was adhered to during the marriage with full knowledge and agreement by each spouse. Mr. Markham asserts that such documents exist, but claims that they are in Ms.Markhams possession. Ms. Markham is in possession of no such documents.

As stated above, many Mr. Markham states that documents will be available in his

attorneys office. When W ifes counsel attempted to obtain the statements, Mr. Markhams

counsel denied possession and has refused to cooperate in transporting the documents to

Sound Legal Copying. Exhibit 14. Due to the contentious nature of the discovery process in

this action, the Wife requests that a Discovery Special Master be appointed in accordance

with CR 53.3. Because the appointment of a Special Master is necessary due to the Husbands

continued bad-faith gamesmanship throughout the discovery process, the Wife requests that

the fees for the Special Master be paid by the Husband out of his separate account, not from

the parties joint funds. The Husband should be required to keep such funds in a retainer until

the time of trial.

3. Basis. This Motion is based on the grounds stated above, copies o f exhibits

attached hereto, and the annexed declaration o f Karma L. Zaike.


LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W. B u g n i & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

Karma L. Zaike, WSBA #31037 Attorney for Petitioner/Wife

II. DECLARATION

Karma L. Zaike on oath, certifies and declares as follows:

1. I am the attorney of record for the Petitioner/Wife and am competent to testifyherein.

2. Respondent was served discovery as set forth above. Despite my repeated efforts to accommodate the schedule of Husbands counsel, the Husband has failed to follow through with a discovery conference.

3. The court should note that discovery requests which remain outstanding are specifically tailored to obtain information that has not yet been provided.

4. The Wifes Second Set o f Interrogatories and Requests for Production was pertinent and reasonable. Attorneys fees in the amount of $1,000 have been incurred to cooperate in scheduling a discovery conference and bringing this Motion. Mr. Markham should be ordered to pay those fees. Mr. Markham should be sanctioned $100 per day for every day he is late in providing his answers after an Order is entered to ensure compliance.

5. Mr. Markham has had ample time to provide full and complete discovery answers. Mr. Markham has been intentionally evasive.

6. Counsels Certification Under CR 26(i): Repeated good faith attempts were made to schedule a discovery conference, as set forth above. The Husbands counsel has willfully refused or failed to confer in good faith as set forth above. Complete responses have not been provided.

I certify and declare under penalty o f perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing statement is true and correct.

DATED: March 27, 2014KARMA L. ZAIKE, WSBA#31037 Attorney for Petitioner


LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l w . B u g n i & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

/- "

*

EXHIBIT 1

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


In re:

TWILA MARKHAM,Petitioner,

and

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM,Respondent.

) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA))) PETITIONERS FIRST SET OF ) INTERROGATORIES AND ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ) OF DOCUMENTS TO ) RESPONDENT)) Date Propounded: 08/30/2013) Due Date: 09/30/2013) CR 37: 10/01/2013

TO: GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, Respondent;

AND TO: DAISUKE TAKAHASHI, his attorney:

Interrogatories. In accordance with Rule 33 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the following:

Answer each of the following interrogatories separately and fully, in writing, under oath, unless there is an objection to an interrogatory, in which case state the reason for the objection. The answers and objections, if any, to interrogatories must be served upon the undersigned attorney within 30 days after the service of these interrogatories as provided in Civil Rule 33. lire following interrogatories are intended to be continuing in nature, and any information which may be discovered by y o u subsequent to the service, and filing of vour

Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - Page 1 of 7

LAW OFFICES ________________ _M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE, 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

OPPOSE COUNSEL ORIGINAL

12

j

4

5

6

7

8:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

answers should be brought to the attention of the inquiring party, through supplemental answers, within a reasonable time following discovery.

Requests for Production of Documents: In accordance with Rule 34 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the following:

Produce and permit inspection and copying of the requested documents, records and materials pursuant with Civil Rule 34. The designated documents shall include writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated if necessary or otherwise reduced through detection devises into reasonably usable form and shall be produced and made available for inspection and duplication by the undersigned or someone acting on his behalf at 11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300, Seattle, Washington 98125, 30 days from receipt hereof.

The party upon whom these requests for production are served shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of this request, except that a Respondent may serve a response within 40 days after the service of the Petition upon that party. The response shall state with respect to each item or category that inspection (or related activities) will be performed as requested, or if the request is objected to, the reason for such objection. If objection is made to part of an item or category, that particular part shall be specified in the objection. The party submitting this request may move for an Order under Civil Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection or related activities as requested.

DEFINITIONS

As used in these interrogatories, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:

(a) Person. The term person is meant to include any individual and any businessentity.

(b) Document. The term document is meant to include, without limiting its generality, contracts, agreements, correspondence, telegrams, reports, records, schedules, diaries, invoices, purchase orders, charts, notes, estimates, summaries, inventories, minutes of meetings and memoranda regarding conferences or telephone conversations, and any and all other written, printed, or typed matters of whatsoever kind or description. If any documents are not identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of the privilege and the number of documents that are not identified.

Petitioners Interrogatories and Requests for Productionof Documents to Respondent - Page 2 of 7

LAW OFFICES ______ _M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc,, pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(c) Electronic Communications, The term electronic communications is meant to include, without limiting its generality, e-mails, text messages, voice mails or any other form of electronic communication. If any such communications are not identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of the privilege, the nature and subject of the communications that are not identified.

(d) Identify. As used in these interrogatories, the term identify used in reference to an individual person means to state his full name, present or last known address and telephone number, his present or last known position and business affiliation, and his position and business affiliation at the time in question. Identify when used in reference to a document means to state the date and authority, type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, etc.) or other appropriate means of identifying it, and its present location or custodian. If any such document was but is no longer in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it.

NOTICE OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

This discovery request has been submitted in the Superior Court pursuant to Local Rule 37 (e). Please take note of the following:

If the Interrogatories set forth herein are not fully answered or documents produced, then in that event, it shall be necessary to have a conference of counsel or with the answering party if not represented by counsel pursuant to Superior Court Local Rule 37 (e).

Please be advised that a telephone conference is hereby scheduled for October 1,2013 at 10:00 a.m. for the purposes of conferring with you as to why you have objected to or failed to answer the Interrogatories set forth herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please provide the following for every flight you have taken in the past two years:

a. Date of departure and returnb. Destination;c. Purpose of travel;d. Method by which travel was paid; ande. Names and contact information for any person accompanying you.


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. B ugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAYNE, STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: During the past two (2) years, have you charged on any credit card a flight ticket for yourself and/or any other person. If so, with respect to each such account, provide the following information:

a. Name and address of bank and financial institution at which the account(s) is/are maintained;

b. Type of account(s) and account number;c. Date of each flight charged;d. Destination of travel for each trip.

ANSWER:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Pursuant to Civil Rule 34, you are requested to produce, at the date, time and place that you serve your answers to these Interrogatories, all documents underlying, substantiating and/or evidencing your answer to the immediately preceding two Interrogatories. You may comply with this Request by attaching a copy of each such document to your answers to these Interrogatories.

ANSWER:


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state how many days each month you have spent in Washington and in Alaska from January 1, 2012 to the present.

ANSWER:

Month State Number of days in the stateJanuary, 2012

February, 2012

March, 2012

April, 2012

May, 2012

June, 2012

July, 2012

August, 2012

September, 2012

October, 2012

November, 2012

December, 2012

January, 2013

February, 2013

March, 2013

April, 2013

May, 2013


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

June, 2013

July, 2013

August, 2013

INTERROGATORY NO, 4: Please state the name and location of each health care provider from whom you have received care within the past two years:

a) Name, address and phone number of each health care provider;b) Date and duration of each health care appointment;

ANSWER:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 2: Please produce legible copies of your Pilots Log Book for the past two years for all aircraft you have piloted, including but not limited to the Beech Mueketeer, N7998L,

RESPONSE:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce legible copies of statements for all bank accounts you have for the past two years.

RESPONSE:


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Asso c ., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

I2

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

August 30, 2013

KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA #31037 Attorney for Respondent/Mother

ANSWERS SUBMITTED: September______, 2013.

DAISUKE TAKAHASI-II, WSBA #46046 Attorney for Petitioner/Father

STATE OF WASHINGTON )) ss.

COUNTY OF KING )

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says:

That I am the Respondent herein, and I am qualified to answer the within and foregoing interrogatories; that I have read the within interrogatories, know the answers thereto and believe the same to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this_____ day of September, 2013.

Notarys Printed Name: _________ ______NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the STATE OFWASHINGTON, residing a t____________My commission expires:_________ __


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

EXHIBIT 2

l n f MICHAEL W, BUGNI & ASSOCIATES, PLLCA ttorneys

M ichael W .Bugni

Laura Christensen Co b e r g

Daria J. Goodwin

M argaret D oyle F ikpatrick

Jennie L aird

Kristina M . Larch

Christine A Mayoue

Yvette Smith O Connell

L uAnne P erry

B itaSoltan-Qurraie

Karma L. Zaire

Natalie M . Beckmann

October 23, 2013

11300 R oosevelt W ay N ortheast, S uite 300 S eattle,Washington 98125 P:206.365.5500 F:206.363.8067 [email protected]

Mr. Anthony Urie Mr. Dice Takahashi Attorneys at Law 18130 Midvale Ave. N Ste. A Shoreline, WA 98133

Re: Markham v. Markham

Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:

Mr. Markhams Response to Discovery Requests failed to fully respond to Ms. Markhams Request for Production. The following Request for Production of Documents was not answered and is in need of a response:

Request for Production No. 3: Please produce legible copies of statements for all bank accounts you have for the past two years.

Your clients objection does not absolve him from responding. Please be advised that if Mr. Markham has not provided a full and complete response by the close of business on Thursday October 31, 2013, a motion to compel will be filed.

Yours truly,

Karma L. Zaike

KLZdym Cc: Client

EXHIBIT 3

LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY M. URIE, pileA Professional Limited Liability Company

A t t o r n e y a t l a w

Admitted in Washington & California

18130 Midvale Ave N. Shoreline, WA 98133

Ph: 206-542-4066 Fax: 206-542-6655-

Cell: (206)859-3400 Email: [email protected]

October 30, 2013

Ms. Karma Zaike Attorney At Law 11300 Roosevelt Way N.E. Suite 300Seattle, WA 98125

In re: Markham vs. MarkhamKing County Case No. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Dear Ms Zaike:

My response to your October 23, 2013 letter regarding Mr. Markham's objections to producing "statements for all bank accounts" was in final draft before I received your current email. I think the response (infra) should address all your concerns. If after you receive it you still wish to have a discovery conference about OUR objections to your first request for production augmented by your October 23, 2013

P age-1

email, please set a time on Thursday a.m. and we will place a conference call to you. But that conference needs to be so limited.

Further to your proposal to have a discovery conference as to YOUR OBJECTIONS to our recent proposed discovery, be advised that to date we have not received your objections and therefore your proposal is premature. The discovery rules simply don't provide for a conference in advance of your filing objections to our requests, however the balance of this email may address some of your concerns. If after we receive and study your (we assume very specific) objections and we think any are not well taken, we will contact you and arrange a meeting to discuss them. We expect you will professionally respond to our requests and to any request for a discovery meeting we there after think we need as we have professionally responded to yours.

I would think from the very comprehensive answers we gave to the rest of your discovery that his (proper) objections do not remotely suggest Mr. Markham is trying to be obstreperous or unreasonable in responding to your discovery. Nor has he otherwise been in response to your late August representations that its now Mrs. Markham's intents to retract her earlier May 9, 2013 representation offering to allow him to demonstrate, he has no anger management issues to Dr. Maiuro's satisfaction and try to reconcile and instead proceed directly to a divorce.

Page- 2

As we represented to you in all good faith, our intent in bringing our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was twofold. First we believed it was right. But we also sought bring awareness to the serious Washington inheritance tax consequences that will befall her heirs from a her claim to a Washington domicile and the pursuit of her divorce here. You however chose to somehow convince her that this was being done to gain some sort of procedural advantage when nothing was further from the truth? Thats now unfortunately her loss.

In addition you've persuaded her to respond in an unnecessary and irrelevant punitive manner by having her and her son file affidavits attempting to support a claim that her husband is a long time batterer when your letter of May 9, 2013 clearly reflects she did not initially so claim. Rather then she was then willing to defer to Dr. Maiuro's evaluation as to whether he even had an anger management problem? Moreover she and her son know (and you should) that there is not one police or medical document in these parties long loving marriage supporting that claim. On the contrary having put this issue in evidence you've clearly effectuated a waiver to Mrs. Markham's privilege to her many years of psychiatric counseling, the Seattle Fire, ambulance and Virginia Mason records of April 19, 2013 and ail of her medical records that proceeded (and followed) Mr. Markhams April 24, 2013 arrest which your claim now forces us to seek.

Page-3

Rather if its now Mrs. Markhams intent to proceed directly to a divorce, we only seek to effect a fair and amicable professional exchange of all of the important documents relevant to this proceedings. As you can see from our first request for production our first concern is for the integrity of all of these parties relevant files. As your client is further well aware, the house in Seattle that they jointly occupied immediately prior to Mr. Markham's arrest, contains a substantial volume. Our first concern regarding your production (and ours) is compliance with WA Civil Rule 38(b), which clearly directs

"A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business".

It is for this reason that our request for production demands that all of the files at this residence be produced and a video record made of their position in the file, box or where ever theyre located (when this discovery was served) be done by us at the earliest opportunity before they are disturbed and copied.Until this is done it will be difficult for either party to meet the others request in compliance with this rule.

But with a basic amount of professional cooperation we should be able to do this in short order. Be advised that due to his familiarity with these documents and things and the only person capable of assisting his counsel in this inspection, Mr. Markham's

Page- 4

presence will be necessary at that home through out every phase of that inspection.

In our last court hearing the court ruled the DV order was not an impediment to the parties presence together. On the contrary its basic to his constitutional right of due process and confrontation. And in recognition of that fact his DV stipulated order of continuance expressly permits the Markham's may have contact in the presence of a 3rd party as necessary to pursue their divorce. However we do not seek to force that or affect any other ulterior purpose in this request. Mrs. Markham's presence is not requested at this inspection. She can choose to be absent and instead have her counsel there.

However when our proposed inspection and production is complete if we are not in a position to have a mediation to attempt to resolve this matter, we will need to promptly thereafter take Mrs. Markham's deposition. This needs to be done at the 810 NE 58th residence where the documents we seek are located so that she will have easy access to them while testifying and we anticipate Mr. Markham's presence will also be essential for that. Accordingly to move this along as you've requested please advise of a proposed time after the proposed inspection and production when we may notice that.

It is also possible however that after the video inspection we propose and your response to our current discovery, that we might alternatively be in a

Page- 5

position to have the mediation you proposed in your May 9, 2013 letter? If this matter is to proceed to a divorce Mr. Markham would of course like to do so in the least stressful to Mrs. Markham and least costly manner, and to be fair to her in all things. But your recent introduction of unfounded charges of domestic abuse is hardly conducive of that!

Accordingly if you are going to persist in that path, we will need to get all the relevant facts to the issues you unilaterally raised in your domestic violence charges out on the table. And as well to see the documents in demanded in our request. So far your conduct in the course of this litigation gives us little hope we will voluntarily see any of that. We hope if you persist in interjecting these unfounded and irrelevant charges your responses will disabuse us of that notion.

Alternatively an easier way to move forward in good faith, with the least amount of stress and expense to both parties and hopefully mediate this dispute in good faith would be for you and I to consider a written stipulation that domestic abuse is not an issue in this divorce. The reason that I am suggesting this approach achieves multiple purposes.

1. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of producing psychological and medical records which at the end of the day will establish no Domestic Abuse Complaints to her medical providers. And it will save Mr. Markham the

Page-6

expense of rebutting these unfounded and irrelevant allegations.

2. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of paying her attorney to litigate irrelevant issues. There are no children here and if this matter is to proceed to a divorce it should only be about a division of money and assets. Your insertion into this divorce the claim of domestic abuse which is unsupported by anything but Mrs. Markham and her sons interested testimony is contrary to what all who know them will testify was a very happy relationship and marriage for nearly 35 years. And its a marriage where Mrs. Markham was provided from her husbands tireless work as a trial lawyer, well over a Million dollars in accounts in her sole name to and a virtually remodeled extremely valuable home in Seattle titled in her own name (as well as several more titled jointly), to provided her the freedom to live apart from Mr. Markham if she ever felt the need. I hardly think at the end of the day, the financial freedom that she has enjoyed in addition to a fine lifestyle including the annual use of and traveling to, multiple vacation homes (near her children from other relationships and marriages) will remotely support a claim to domestic abuse.

AS TO YOUR RECENT REQUEST FOR BANKACCOUNTS after we accomplish our videoinspection, I would like to hope a further amicable

Page- 7

resolution of your current concerns could be obtained by your client simply doing the work that the law obligates her to do before trying to shift this burden on to us. Repeating what we did in our discovery response the only "bank accounts" that Mr. Markham is aware of are as much or more in Mrs. Markhams custody and control than his. To be more specific (although that is unnecessary, as your client knows all this) the only "banks accounts" statements in his sole name (but hardly his sole control) are those of the First National Bank of Alaska (FNBA) Kodiak. But for the period of your request (and some substantial time previously) these statements have at Mrs. Markham's request been sent to the parties Seattle address to facilitate their payment of expenses.

In addition Mr. Markham authorized Mrs. Markham as an additional signatory on all of those accounts except his trust account. And we further believe she has online access to those accounts (that Mr. Markham also presently does not). Finally at your May 9, 2013 letters request Mr. Markham did not terminate her authority to continue to temporarily maintain the "status quo" with respect to the payment of those bills customarily paid from those accounts (and refreshed their balances when necessary to allow her to do so. Accordingly, she should have all of those statements and as you can see from our recent discovery, it is we that need to request production of them from her! If (remotely) after you've discussed this with your client (in connection with our request)

Page- 8

you feel you don't have all of these statements, please identify specifically which statements you don't have and on pre-payment of my client's estimated costs (including his and his counsels' future and past professional time for attending the discovery conference you scheduled, my October 1,2013 email, and this one (from funds in accounts in Mrs. Markham's personal name) following an appropriately noticed discovery conference we will hear your reasons why we should be securing those records from this bank when your client can just as easily?

The only other "bank account" that Mr. Markham is aware he has any "control" of is a joint account that the parties maintained at Islander Bank in Friday Harbor to enable them to pay local bills. There was only a few hundred dollars in that account when the parties separated following which Mr. Markham funded it with $2000 to allow him to be able to pay Dr. Maiuro's fee before it became clear Mrs. Markhams son Adam Logghe would arrange for delivery of his FNBA "traveling" office check book to him. Since then Mr. Markham also deposited some small refunds that have come to the parties Kodiak address into that account for convenience. And for that reason in the future (and its preprinted checks) he wishes to keep this account open for now and he's had its statements since generated forwarded from Kodiak to him in Friday Harbor. For statements prior to that time Mrs. Markham knows best where those are since she established the manner of filing them

Page- 9

but they either came to and remained in Kodiak or were sent on to Seattle. Either way Mr. Markham in Friday Harbor has no personal knowledge of their whereabouts and no convenient manner of knowing.

While we think the sums involved in that account are insignificant, if you insist on copies in his immediate possession to verify that, forward a check for $100 (again from Mrs. Markham's personal funds) to my office for his professional time and copy costs and on his return to Friday Harbor later this week, he will copy those that he has and we will produce them in due course. If on receipt of these you seek more, upon receipt of a similar check, and express directions as to their location, he will similarly request Karl Loffler in Kodiak to look for any that may be in Kodiak. Or if this proves unsuccessful he will advise and (again upon pre-payment of a reasonable sum for his time and costs) he will consider securing copies from the bank. But again this is a joint account so she has equal access to them.

On information and belief there are at least two other current "bank accounts" (and may have been others in the period you requested) with Seattle banks that your client has managed virtually exclusively and has virtual total control of. The first of these was with Bank of America but on information and belief she closed or took most of the money from that account and transferred it to a branch of Union Bank. There were also accounts at Key Bank on Ravenna and US Bank

P age-10

(Mr. Markham believes on Roosevelt) at one time. Whether she took steps to put Mr. Markham's name on those accounts he is uncertain. Suffice it to say he doesn't have custody of any the statements in Friday Harbor and if he has any control of them he's unaware of it. The same goes for the "bank statement" regarding charges for any and all safe deposit box which Mrs. Markham has maintained in the past. Since we have requested she identify and likewise produce all bank statements in our recent request we assume you will be similarly forthcoming as to these regarding any safe deposit boxes she controls in your responses to our requests?

Finally although your discovery requests didn't seek them and hence theyre not addressed in our responses, there is the matter of our pending request for the parties substantial "brokerage" accounts and which we anticipate in light of our discovery requests you might likewise serve discovery requests on us to acquire. Let us save you that effort by seeing if we can agree to mutually exchange these? So far as Mr. Markham is aware the parties each had two DA Davidson accounts (one personal and one IRA each) and one each at TD Ameritrade.

Prior to filing her petition, Mr. Markham believes Mrs. Markham had hard copies of the DA Davidson accounts coming to Seattle. But whether she had two statements being printed one of which went to Seattle or had the Kodiak statement forwarded to Seattle he's not clear. Regardless she should have all of these up

P age-11

to that point. Following service of her petition, since arriving in Kodiak in late June, Mr. Markham learned that copies of these statements were coming to Kodiak so he took possession of those that thereafter arrived and since he left Kodiak has had those that have arrived in the mail since forward these on to him.

However shortly after he left Kodiak, Mrs. Markham also had another person (without Mr. Markhams knowledge or authority) enter this house (which he owned before the parties were married, is titled in his sole name and which her April 15, 2013 affidavit acknowledgers she has no interest in) and take some cash for a rent payment on another Kodiak property (on Kashavaroff St.) which that affidavit also admits was not titled in her name and likewise has no interest in and had that mailed directly on to her! So whether when that occurred that person also forwarded her the DA Davidson statement and he has all of the DA Davidson statements for this period is unclear. However Mrs. Markham also has access to her statements for the accounts in her sole name online.

In our desire to acquire a complete copy of all of these statements going back to the inception of these account (as well as copies of her earlier brokers statements) if you will produce all of those (going back as far as Mrs. Markham has) without a demand for prepayment of costs, we will produce those recent ones that he has acquired in the same fashion. After tha t! propose any statements that are then missing

P age-12

be either printed offline by the party that controls that account or request it from DA Davidson.

Mr. Markham also has no copies of TD Ameritrade statement for that brokerage house for account in her sole name and requests all of those since she opened that account. If Mrs. Markham advises that copies of those earlier statements are also in Kodiak (and where they are located), he would likewise agree to provide copies of those without prepayment of costs if she will do likewise as to those she has in Seattle.

There is also the matter of the records of several Bank CD's and US Treasury Bond funds that were liquidated in 2008 that Mr. Markham believes are no longer active but which explain how some funds came to be in accounts in Mrs. Markham's name Those records are in Seattle and we seek she produce them.

Also there is a 401K account and a 457 account that Mr. Markham funded while working at the City of Anchorage totaling about $100K, and some stock held by ALPS (Alaska's Legal E&O carrier which have been forwarded quarterly to Seattle the records of which she has. Also her life insurance policy. He also has the records to a whole life policy begun before their marriage.

Also she has in Seattle the records pertaining to the ongoing sale of the property on Mill Bay Road that was his mothers house and some surrounding rentals to Kevin and Jerry Arndt. She also has in Seattle, the

P age-13

records of an earlier substantial sale of the commercial Straut building as well as a two Alaska liqueur licenses and two other houses (the wagon wheel houses) nearby on Larch St. in Kodiak. These properties were all left to Mr. Markham in his mothers will and the proceeds From them where thereafter deposited in separate accounts maintained in his own name.

Mrs. Markham also has in Seattle the records of an earlier sale of a house at 4001 Borland, Anchorage that Mr. Markham had before the parties married. All of the funds from its sale was likewise deposited in separate accounts maintained in his own name.

If your client thinks there is anything else weve inadvertently overlooked (and that is certainly possible) please advise.

Sincere^

AnthonyAttorney

M. Uriefor Gerald Markham

Page- 14

EXHIBIT 4

MICHAEL W. BUGN1 & ASSOCIATES, PLLCA ttorneys

M ichael W .B ugni

L aura C h risibisen C olberg

Darla J . Goodwin

M argaret Doyle F itzpatrick

J ennie L aird

KrisiynaM . L arch

CHRISe A.MYOIIE

Yvette Smith O 'C onnell

L uAnne P erry

B itaSoltan-Q urraie

Karma L. Z aike

N atalis M . B eckmann

Mr. Anthony Urie Mr. Dice Takahashi Attorneys at Law 18130 Midvale Ave. N Ste. A Shoreline, WA 98133

November 18, 2013

Re: Markham v. Markham

11300 R oosevelt Way N ortheast, S uite 300 S eattle,Washington 98125 P: 206.365.5500 F: 206.363.8067 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:

I am writing in response to the Requests for Production served on October 28, 2013. Ms. Markhams objections to said discovery are asserted below. Please note, however, that Ms. Markham will work with you in good faith to attempt to reach mutual agreement regarding the appropriate scope of, and response to, the requests.

The puipose of discovery is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent practicable. Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993). Mr. Markhams discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery that will be admissible evidence at trial. In fact, it is a poorly disguised attempt to obtain unnecessary access to the parties home over Ms. Markhams objections. That is not acceptable. Without limitation, Ms. Markham objects to the Requests for Production to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations on Ms. Markham beyond those allowed by any applicable Local Rules or governing case law. Ms. Markham responds and objects as set forth in detail below:

REQUEST NO. 1: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action. The propounded discovery purports to require Ms. Markham to conduct a search of all files in her custody or control in an attempt to locate any documents that might be responsive, and requires Ms. Markham to produce all e- mails sent to anyone over the entire course of the parlies relationship. To the extent that the request calls for Ms. Markham to produce documents located at 808 NE 59th St., Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the parties have no control or ownership rights over the property.

REQUEST NO. 2: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The criminal No Contact Order prohibits Mr. Markham

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 2

from entering Ms. Markhams home. Attempting to improperly use the discovery process to obtain entry is unacceptable. If Mr. Markham truly wants an inventory and/or appraise items in the family home, he may hire an independent appraiser. His request to require Ms. Markham to produce all tangible personal property in her custody or control for inspection, without designating any limitation as to the extent or value of such property is unreasonable.

Without waiving said objection, Ms. Markham will produce a list of all personal property to the extent that she is aware that the property has a value of $1000 or more. Alternatively, as stated above, she will cooperate with a neutral third party hired by the respondent to conduct an inventory of personal property valued at $1000 or more.

REQUEST NO. 3: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is invasive and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Furthermore, the parties have no ownership or control over real property located at 808 NE 59th Street. Ms. Markham will provide a list of vehicles in her custody or control and she will cooperate with a neutral third party hired by the respondent to inspect real property owned by the parties.

REQUEST NO. 4: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is invasive and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and is unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. Markham to produce all of the computers and their hard drives, including old or retired computers, that have ever been located at 810 NE 58th Street. The parties have no ownership or control over any computers owned by Ms. Markhams son.

REQUEST NO. 5: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome.

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will produce statements of accounts to which she has access for two years. These statements cannot be produced immediately. It is expected that these documents will be available for review by December 15, 2013, but will be produced sooner if possible.

REQUEST NO. 6-7: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the requests are harassing and invasive; they seek information relating to medical, physical, and mental health, which are privileged under various provisions of state and federal law; and they seek


information that has no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.

REQUEST NO. 8: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is harassing and invasive; it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action; and it seeks information relating to mental health, which is privileged under various provisions of state and federal law. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.

REQUEST NO. 9: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine (referred to respectively as privileged documents and privileges). Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.

REQUEST NO. 10: . Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope, is unduly burdensome and requests information which is not in Ms. Markhams possession.

Without waiving objection, documentation in Ms. Markhams possession is available for inspection at the Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC, 11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Third Floor, Seattle, WA. Please schedule an appointment.

REQUEST NO. 11: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request has no relevance to any pending action.

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a photograph of Phinney for Mr. Markham.

REQUEST NO. 12: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome.

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a list of tangible items which were personal to Mr. Markham or which have a value over $1,000 (see RFP #2) that were removed from the parties real property located in Friday Harbor, Alaska or Arizona within the past two years.

REQUEST NO. 13: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence. The discovery requests production of photos, wall art, and other personal items, without any


specificity.

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham believes she knows the items to which Jerry refers. The items have been packaged and are ready to be delivered. Please provide a time you are available in your office when Mr. Markham will not be present and Ms. Markham will have the items delivered.

REQUEST NO. 14: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. Markham to produce passwords and statements for any and all accounts which have ever been paid for out of funds held in the names of the parties.

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will disclose passwords she currently uses for access to current asset and liability accounts, as well as those paid for out of funds held by the parties within the two years preceding this action. It should be noted that Mr. Markham already has access to these passwords and accounts. He does not have permission to change the passwords or make unauthorized transfers to/from any account.

REQUEST NO. 16: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is beyond the scope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non- party. Mr. Markhams RFP seeks information with no relevance to any pending action by seeking the production of information relating to property over which the parties have no ownership rights or control.

REQUEST NO. 17: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome. Ms. Markham also objects on the ground that the request seeks materials that are obtainable from other sources, including but not limited to party discovery and/or other non-party sources. Ms. Markham is not going to be executing a waiver.

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham has already delivered to Mr. Markham 2010 - 2012; To the best of Ms. Markhams knowledge, there are no tax returns in her home.She believes Jerry kept copies in Friday Harbor and there may be older returns in Kodiak.

REQUEST NO. 18: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request has no relevance to any pending action and on the ground that the request is beyond the scope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non-party.

REQUEST NO. 19: This Request for Production does not make sense.


Ms. Markham specifically reserves the right to modify and supplement these objections and responses. Ms. Markham assumes no obligation to supplement her responses beyond those imposed by the Civil Rules, if any. By agreeing to search for documents responsive to the Requests for Production, Ms. Markham does not represent that such documents do in fact exist.

Ms. Markham has not completed her investigation into the subject matter of the action or the underlying facts, evidence or allegations. This response is made to the best of her current knowledge, information and belief. Ms. Markham makes no representation that any responsive documents exist or will be produced. Ms. Markham reserves the right to conduct additional investigation and to assert additional objections.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ms. Markham will produce responsive documents by sending copies of the same addressed to counsel. Please immediately confirm that neither Mr. Markham nor counsel on his behalf will be appearing at Ms. Markhams home. If Mr. Markham or his agents appear, it will be a violation of the criminal No Contact Order currently in effect and law enforcement will be immediately contacted.

I am out of the office between November 25 and December 9. If I do not have correspondence from you limiting the scope of discovery prior to my return, then I will be forced to seek a protective order on Ms. Markhams behalf. Please advise.

Yours truly,

Karma L. Zaike

KLZ:esr Cc: Client

EXHIBIT 5

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


In re the Marriage of: )))

TWILA MARKHAM )Petitioner, )

)and )

)GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM )

)Respondent. )

) ) )

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

PETITONERS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO RESPONDENT

Date Propounded: 1/21/2014Due Date: 2/20/2014CR 37: 2/21/2014

at 10:00 a.m.

TO: GERANLD WAYNE MARKHAM, Respondent;

AND TO: PHILIP C. TSAI and ANTHONY M. URIE, his attorneys:

Interrogatories. In accordance with Rule 33 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the following:

Answer each of the following interrogatories separately and fully, in writing, under oath, unless there be an objection to an interrogatory, in which case state the reason for the objection. The answers and objections, if any, to interrogatories must be served upon the undersigned attorney within 30 days after the service of these interrogatories as provided in Civil Rule 33. The following interrogatories are intended to be continuing in nature, and any information which may be discovered by you subsequent to the service and filing of your

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION - Page 1 of 35

LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

answers should be brought to the attention of the inquiring party, through supplemental answers, within a reasonable time following discovery.

Requests for Production of Documents: In accordance with Rule 34 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court, State of Washington, please do the following:

Produce and permit inspection and copying of the requested documents, records and materials pursuant with Civil Rule 34. The designated documents shall include writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated if necessary or otherwise reduced through detection devises into reasonably usable form and shall be produced and made available for inspection and duplication by the undersigned or someone acting on his behalf at 11300 Roosevelt Way N.E., Third Floor, Seattle, Washington 98125, 30 days from receipt hereof.

The party upon whom these requests for production are served shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of this request, except that a Respondent may serve a response within 40 days after the service of the Petition upon that party. The response shall state with respect to each item or category that inspection (or related activities) will be performed as requested, or if the request is objected to, the reason for such objection. If objection is made to part of an item or category, that particular part shall be specified in the objection. The party submitting this request may move for an Order under Civil Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection or related activities as requested.

DEFINITIONS

As used in these interrogatories, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:

(a) Person. The term person is meant to include any individual and any businessentity.

(b) Document. The term document is meant to include, without limiting its generality, contracts, agreements, correspondence, telegrams, reports, records, schedules, diaries, invoices, purchase orders, charts, notes, estimates, summaries, inventories, minutes of meetings and memoranda regarding conferences or telephone conversations, and any and all other written, printed, or typed matters of whatsoever kind or description. If any documents are not identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of the privilege and the number of documents that are not identified.

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR LAW OFFICES____________________PRODUCTION - Page 2 of 35 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(c) Identify. As used in these interrogatories, the term identify used in reference to an individual person means to state his full name, present or last known address and telephone number, his present or last known position and business affiliation, and his position and business affiliation at the time in question. Identify when used in reference to a document means to state the date and authority, type of document fe.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, etc.) or other appropriate means of identifying it, and its present location or custodian. If any such document was but is no longer in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it.

NOTICE OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

This discovery request has been submitted in the Superior Court pursuant to Local Rule 37 (e). Please take note of the following:

If the Interrogatories set forth herein are not fully answered or documents produced, then in that event, it shall be necessary to have a conference of counsel or with the answering party if not represented by counsel pursuant to Superior Court Local Rule 37 (e).

Please be advised that a conference is hereby scheduled for February 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC, for the purposes of meeting and conferring with you as to why you have objected to or failed to answer the Interrogatories set forth herein.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. GENERAL.......................................................................................................................3II. EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS.............................................................................. 6III. PROPERTY AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION....................................................13IV. MISCELLANEOUS..................................................................................................... 29V. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS............................................... 30

INTERROGATORIES

I. GENERAL

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state your:



12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a. Full name; andb. Social security number.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state the date and place of your birth.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state your present street address.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: How long have you resided at that address?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state the name and relationship to you of each person residing with you at your present residence. With respect to each person listed, please state the following:

a. Age of each individual;b. Occupation of each individual;c. Monthly gross income of each individual;d. The financial arrangement for any shared expenses; ande. First date of shared residence with each individual.

ANSWER:


LAW OFFICES _______________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INTERROGATORY NO.6: Please state the date and place of your marriage to your present spouse.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NQ.7: Prior to your marriage to your current spouse, did you live with your spouse?______ Yes _____ No. If yes, please state:

a. Beginning and ending dates when you lived together;b. Location of any and all shared residences; andc. Arrangements for sharing of expenses.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.8: Have you ever been married to anyone other than your current spouse?_____Y es_____ No. If Yes, please state:

a. Name of each prior spouse;b. Last known address of each prior spouse;c. Date and location of each prior marriage;d. Date and means of termination of each prior marriage; ande. Court and cause number of prior decreed of dissolution of marriage or divorce.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NQ.9: Please state in detail your educational background together with any specialized or vocational training which you have received during your life.

ANSWER:


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

II. EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state whether you are presently employed (he. employment, refers to any position you hold for which you receive compensation, including salaried or hourly compensation, contract work, self-employment through a sole proprietorship or partnership, or any other position for which you perform work in exchange for any sort of compensation).

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If you are presently employed, please state the following:

a. The name and address of your present employer;b. The date you commenced employment;c. Your job title position;d. The description of your work or duties;e. The name, address and position of your immediate supervisor; andf. Your pay period (that is, whether you are paid monthly, weekly, every two weeks,

or twice per month).

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please state whether you are compensated on the basis of a salary, an hourly wage or other basis. If other basis, please describe in detail how your earnings are determined.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to your earnings from your present employment, please state the following:

a. Your gross earnings from any employment source per month during each month in the past twelve (12) month period providing distinct amounts for each of those


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael w . Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

twelve (12) months {Note: This question must he answered even if you have provided income tax returns);

b. The number of hours per week that you normally work at the present time; andc. The date or dates on which you receive your pay checks;

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do you own any interest in a corporation, business or other enterprise? If so, please state:

a. The name of the corporation, business or enterprise;b. The full and exact nature of your interest;c. The date of acquisition of such interest;d. Identify all other shareholders or other owners of each controlled business;e. Names, addresses and titles of officers and directors of said corporation; andf. Name and address of corporate accountant and attorneys.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Are you an officer or director of any coiporation? If so, please state the name of the corporation, the date you acquired the position, and the present term of the position.

ANSWER:

in ter r o g a to ries a nd req u ests fo rPRODUCTION - Page 7 of 35


12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state the number of hours that you have worked and your total gross earnings for each month during the past year. If you have worked, but not been paid by the hour, please state the number of hours worked and the amount you expect to be paid or have requested to be paid.

ANSWER:

Month Hours Earnings1. $2. $3. $4. $5. $6. $7. $8. $9. $10. $11. $12. $

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state the amount deducted from your gross salary per pay period for each of the following at the present time:

a. Federal Income Tax $b. Social Security $c. Retirement Contributions $d. Union Dues or Assessments $e. Credit Union Payments $f. Charitable Contributions $g. Savings Plans (including Savings Bonds) $h, Profit Sharing $i. Stock Purchase $j- Wage Assignment $k. Other (specify) $

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state your present monthly net income after taking into account the above-indicated deductions from gross income:

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR LAW OFFICES____________________PRODUCTION - Page 8 of 35 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC


12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please state whether you have engaged in any part-time employment in addition to your regular occupation during the past year.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the following:

a. The names and addresses of each employer for whom you have worked;b. The type of work performed;c. The rate of pay received for your services;d. Average gross monthly and net monthly income from such employment;e. The total number of hours or dates you were so employed during the past six (6)

months; andf. Whether you are still engaged in such part-time employment.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please list and describe your present employment benefits, which fall into the following categories:

a. Life Insurance:i. Name of Insurer: ______________________________

ii. Face amount of policy: $.iii. Amount of premiums or payments

made by you per month: $.iv. Beneficiaries for each policy: _____________ _____

b. Hospital, medical and dental insurance: i. Type of insurance:


LAW OFFICES____________________M ichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ii. Name of insurer:

iii. Amount of monthly premiums: $.iv. Names of dependents covered: ________________

INTERROGATORY NO. 22: What charge is imposed by your employer or insurance company for medical coverage for each member of your family? Please identify the amounts paid by your employer and the amounts paid by you for each of the following:

ANSWER:

Medical DentalYourself:Spouse:Any Other Dependent:

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: What other types of insurance coverage or benefits are in effect for your family and/or other dependents (such as insurance available from your spouse or your spouses employer)? Describe the nature of this coverage, the cost per person, and identify what portion (if any) is paid by the insureds employer.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With regard to any hospital, medical, dental and vision insurance benefits that you receive or have r

16 Twila Markham v Gerald Markham PET MOT Compel Discovery 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Documents

Transcript of 16 Twila Markham v Gerald Markham PET MOT Compel Discovery 13-3-08383-7 SEA