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

13579

11131517192123252729313335373941434547495153555759616365676971~~73757779

FILED14 APR 02 AM 9:20

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLE

' E-FILEDCASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

)) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA)) RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ) DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR ) ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SANCTIONS ) FOR FAILURE TO ABIDE BY CR 26(i)) REGARDING A DISCOVERY ) CONFERENCE )))

COMES NOW, the Respondent, Gerald Markham, appearing by and through his attorney of

record, Philip C. Tsai of TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC, and hereby submits this Response to

the Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions for Failure to

Abide by CR 26(i) Regarding a Discovery Conference.1

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

1. The Respondent, Gerald Markham, respectfully asks the Court to deny the Motion

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

In re the marriage of:

TWILA MARKHAM

Petitioner,

and

GERALD MARKHAM

Respondent.

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

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPELANSWERS TO DISCOVERYPage 1

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLCATTORNEYS AT LAW

2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560 SEATTLE, WA 98121

206-7 2 8 -8 0 0 0

Q original

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

complied with the discovery requests provided by Petitioner. Respondent continues to provide

supplemental Requests for Production of Documents to the Petitioner to the best of his ability

given the substantial amount of documentation spanning this 34 year marriage and over 10

million dollar estate.

2. Respondent also asks the Court to deny Petitioner’s Motion to Compel as she has

not complied with CR 26(i) regarding holding a discovery conference after she received

Respondent’s Answers to Wife’s Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

Documents provided on March 10, 2014.2 3 Therefore, Respondent, for the first time is reviewing

Petitioner’s claimed deficiencies to her discovery in the instant motion. Respondent contends

that Petitioner is mandated pursuant to CR 26(i) to discovery conference after receiving

Respondent’s Responses to Wife’s Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

Documents instead of just filing her motion.

3. Respondent asks the court to allow for oral argument on this issue give the

complexity of the discovery issues in this case.

2 Respondent further supplemented his answers to the Requests for Production of Documents providing a plethora of documents to the Petitioner in response to her requests on March 28, 2014 and April 2,2014.

3 Petitioner also comes to court without having complied with Jerry’s discovery requests as she has hot provided all of the documents located in the Seattle residence which was the subject o f Respondent’s Motion to Compel filed on January 21, 2014.




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This matter involves the dissolution of a 33 year marriage and an estate valued at over 10

million dollars. The Respondent, Gerald Markham (hereinafter “Jerry”) and the Petitioner,

Twila Markham (hereinafter, “Twila”) were married on July 6, 1980.4 They have been married

for 33 years. They do not have any children of their marriage. Both parties have adult children

which were not bom of this marriage. Gerald is an attorney licensed to practice in Alaska.

Twila has her Bachelor’s Degree in psychology. Gerald is 66 years old. Twila is 65 years old.

Twila’s Failure to Comply with Jerry’s Discovery Requests

On October 28, 2014, Jerry issued Requests for Production of Documents to Twila. See

Exhibit A, Requests for Production of Documents. Jerry knew he would be at a substantial

disadvantage in this proceeding because Twila had possession of the Seattle residence where the

majority of the documents spanning the parties 33 year marriage were located. Jerry’s Requests

for Production were broad because it would be impossible to attempt to list all of the documents

in the Seattle residence that would be relevant to the separate property tracing due to the

inheritance he received from his mother. Jerry has significant separate property claims not the

least of which arise from a 1988 inheritance from his mother of at least 13 separate parcels of

real property. Many of those properties were developed and virtually free and clear of debt that

was (undervalued on the basis of low Borough tax appraisals) for Federal Estate Tax purposes at

over $1 Million that estate Jerry operated through a professional property manager earning

4 For purposes of this response, references to “Jerry" and “Twila” are also intended to be through their counsel.




2 0 6-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

further substantial rents (separate from his law practice) and which over the later years of the

parties marriage he judiciously sold. This included a large commercial two story office building

in Kodiak, Alaska. This Commercial Building alone sold in 2004 for over $1 Million. This was

in addition to the sale of stock in a closely held corporation the owned his Mother’s profitable

bar and liquor store and several other parcels with residences that both proceeded that sale and

followed it approaching nearly $2 million in total sales exclusive of the property that his mother

left him in 1988 that he still owns in his separate name.

The documents that establish the separate property nature of Jerry’s estate were at the

time of their separation largely located in a home the parties maintained in Seattle (in addition to

homes in Kodiak, Anchorage, Friday Harbor and Green Valley, AZ) in the several filing cabinets

where he kept his records together with the parties’ records pertaining to property held in their

parties joint names acquired over the course of their marriage.5

Upon Jerry’s insistence, on January 8, 2014, both counsel had a CR 26(i) conference to

discuss Twila’s objections to Jerry’s Requests for Production of Documents. Of particular

importance was Jerry’s ability to review the documents in their original state as he had organized

them so he would be familiar with their contents. Therefore, during that CR 26(i) conference,

Twila’s attorney, Ms. Zaike agreed that a neutral third party would be designated to remove the

5 Ms. Zaike’s representation that the October 30, 2013 letter from Jerry’s prior counsel, Mr. Urie, evidences a refused to participate in a discovery conference or to provide bank statements is belied by the letter itself. All the Court needs to do is read the letter to see that Jerry was appropriately responding to the discovery issues at that time. Further, the January 8, 2014 discovery conference was requested by Jerry regarding Twila’s failure to provide discovery as Jerry had already responded to Ms. Zaike’s first discovery requests. See Exhibit B, Email from Anthony Urie.




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

file cabinets from the residence to be taken to a neutral location so Jerry could review and copy

them. On January 13, 2014, undersigned counsel sent Ms. Zaike an email as follows:

In our conference call last Wednesday, January 8,2014, we agreed that a neutral third party would be agreed upon to remove the records subject to Mr. Markham’s discovery requests from the Seattle residence where your client resides in their normal and regular state for the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. Markham proposes Christ Pardisio for this purpose. Please confirm this is an agreeable third party so we can schedule a date as soon as possible. Thank you.

See Exhibit C, Email from Counsel.

Ms. Zaike failed to identify a neutral third party and also failed to produce the documents

consistent with the agreement. Therefore, on Wednesday, January 15, 2014, undersigned

counsel sent another email to Ms. Zaike again as follows:

Karma,

Can you please respond to the below. Thank you.

See Exhibit D, Email from Counsel.

Ms. Zaike failed to identify a neutral third party to remove the documents from the

Seattle residence so Jerry could inspect and copy them. Therefore, on January 21, 2014, Jerry

filed a Motion to Compel Twila to comply with his discovery requests.6 See Exhibit E, Motion

to Compel.

In the interim between when Jerry filed his motion and the Court made an initial ruling

on the motion, Ms. Zaike agreed to work more cooperatively regarding discovery. On February

6 In response to Jerry’s motion, Ms. Zaike filed a Motion for Protective Order and for Order Shortening Time responding to Jerry’s motion.




206-728-8000

1oJ579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

19, 2014, undersigned counsel sent an email to the Court advising that he and Ms. Zaike had

reached an agreement and wanted to withdraw the motions that had been filed. Specifically, a

part of the agreement stated:

Both parties’ motions to compel and for protective order are temporarily withdrawn to allow the parties to work together and develop a discovery plan to move forward with discovery. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, either party may renew his/her motion at a later date.

See Exhibit F, Stipulated Order.

Unbeknownst to the parties, the Court had already entered an Order on February 19, 2014

on both Jerry and Twila’s motions. See Exhibit G, Orders entered with the Court. Therefore,

the parties stipulated to vacate the Orders entered on February 19, 2014 and to enter the

agreement to work together and develop a discovery plan to move forward with discovery. See

Exhibit H, Orders Vacating and Stipulated Order.

Part of the agreement to work together more cooperatively was to allow Jerry to inspect

and copy the records from the Seattle residence. Therefore, on Wednesday, February 12, 2014,

Jerry was scheduled to go to Ms. Zaike’s office to review and mark the documents for copying.

However, for unknown reasons, Ms. Zaike canceled this meeting at the last minute claiming that

she no longer would allow the inspection to occur. See Exhibit I, Email from Counsel. This




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

bad faith gamesmanship on Ms. Zaike’s part was only the beginning regarding the inspection and

copying of the documents.7

Therefore, the meeting had to be rescheduled of Friday, February 14, 2014. When Jerry

began inspecting the documents, he could immediately see that they were not in their original

state as in the file cabinets but had been gone through by someone (presumably Twila and her

counsel), and they were incomplete. Ms. Zaike also supervised the inspection of the documents

and in an intimidating fashion and at one point, accused Jerry of intentionally mixing up the

documents. Upon inspection, Jerry realized that Ms. Zaike had only supplied select documents

from one of the filing cabinets. However, Jerry did the best that he could regarding marking

them for the purpose of having them copied. Also, Jerry’s counsel specifically advised Ms.

Zaike that the documents were incomplete and requested that Twila also provide the files from

the other filing cabinet located in the Seattle residence.

On February 19, 2014, undersigned counsel made arrangements for Sound Legal Copy to

copy the documents that Jerry spent hours reviewing and marking. However, Twila’s counsel

then sent an email stating as follows:

7 Jerry takes substantial issue with Ms. Zaike’s contention that he is engaging in “bad faith gamesmanship”. Jerry is a successful attorney and has been upstanding member o f the Alaska Bar for the past 42 years beginning his career as a Assistant Attorney General for the state o f Alaska in 1972-1776 and then after 36 successful years practicing maritime injury law, returned to public service to vest his retirement as a Senior Municipal Prosecutor for the City of Anchorage in 2003-04. He has conducted himself with professionalism and integrity throughout this proceeding.




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Phil,

When asked, there was no confirmation that the files needed to be copied, so they are no longer available. Please let me know what files Jerry wants from the list he made and the files will be made available.

Thanks,Karma

See Exhibit J, Email from counsel.

Undersigned counsel was shocked that Ms. Zaike would contend that the files were no

longer available for copying. After substantial delay, Ms. Zaike eventually allowed Jerry’s copy

service to make copies of the documents he reviewed and marked. However, despite the fact that

counsel had agreed to work more cooperatively regarding discovery, as the Court can see, Ms.

Zaike continued to play games regarding: (1) the date for inspection of the documents; and (2)

then her claim that the documents were no longer available for copying when asked by Jerry’s

counsel. Twila and her counsel still have not provided the other filing cabinets in the Seattle

residence for inspection and copying despite Jerry’s requests to receive those additional

documents. Specifically, Jerry’s counsel sent a request for the additional documents on March

21, 2014 (three days prior to Twila filing the instant motion) as follows:

Next, in connection with the original documentation and additional discovery requested in my in my settlement letter (the Mill Bay Road condemnation file, the 4001 Borland Drive sale file and all of the files containing all prior year Federal Tax Returns in the 810 58th Street, Seattle residence together with their supporting work papers) I am going to add to the list of specific needed documentation the parties "estate planning" file that needs to be produced. Jerry reports it was also in his office in the tall standup file cabinet in his "old" (spare bedroom) office. But since it was not in what you have represented was that entire file cabinet (which he now




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

believes was incompletely produced as shown by the conspicuous the omission of numerous years of files containing the parties "Seattle copy" of their joint tax returns together with their work papers). Accordingly, he asks that a search be made of both his entire "old" and "new" office area (in what was formerly the garage) as well as in the furnace room and any other possible location for this and the other files mentioned in his settlement letter that he's indicated he needs to both fairly document his settlement proposal and if necessary his case.

See Exhibit K, Email from Counsel.

Ms. Zaike has not responded to Jerry’s additional request for documentation as

enumerated in the March 21, 2014 email and instead, unilaterally filed the instant motion with

the Court.

Twila’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

Twila send her second set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

to Jerry on or about January 21, 2014. Jerry worked to locate the substantial number of

responsive documents located in the remaining four of the five residences (described above) that

he was not precluded from entering where documents are located.

On February 10, 2014, prior to the date that the discovery answers were even due,

Twila’s counsel aggressively began demanding to know whether they would be produced on

time and attempted to schedule a premature discovery conference. Jerry’s counsel responded by

letting Twila’s counseTknow they were working on the responses (which he was intent on

obtaining in connection with a trip Jerry was making to argue before Alaska’s Supreme Court on

February 18, 2014) but that pursuant to his calculation, they were not due until February 24,

2014. See Exhibit L, Email from Counsel. Further, undersigned counsel provided a letter to




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Twila’s counsel on February 20, 2014 as a partial response and objection to the discovery

requests. See Exhibit M, Letter to Counsel.

The weekend of February 21, 2014, following he’s Alaska Supreme Court argument in

Anchorage, Jerry encountered travel problems getting to Kodiak, Alaska due to high winds that

had grounded all airplanes. Undersigned counsel in good faith notified Twila’s counsel of the

problem in an email dated February 24, 2014. See Exhibit N, email to counsel. Therefore,

there was a minor delay in providing the answers to the discovery requests until Jerry returned to

Seattle with the documents. Also, the parties had engaged in some settlement negotiations and

therefore, the discovery was placed on hold for a period of time. See Exhibit O, Email from

Counsel indicating a moratorium on discovery.

On March 3, 2014, in response to the request for the most recent account statements,o

Jerry produced the following documents to Twila’s attorney:

1. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 5/1/13-5/31/132. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 9/1/13-9/30/133. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 10/1/13-10/31/134. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 11/1/13-11/30/135. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 12/1/13-12/31/136. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 1/1/14-1/31/147. Ameritrade Account (#4823) 2013 Year-End Statement (Tax Information)8. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, March 20139. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, October 201310. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary of Accounts, November 201311. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, January 2014 8

8 These accounts statements were provided to Twila’s counsel via email and therefore, she could have printed them out in any order that she chose. Further, as can be seen from the above list of statements, the contention that Jerry has not provided “any current financial documents for 2014...” is patently false.




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

12. D.A. Davidson Account (#6360) 4/1/13-4/30/1313. D.A. Davidson Account (#8425) 1/1/14-1/31/1414. D.A. Davidson Account (#6360) 1/1/14-1/31/1415. D.A. Davidson Consolidated Summary ofAccounts, December 2013

On March 10, 2014, Jerry provided Twila with his written responses to the

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. See Exhibit P, Email to Counsel.

Included in the answers were the references to the Requests for Production of Documents and

Jerry had provided a plethora of documents for inspection at his counsel’s office. Jerry initially

dropped off the documents at his counsel’s office so that Twila could inspect and copy them.

However when after a substantial period of time in which Twila’s counsel delayed a physical

inspection but sought to have them copied, to accommodate opposing counsel he later picked up

the documents had them scanned so a soft copy could be provided to Twila’s counsel.

Undersigned counsel advised Twila’s counsel of this in an email dated March 24, 2014. See

Exhibit Q, email from counsel.

On March 25, 2014, in response to the March 24, 2014 email, Twila’s counsel’s office

sent an email indicating:

We would like to have these documents by the end of the week. Please let me know when they can be picked up for copying or when you expect to send soft copies. Thank you (Emphasis added).

See Exhibit R, Email from Counsel.

Without waiting until the “end of the week” as was indicated in the March 25, 2014

email, Twila’s counsel then filed the instant motion with the Court! She did not send a letter in




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

which she claimed there were deficiencies in the discovery responses, nor did she wait for Jerry’s

counsel to provide the soft copies of the files that Twila’s attorney specifically requested in her

Requests for Production of Documents (and proceeding email EX Q).

On March 28, 2014 (Friday of the week requested by counsel), undersigned counsel

provided Supplemental Responses to the Requests for Production of Documents to Twila’s

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

Twila’s counsel in direct response to her Requests for Production of Documents.9 See Exhibit

S, List of Documents provided to Ms. Zaike.

Undersigned counsel also sent Ms. Zaike an email asking her to strike her motion for

failure to abide by CR 26(i). See Exhibit T, email to Ms. Zaike. Despite undersigned

counsel’s email, Ms. Zaike refused to strike her motion causing Jerry to incur additional and

unnecessary attorney’s fees.10 One Monday March 31, 2013 Jerry’s counsel additionally

forwarded to Twila’s counsel a small handful of the parties early year tax returns (1977-80) that

were scanned but not carried by the server to the correct address.

Alleged Deficiencies in Interrogatory Answers

9 Jerry is providing the Court and Ms. Zaike with a CD with his Answers to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production including the 3565 pages o f documents he provided to Ms. Zaike as reflected on Exhibit S attached to this Motion and the Second Supplemental Answers to Requests for Production o f Documents with his working papers but not filing those documents with the Court.

10 Despite Jerry providing an additional 3565 pages o f discovery to Ms. Zaike on March 28,2014, she claimed in her responsive email that “the CD contained all o f the out o f date documents you previously sent. They were not new documents. ” Ms. Zaike must not have actually read the documents provided on the CD. Otherwise, she would not have made that false statement.




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

In response to Ms. Zaike’s contention that Jerry did not comply with specific

Interrogatories, CR 33(c) provides authority for the answer to reference specific documents

which contain the information requested in the Interrogatory. CR 33(c) states:

Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit or inspection of such business records, or from a compilation, abstract or summary based thereon, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries. A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.

With CR 33(c) in mind, Jerry responds to the specific interrogatories identified in the

motion as follows:

Interrogatory No. 22. Jerry specifically referenced the Alaska PERS retirement check which has all of the deductions for dental, optical and audio and the amounts that were paid for Medicare part B. Twila is in possession of the Alaska PERS information which was contained in the Seattle residence and therefore, is in possession of the information she seeks.

Interrogatory 26. Jerry specifically answered all of the sub parts of this Interrogatory and referenced the PERS 100-Rs that were in the Seattle residence where Twila resides. He further referenced the parties income tax returns which are also in Twila’s possession at the Seattle residence. The income tax returns have the information requested in this interrogatory (see 1040 line 16a) requesting the amounts of pension, retirement, unemployment compensation and social security Jerry specifically referenced

Interrogatory No. 28. Regarding Jerry’s income, he is mostly retired at this time and did not receive any income from employment for the entire 2013 tax year. Jerry referenced his prior income tax returns which are in Twila’s possession at the Seattle residence. He




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

answered all of the sub parts to this interrogatory by referencing the tax documents reflecting his income.

Interrogatory No. 32. Regarding his Alaska PERS retirement, Jerry specifically referenced the PERS documents, which are in Twila’s possession at the Seattle residence and also offered to provide a release of information if one was provided. Ms. Zaike did not provide the release for Jerry to sign until 2 days after she filed the instant motion with the Court! Jerry has immediately since signed the release and provided it to Ms. Zaike.

Interrogatory No. 37. Contrary to Ms. Zaike’s contention, Jerry has complied with this answer by referencing the account statements provided on March 10, 2014 and March 28, 2014. Further, Ms. Zaike has all of the current account statements along with the balances as she provided a spreadsheet with the accounts listed with the current balances with a settlement proposal.11 It is disingenuous of her to claim she does not have this information when she clearly has all of the documents in the Seattle residence containing the account statements and balances.

Interrogatory No. 38. Contrary to Ms. Zaike’s contention, Jerry specifically answered this Interrogatory regarding any withdrawals over $1,000 by referencing the bank statements he provided on March 10, 2014 and March 28, 2014. Further, he also specifically advised if the bank statements were not revealing enough regarding the expenditure, he would answer any specific question regarding the transaction.

Interrogatory No. 39. Jerry specifically disclosed all of his accounts including the AK PERS Retirement plan, Stock in ALPS E&O Mutual Insurance company, College Life policy and the two retirement accounts (40 IK and 457) from the Municipality of Anchorage as part of his answer to this Interrogatory. He further indicated he would update all of those identified accounts with statements to the extent that Twila does not already have them at the Seattle residence.

Interrogatory No. 44 and 46. Jerry specifically references the account statements which have been provided to Ms. Zaike as part of the discovery responses. He also objected in that it would be impossible to list out separately all of the stock purchases and sales since the time of the marriage (33 years). He specifically answered as follows: “Objection unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Without waiving said objection, I’ve purchased what I’d estimate were thousands of securities over the course of our marriage and Petitioner had access to many of the 11

11 Jerry is in no way disclosing what the proposal was pursuant to ER 408 but the Court can be advised that Ms. Zaike has the information necessary to have formulated the proposal.




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

brokerage statements pertaining to these and turned them over to Respondent for storage in Friday Harbor. This information is available through the various brokerage firms identified in those files but I could not list all of the purchases in this answer.

Interrogatory No. 53. As indicated in the statement of facts above, there have been numerous real property purchases and sales during this 33 year marriage. Jerry provided substantial documents that evidence the purchase and sale of this real property in his disclosure made on March 28, 2014 which include escrow documents and the income tax returns spanning from 1980 to the present which show the capital gains taxes associated with the real property. Twila is very aware of all of the current real estate owned by the parties as the deeds and other documents evidencing the real estate transactions are located in the Seattle residence where she resides.

Interrogatory No. 55. As indicated in answer to Interrogatory No. 53, Jerry contends that the real property documents which would be necessary to answer this interrogatory are located in the Seattle residence in which Twila is in possession. It would be impossible to answer this question without having those documents. Jerry has asked for Twila to provide those documents but they have not been forthcoming from Ms. Zaike.

Interrogatory No. 56. Mr. Markham’s expenses have been in flux throughout this proceeding because he no longer is residing in the Seattle residence. He has been staying at the Friday Harbor residence but all of his expenses are put on a credit card and paid from the joint account. That is why he referenced the joint account regarding the expenses that he is currently incurring. There are no mortgages on any of the real estate owned by the parties and therefore, all his expenses are non fixed living expenses at this time.

Interrogatory No. 58. Contrary to Ms. Zaike’s contention, Jerry specifically indicated that his income is reflected on the financial statements and in the income tax returns provided with the answers. Jerry has not earned any income from work in 2013. All his historical income is reported and reflected on the income tax returns, which Twila has possession in the Seattle residence.

Interrogatory No. 59. Jerry specifically answered this question to the best of his ability regarding his separate property. Twila is well aware that Jerry inherited substantial separate property when his mother passed away. Jerry’s answer states, “Objection unduly burdensome and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving said objection, except insofar as Petitioner owned an interest in cannon Beach Oregon house in her own name prior to the parties marriage, received a small inheritance from her mother in




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Oregon, or given her by A1 Olsen, all real and personal property in Respondent’s sole name, all property in the parties joint names, and all property in Petitioner’s sole name was either acquired by Respondent in Alaska prior to the parties marriage, inherited from or given him by Respondent’s mother in Alaska, given him by A1 Olsen or Von Straut or purchased with funds earned by Respondent in Alaska while both parties were living and domiciled in Alaska and hence not “community property” under the laws of Washington but separate property the laws of Alaska. To the extent that the parties real property located in Washington is by law community property then all of their property in Washington is community property.

Interrogatory No. 64. Jerry answered this question by answering, no, he has not disposed of any property by sale or gift having a value of greater than $1,000. Jerry further offered that any funds that he spent beyond $1,000 would be reflected in the bank and investment account statements, which Twila has control and possession in the Seattle residence.

Interrogatory No. 70. The College Life Policies referenced to this Interrogatory were offered for inspection in his counsel’s office but Twila’s counsel did not chose to come and inspect any of these documents. They are again being offered to Ms. Zaike along with this Response.

Interrogatory No. 74. Jerry answered this question by referencing the difficulty in providing a response due to the location of the documents in the Seattle residence as well as the location of the vehicles. Specifically, Jerry answered as follows, “Objection, unduly burdensome and not answerable in the absence of my files all in petitioner’s possession and access to all the vehicles which are in locations too remote from Respondent presently. As to Tf b. no. d. purchase g. none i. 810 NE 58th except the Jaguar which Respondent has possession. As he travels to their location he will try to note the mileage.”

Request for Production No. 4: Jerry’s Supplemental Answers to the Requests For Production of Documents provided on March 28, 2014 were in direct response to this Interrogatory. (See list of additional documents which support the separate property nature of Jerry’s estate). However, Ms. Zaike filed this motion 2 days prior to the “weeks end” deadline that she put on receiving the soft copy of the documents being produced.

Request for Production No. 5. As indicated in answer to Request for Production No. 5, Jerry’s Supplemental Answers to the Requests For Production of Documents provided on March 28, 2014 were in direct response to this Interrogatory. (See Exhibit R, list of additional documents which support the separate property nature of Jerry’s estate).


TSAI LAW COMPANY. PLLCATTORNEYS AT LAW


206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

However, Ms. Zaike filed this motion 2 days prior to the “weeks end” deadline that she put on receiving the soft copy of the documents being produced. Undersigned counsel sent an email to Ms. Zaike’s office dated March 24, 2014 in which he offered to provide soft copies of the documents which were sent on March 28, 2014.

Request for Production No. 7. Jerry is providing additional documents as a Supplemental Answer to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and would have done so voluntarily without the need for Ms. Zaike filing the instant motion.

Request for Production No. 9. As the Court can see from the Supplemental Answers to the Requests for Production of Documents provided on March 28, 2014, and Second Supplemental Answers to Requests for Production of Documents, Jerry already supplemented this answer twice after this motion was filed. However, this Request for Production asked for 12 months of statements and Jerry provided statements including a year end statement for his Ameritrade and DA Davidson Account. If Ms. Zaike would have complied with CR 26(11 and identified these documents, this motion would not have been necessary. Jerry should be awarded his attorney’s fees and costs associated with having to file this response and for Ms. Zaike’s failure to comply with the rules regarding a Motion to Compel.

Petitioner’s Counsel’s Failure to Comply with CR 26(il

As can be seen from the above, Twila’s counsel is not acting in good faith regarding

discovery issues. CR 26(i) specifically provides:

The court will not entertain any motion or objection with respect to rules 26 through 37 unless counsel have conferred with respect to the motion or objection. Counsel for the moving or objecting party shall arrange for a mutually convenient conference in person or by telephone. ...Any motion seeking an order to compel discovery or obtain protection shall include counsel’s certification that the conference requirements of this rule have been met.

Twila’s counsel did not even attempt to schedule a discovery conference subsequent to

entry of the Agreed and Stipulated Order in which she agreed to “work together and develop a

discovery plan to move forward with discovery.” There has been no attempt to schedule a




206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

discovery conference after she received Jerry’s Answers to the 2nd set of discovery responses.

The first time that Jerry knew Twila was contending that there were deficiencies in the answers

was when he received her motion. Twila’s counsel has violated the spirit and letter of the

Stipulated Order and failed to comply with the discovery rules.

Jerry has never claimed he would not provide additional responses and/or answers to

Twila’s discovery requests and to the contrary, has attempted to provide responses to all of

Twila’s discovery requests. If Twila’s counsel believed that there were deficiencies in the

answers, CR 26(i) mandates that she raise those issues prior to filing a motion with the court.

Instead, Ms. Zaike has run rough shot over the rules and filed this motion with the Court causing

Jerry to incur additional and unnecessary attorney’s fees.

CONCLUSION

Jerry asks that the Court deny the Motion to Compel and to award him attorney’s fees

and sanctions for having to respond thereto. Jerry has provided answers to Ms. Zaike’s Second

Requests for Production of Documents on March 3, 2014, Answers to her Interrogatories on

March 10, 2014, Supplemental Answers to her Requests for Production on March 28, 2014 and

Second Supplemental Answers to her Requests for Production of Documents on April 2, 2014.

Respectfully submitted this 4? -°^day of April, 2014 by:


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC

C NPhilip C. Tsai, WSBA #27632 Attorney for Respondent



206-728-8000

Exhibit A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

14

1 5

1 6

17

1 8

1 9

20

21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

In re the Marriage of ))

TWILA MARKHAM ) No. 13-3-08383-7 SEAPetitioner )

)) RESPONDENT’S 1ST REQUESTS ) FOR PRODUCTION ))))

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM )))

______________________Respondent )

TO: TWILA MARKHAM Petitioner AND TO: MICHAEL W. BUGNI and associates her attorneys

22

2 3

COMES NOW RESPONDENT GERALD MARKHAM BY COUNSEL PURSUANT TO ARCP 34

2 4

2 5

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

2 6

27

2 8

2 9

Produce and pennit video inspection and copying of the requested documents, records and materials pursuant with Civil Rule 34. The designated documents shall include writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records and other data compilations from which infonnation can be obtained, translated if necessary or

Respondent’s First Requests for production 1.Law Offices o f A nthony M. Urie, PLLC

18130 Midvale Ave N Ste A Shoreline, WA 98133-4536

(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

27

28

29

otherwise reduced through detection devises into reasonably usable form and shall be produced and made available for inspection and duplication by the undersigned or someone acting on his behalf at 810 NE 58th, Seattle WA 30 days from receipt hereof.

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

DEFINITIONS

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

(a) Person. The term "person" is meant to include any individual and any business entity.(b) Document. The term "document" is meant to include, without limiting its generality, contracts, agreements, correspondence, telegrams, reports, records, schedules, diaries, invoices, purchase orders, charts, notes, estimates, summaries, inventories, minutes of meetings and memoranda regarding conferences or telephone conversations, and any and all other written, printed, or typed matters of whatsoever kind or description. If any documents are not identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of the privilege and the number of documents that are not identified.(c) Electronic Communications. The tem "electronic communications" is meantto include, without limiting its generality, e-mails, text messages, voice mails or any other fonn of electronic communication. If any such communications are not identified because of any claimed privilege, state the nature of the privilege, the nature and subject of the communications that are not identified(d) Identify. As used in these requests for production, the tenn "identify" used in referenceto an individual person means to state his full name, present or last known address and telephone number, his present or last known position and business affiliation, and his position and business affiliation at the time in question. "Identify" when used in reference to a document means to state the date and authority, type of document (letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, etc.) or other appropriate means of identifying it, and its present location or custodian. If any such document was but is no longer in your

Respondent’s First Requests for production 2.Law O ffices of A nthony M. U rie, PLLC


(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

17

1 8

1 9

20

21

22

2 3

24

2 5

2 6

27

2 8

2 9

possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of REQUEST NO 1:

Produce for video inspection in the condition they were in at the time this Request was received, the entire content of all documents including electronic documents in the care custody or control of Petitioner that are or have ever been located at any time during Petitioner and Respondent’s relationship in any part of either 810 NE 58th St. or the areas that Petitioner controls at 809 NE 59th St. or that have been relocated to her son and agent’s nearby home at 808 NE 59th Seattle WA 98105 as well as in the outbuildings or vehicles she controls. This request specifically includes the demand to inspect all emails (exclusive of communications with counsel) that Petitioner has sent anyone including her son Adam Logghe at any time during the parties relationship.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 2:

Produce for video inspection in the condition they were in at the time this Request was received, the entire content of all tangible personal property in the care custody or control of Petitioner that is or have ever been located in any part o f either 810 NE 58th St. or the areas that Petitioner controls at 809 NE 59th St. or that have been relocated to of her sonand agent’s nearby home at 808 NE 59th Seattle WA 98105 and all outbuildings thereto and all vehicles Petitioner controls.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 3

Produce for video inspection in the condition they were in at the time this Request was received, the real property located at 810 NE 58th St. and 809 NE 59th St. and her son and agent’s nearby home at 808 NE 59th Seattle WA 98105 as well as in the outbuildings or vehicles she controls.

RESPONSE:

--- ------ • •• Law Offices o f A nthony M. Urie, PLLCRespondent’s First Requests for production 3. 18130 Midvale Ave N Ste A

Shoreline, WA 98133-4536 (206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

REQUEST NO 4

Produce for video inspection in the condition they were in at the time this Request was received all of the computers or any description (including all old or “retired” computers along with their hard drives, and their “back up” devices such as “time machine” or any thumb drives that are or have ever been located at 810 NE 58th St. or in the control of the Petitioner or her agents including all of her son’s computers.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 5.

Produce for video inspection and copying statements (including electronic statements) of all bank accounts, financial accounts, insurance accounts, and brokerage accounts (T.D. Ameritrade and D.A. Davidson) in petitioner’s care custody and control regardless of whose name said funds are reported to be in (including Adam Logghe’s).

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 6.

Produce for video inspection and copying all records (including electronic statements) of all meetings and notes of treatment by Petitioner’s psychologists or therapists in the last 50 years in her care custody and control or in lieu thereof an unlimited waiver to those records along with a detailed account of their names, addresses, phone numbers and present whereabouts.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 7

Produce for video inspection and copying all medical records (including electronicstatements of all health care providers that have treated Petitioner in the past 50 years including but not limited to all the records that were developed by the Seattle Fire and Rescue team that was dispatched to 810 NE 58th St., Seattle WA 98105 on the evening

Respondent’s First Requests for production 4.Law Offices of A nthony M. Urie, PLLC

18130 Midvale Ave N Ste AShoreline, WA 98133-4536

(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

14

1 5

1 6

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

2 3

24

2 5

26

27

28

2 9

of April 19, 2013 and all the Virginia Mason Hospital and Dr. Tang or other treatment (including her then ongoing physical therapy treatment) that followed.RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 8:

Produce for video inspection and copying all documentation that Petitioner has received from any women support groups, any victims advocate groups, and the Seattle police or City Attorneys office and any and all documentation in Petitioner’s care custody or control (including all phone and cell phone records) showing the dates, times and number of communications Petitioner had with these either prior to or subsequent to Respondent’s April 24, 2013 arrest.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 9:

Produce for video inspection and copying all documentation in Petitioner’s care custody or control (including all phone and cell phone records) showing the dates, times and number of communications Petitioner or her son Adam Logghe had with any and all legal counsel or their staff prior to and after Respondent’s April 24, 2013 arrest. In this connection if Petitioner objects to producing documents reflecting what was communicated, Respondent nevertheless seeks all of evidence of when those communications occurred, their length, and their number in what ever form including phone logs or law office time sheets and billing statements as well as a general discription of the subject matter.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 10:

Produce for video inspection and copying all documentation that Petitioner has received from any and all veterinary care providers related to the parties dog Phinney.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 11:Law Offices of A nthony M. Urie, PLLC

Respondent’s First Requests for production 5. 18130 Midvale Ave N Ste AShoreline, WA 98133-4536

(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

27

28

29

Produce for video inspection the parties dog Phinney.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 12:

Produce for video inspection and copying all documents and papers as well as all tangible things that were removed from the residence and out buildings at 198 Journeys End Way, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 titled in Respondent’s sole name along with and all documents and papers as well as tangible things that Petitioner or her agents had removed from any other properties in Alaska or Arizona which they previously came to jointly occupy. Be advised that further entry upon the property titled in the name of Respondent that the parties formerly shared either by Petitioner or her agents without the express written consent of Respondent or his attorneys is prohibited.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO 13:

Please give custody to or produce for video inspection if you will not, the Respondent’s passport, new Rolex watch, photos, stamp collection wall art, ivory and other personal items located at 810 NE 58th, Seattle or that Petitioner or her agents removed from 198 Journeys End Way, Friday Harbor or where ever else located.

RESPONSE

Request No 14: Produce for video inspection or otherwise all documents reflecting and all passwords for access into any and all assets accounts (except those in Petitioners sole name which may be redacted) and any and all liability accounts in the parties joint names or in the parties individual names which have ever been paid for out of funds held in the name of the Respondent individually or Petitioner and Respondent jointly.

RESPONSE



(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Request No 15: Produce all Visa and American Express Card statements (or in either of the parties names showing transactions for the year’s 2012 and 2013. This request is a continuing one throughout this proceedings.RESPONSE

Request No 16: Produce for video inspection and copying all financial statements, earnings statements, and tax returns of Adam Logghe in Petitioner’s care custody or control.

RESPONSE

Request 17: Produce for video inspection and copying all tax returns for all years since two years before the parties have resided together in Petitioner’s care custody and control or execute a waiver to the IRS for every year Petitioner does not have.

RESPONSE

Request NO 18: Produce for video inspection and copying a documents in Petitioners care custody and control pertaining to Petitioner’s son Michael Bennett, his ex-wife’s estate or his children Jade, Juan or Ryan.

RESPONSE

REQUEST NO 19: If Petitioner does not personally have possession of any document Petitioner is requested to provide a detailed list of the person or organization that does and a clear waiver of access to said documents in a form Respondent will provide on request.

Dated October___, 2013

Respondent’s First Requests for production 7.Law Offices of A nthony M. U rie, PLLC


(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

1 6

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

27

28

29

Anthony Urie WSBA #_ Attorney for Respondent



(206) 542-4066

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing, except where noted, upon the individual(s) listed by the following means:

Ms. Karma Zaike11300 Roosevelt Way N.E. Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98125

[ x ] U.S. Postal Service (First Class)T 1 Facsimile to[ ] U.S. Postal Service Express Mail [ ] Hand Delivery[ ] Via Legal Messenger for service by

Dated: October ,2013By: Anthony M. Urie

Title: Attorney for Respondent



(206) 542-4066

Exhibit B

Philip C. Tsai

From: Gerald Markham [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 01,2014 5:14 PMTo: Philip C. TsaiSubject: Fwd: Markham: discovery conference-SECOND request for response

Begin forwarded message:

From: Anthony Urie <[email protected]>Date: October 31,2013 3:18:52 PM PDTTo: Karma Zaike <[email protected]> Gerald Markham <[email protected]>. Dice Takahashi <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Markham: discovery conference-SECOND request for response

Dear Ms. Zaike

I sent you a 14 page letter yesterday by email, did you not receive it? Could you kindly address any dispute you have after reading the letter via email. The letter addressed the legal basis of each and every discovery matter that you have concern with. Before we engage in any premature Rule 37 Conferences, I believe the burden is upon your office to comply with Respondents Discovery to Petitioner. If Petitioner fails to make Discovery at that point Respondent would move to Compel after having a Rule 37 Conference. Thus a Rule 37 Conference is premature as your office has not Responded to Discovery Propounded to Petitioner. If your office produces requested documents a Rule 37 Conference is entirely unnecessary.

As mentioned in the 14 page letter sent to you yesterday, Respondent, Gerald Markham does not have in his immediate possession the bank account information that you have requested, however, as stated in the letter all information you are requesting is easily and "equally" accessible to your client, Mrs. Markham, as she has access online to all accounts of the parties. Accordingly, the information you are seeking is either presently (physically) or constructively in your clients possession. Furthermore, as you are aware Mr. Markham has been denied access to the Wallingford Home, where most of his documents are located.

Please let me know what it is that you believe could be the subject of a Rule 37 conference. I am awaiting Production of Requested Documents as they are necessary in order for Mr. Markham to rebut your recent allegations that he is a batterer.

Sincerely,

Anthony Urie

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Karma Zaike <karma@lawgate,net> wrote:

Second request for response.

i

mailto:[email protected]





From: Karma ZaikeSent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:47 AM To: Anthony Urie Cc: Kerry BowersSubject: Markham: discovery conference

Dear Mr. Urie.

Yesterday, I received Requests for Production in this matter. I would like to schedule a conference to discuss objections. I am available tomorrow and Thursday morning before noon. Please advise as to your availability

Additionally, now that we have an e-mail service agreement in place, please provide a word version of the discovery requests.

Thank you,

Karma Zaike

2

Exhibit C

Philip C. Tsai

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:32 PMTo: 'Karma Zaike'Cc: 'Kerry Bowers'Subject: RE: Reschedule phone conference

Karma,

I called and left you a message with your receptionist. Regarding your inquiry below, I confirmed w ith Jerry that he has set up the deposits to go into the account on the 10th of the month and that they have been made pursuant to the prior agreement. I am unsure why you contend that the deposit has not been made in the past month. I assume that because the 10th of January fell on a Saturday that the deposit is made the next business day, which is today. Please confirm with your client that she received the funds and that your email contending that my client has not deposited anything in the last month is inaccurate.

In our conference call last Wednesday, January 8, 2014, we agreed that a neutral third party would be agreed upon to remove the records subject to Mr. Markham's discovery requests from the Seattle residence where your client resides in their normal and regular state for the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. Markham proposes Christ Pardisio fo r this purpose. Please confirm this is an agreeable third party so we can schedule a date as soon as possible. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. TsaiAttorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, Washington 98121Phone: 206-728-8000Fax: 206-728-6869

Visit our Website at: www.TLCIawco.com

This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Karma Zaike [mailto:karma(a)lawaate.netl Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:59 PM To: Philip C. Tsai Cc: Kerry BowersSubject: RE: Reschedule phone conference

Phil,Please copy my assistant, Kerry, on correspondence.

WHat is your client's position about depositing funds into tlieir revenue account for payment of joint expenses. Just a yes or no. Is he going to follow through with his prior agreement to deposit $20K a month or not? He hasn’t deposited anything for the past month. If the answer is no, then could you please let me know your availability during the last week of January for a hearing on temporary orders?

l


http://www.TLCIawco.com

mailto:karma(a)lawaate.netl

Thank you, Karma

From: Philip C. Tsai rmailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:47 PM To: Karma Zaike Cc: Dona L. HarrisSubject: Reschedule phone conference

Hi Karma,

I just had an issue come up in another case that is going to draw my attention at 3:00 p.m. Can we please reschedule our conference call to Monday at 3:00 p.m. Please confirm. Thank you.

Very truly yours,




2



Exhibit D

Philip C, Tsai

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:53 PMTo: 'Philip C. Tsai'; 'Karma Zaike'

'Kerry Bowers'; '[email protected]'Cc:Subject: RE: Reschedule phone conference

Karma,


Very truly yours,



This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. * I

From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:32 PM To: 'Karma Zaike'Cc: 'Kerry Bowers'Subject: RE: Reschedule phone conference

Karma,

I called and left you a message with your receptionist. Regarding your inquiry below, I confirm ed w ith Jerry that he has set up the deposits to go into the account on the 10th of the month and that they have been made pursuant to the prior agreement. I am unsure why you contend that the deposit has not been made in the past month. I assume that because the 10th of January fell on a Saturday that the deposit is made the next business day, which is today. Please confirm with your c lient that she received the funds and that your email contending that my client has not deposited anything in the last month is inaccurate.

In our conference call last Wednesday, January 8, 2014, we agreed that a neutral third party would be agreed upon to remove the records subject to Mr. Markham 's discovery requests from the Seattle residence where your client resides in their normal and regular state fo r the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. Markham proposes Christ Pardisio for this purpose. Please confirm this is an agreeable third party so we can schedule a date as soon as possible. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. Tsai

i




Exhibit E

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779


In re the marriage of: ))

TWILA MARKHAM ))

Petitioner, ))

and ))

GERALD MARKHAM ))

Respondent. )_________________ :___________________ )

COMES NOW, the Respondent, Gerald Markham, appearing by and through his attorney

of record, Philip C. Tsai of TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC, and hereby submits this Motion to

Continue the Trial Date and to Compel Answers to Discovery Requests Propounded to Petitioner

on October 28,2013.

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

1. The Respondent, Gerald Markham, respectfully asks the Court to continue the

trial date in this matter because: (1) undersigned counsel has a personal conflict with the existing

trial date of April 7, 2014 and will be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date;

N O . 13-3-08383-7 S E A

MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e)AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY PROPOUNDED TO PETITIONER ON OCTOBER 28,2013

(CR 26(i) Certification)

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e) AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY Page 1

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC______ATTORNl'YS AT LAW .2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560

SEATTLE, WA 98121 206-728-8000

□ o r i g i n a l

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

and (2) the significant discovery and valuations that need to be conducted in this dissolution of a

33 year marriage will require a trial continuance to June 9, 2014.1

2. Respondent also respectfully asks the Court to enter an Order Compelling

Petitioner to provide full and complete answers to his Requests for Production of Documents

which were propounded to the Petitioner on October 28,2013.

3. Respondent also asks that pursuant to KCLR 37 the Petitioner be ordered to pay

the Respondent’s attorney’s fees for having to file this motion.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Petitioner, Twila Markham (hereinafter, “Twila”) and the Respondent, Gerald

Markham (hereinafter, “Gerald”) were married on July 6, 1980. They have been married for 33

years. They do not have any children of their marriage. Both parties have adult children which

were not bom of this marriage. Gerald is an attorney licensed to practice in Alaska. Twila has

her Bachelors Degree in psychology. Gerald is 66 years old. Twila is 65 years old.

Twila filed her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on May 9, 2013. See Exhibit A,

Petition for Dissolution. Twila filed her Petition in King County despite the fact that the

parties’ primary residence was located in Kodiac, Alaska and they are both residents of Alaska.

In fact, just weeks before Twila filed her Petition in which she asserted Jurisdiction was proper

1 Respondent is filing this motion within the deadline to change trial date on the Case Schedule and is asking to continue the trial to June 9,2014 which is more than 28 days. However, if the Court does not continue the trial to June 9, 2014, then Respondent is still asking the court to continue the trial to April 28, 2014 due to undersigned counsel’s unavailability for trial on April 7, 2014.


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC____ATTORNEYS AT L A W _______


2 0 6-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

in Washington, Twila filed an affidavit swearing under oath that her “domicile, residence and

permanent place o f abode ” was in Kodiak, Alaska where Gerald owned the residence the

Markham’s lived in (and their respective son’s grew up in ) located at 211 Mill Bay Road.

Pursuant to Gerald’s objection to jurisdiction in the state of Washington, he filed a

Motion to Dismiss the King County action asserting Jurisdiction was proper in Alaska. A

hearing occurred on October 18, 2014. The Court heard argument regarding Gerald’s Motion to

Dismiss and entered on Order Denying his motion indicating that the case could proceed in

Washington. See Exhibit B, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.

Pursuant to the Court’s Order indicating that the divorce action would proceed in

Washington, on or about October 28, 2014, Gerald issued Requests for Production to Twila

asking that she produce specific documents as identified in the discovery requests. See Exhibit

C, Requests for Production of Documents. Pursuant to the Requests for Production, Twila

was required to provide answers to Gerald’s discovery requests within 30 days of receipt of those

requests. Twila did not provide answers to Gerald’s discovery requests within the 30 day period.

Instead, Twila’s counsel provided a letter in which she objected to the discovery requests. See

Exhibit D, Letter from Counsel. Once again, Twila did not produce any documents in

response to Gerald’s discovery requests, nor did she file a Motion for Protective Order.

After much difficulty in getting Twila’s counsel to agree to a date to have it, on or about

January 8,2014, undersigned counsel conducted a KCLR 37 and CR 26(i) discovery conference


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLCATTORNEYS AT L A W ------- ---

2101 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 1560 SEATTLE, WA 98121

206-728-8000

33579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

with co-counsel Anthony Urie and Twila’s counsel, Karma Zaike.2 During that conference, the

issue of Gerald having access to the financial records in the Seattle residence in their original

state where Twila resides was discussed. Twila’s counsel denied the request for Gerald to have

access to the residence to inspect his records. The importance of those records was also

discussed in that there are significant separate property claims that Gerald has in this case.

Specifically, that the Seattle residence had documents that were necessary and vital to tracing of

Gerald’s separate property claims that an inspection of the file cabinets was necessary and

requested in Gerald’s discovery requests. Because Twila’s counsel denied the request for Gerald

to appear at the residence and inspect the documents, the parties agreed that each would propose

an independent third party to remove the records and file cabinets from the residence to be taken

to a neutral location where Gerald could inspect and copy the records. It was also specifically

noted that Twila had not provided any documents whatsoever in response to Gerald’s Requests

for Production and that she could have at least provided documents that were not objected to

within the 30 days required by the rules.

Also discussed in the discovery conference was the issue of obtaining the Twila’s

counseling and medical records due to her claims of domestic violence that are denied by Gerald.

2 Even though Gerald is an attorney and was initially on the conference call, Twila’s attorney objected and refused to allow him to be present on the phone during the call despite his personal knowledge of the discovery being requested. Twila’s counsel’s objection was not founded in law or fact as Gerald is a party to this matter and had a right to be part of the conference call.


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC- - -ATTORNEYS AT LAW______


206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Gerald believes that obtaining those medical records will show that Twila had not reported any

issues of domestic violence to any of her health care providers which would disprove her claims

as asserted in her Petition for Dissolution in support of a request for a restraining order.

In the discovery conference, Twila’s counsel objected to providing those documents and

claimed she did not assert any claims of domestic violence in her Petition. However, a review of

sections 1.10,1.11 and 1.12 of Twila’s Petition for Dissolution is clearly contrary to the position

that Twila’s counsel asserted in the phone conference and contrary to the declarations that Twila

and her son filed in response to the Motion to Dismiss. Gerald has properly asked for those

medical and psychological records and no Motion for Protective Order has been sought or filed

within the 30 days in which production of those documents was due.

In compliance with the agreement reached with Twila’s counsel in the KCLR 37

conference that a neutral third party would be chosen to remove the records and files at the

Seattle residence for inspection, on January 13,2014, undersigned counsel sent an email to

Twila’s counsel proposing mutual acquaintance of the parties, Chris Pardisio be chosen to

perform that task. Specifically, the email states:

In our conference call last Wednesday, January 8, 2014, we agreed that a neutral third party would be agreed upon to remove the records subject to Mr. Markham’s discovery requests from the Seattle residence where your client resides in their normal and regular state for the purpose of inspection and copying. Mr. Markham proposes Christ Pardisio for this purpose. Please confirm this is an agreeable third party so we can schedule a date as soon as possible. Thank you.

See Exhibit E, Email from Counsel.MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e) AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY Page 5

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC- ATTORNEYS A T LA W --------


2 0 6-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Undersigned counsel did not receive a response from Twila’s counsel to the above email

regarding the neutral third party as agreed in the KCLR 37 conference call. In fact, no response

to that agreement to propose a neutral third party has been provided by Twila’s counsel at all

regarding that issue. Therefore, on Wednesday, January 15, 2014, undersigned counsel sent

another email to Twila’s counsel as follows:

Karma,


See Exhibit F, Email from Counsel.

Once again, no response to the issue of the neutral third party that was agreed to in the

KCLR 37 conference was sent by Twila’s counsel.

On or about January 15, 2014, Twila’s counsel’s office began emailing random

documents to undersigned counsel. The email that Twila’s counsel’s office sent indicated they

were sending 12 emails with responses to Requests for Production numbers 5, 15, and 17.

Undersigned counsel asked Twila’s counsel not to email that volume of documents and to please

send copies.

On or about January 16,2014, Twila’s counsel provided a CD with the documents she

contended were in response to Requests for Production number 5,15 and 17. However, there

were no signed Answers or a pleading identifying which documents were in response to which

Requests for Production nor was there a certification that the records were authentic or someMOTION AND DECLARATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e) AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY Page 6

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLCATTORNEYS AT LAW---------

2101 FOURTH AVENUE SUITE 1560 SEATTLE, WA 98121

206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

other indicia of reliability as to where they came from.3 Although some of the documents that

were requested have been provided, Twila has not complied with the majority of Gerald’s

discovery requests issued on October 28, 2014 nor did she provide a signed Answer to Gerald’s

Request for Production of Documents pursuant to CR 34.

On January 17,2014, undersigned counsel sent an email to Twila’s counsel regarding the

current trial date of April 7,2014. Specifically, Twila’s counsel had previously indicated to co

counsel, Anthony M. Urie, that she needed a continuance of the trial date due to the discovery

deadlines and her schedule. (See Declaration of Anthony M. Urie filed contemporaneously with

this motion). Specifically, undersigned counsel’s email stated:

Karma,

Tony mentioned that you indicated you may need a trial continuance in the Markham matter. The trial date is currently scheduled for April 7,2014.1 raise this as an issue because our last day for a trial continuance is Tuesday, January 21,2014 (Monday is MKL Day). Can you call me this morning to discuss? Thank you.

See Exhibit G, Email from Counsel.

Undersigned counsel also followed up with phone calls regarding the issue of the current

trial date leaving Twila’s counsel messages to call back. Having not received a call back from

Twila’s counsel, undersigned counsel sent another email regarding the issue of the current trial

date:

3 CR 34 specifically requires Twila to provide a written response to the Request for Production and to produce the documents as they are kept in the usual course o f business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC____ ATTORNEYS AT LAW______2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560

SEATTLE, WA 98121 206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Karma,

I have called you twice today to follow up on the below email. I want to know if you agree that a trial continuance is necessary in this case. I have a conflict with the current trial date and the deadline for filing a motion is on Tuesday. Tony indicated that you also wanted to continue the trial date. If you and Ms. Markham agree to a trial continuance, then we can enter an agreed order which would not then require me to file a motion with the Court. May I please hear from you on this issue? I do not want to have to waste resources on filing a motion if we can agree. A simple yes or no would suffice. Thank you.

Despite the fact that Twila’s counsel had previously indicated she wanted to continue the

trial, her office sent an email indicating that they would not agree to a trial continuance (despite

the fact that undersigned counsel indicated he had a conflict with the current date) and that they

would be opposing any motion to continue. The above statement of facts are the basis for the

instant motion.

III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the court should continue the trial date in this matter when: (1)

undersigned counsel has a personal conflict with the existing trial date of April 7, 2014 and will

be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date; and (2) the discovery and valuations

that need to be conducted in this dissolution of a 33 year marriage will require a trial continuance

to June 16,2014.

2. Whether the court should enter an Order Compelling Petitioner to provide full and

complete answers to his Requests for Production of Documents which were propounded to the

Petitioner on October 28, 2013.MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e) AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY Page 8

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC_____ ATTORNEYS AT LAW2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560

SEATTLE, WA 98121 206-7 2 8 -8 0 0 0

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

3. Whether the Court should order Petitioner to pay Respondent’s attorney’s fees for

having to file this motion.

IV. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

1. THE COURT SHOULD CONTINUE THE TRIAL IN THIS MATTER FROM APRIL 7,2014 TO JUNE 9,2014 DUE TO UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL’S CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE AND TO ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR DISCOVERY AND VALUATIONS TO OCCUR PURSUANT TO THE CASE SCHEDULE.

King County Local Rule 40(e) provides the procedural basis for a continuance of trial.

Specifically, KCLR 40(e) states as follows:

(e) Continuances/Change o f Trial Date.(1) Limited Adjustment of Trial Date to Resolve Schedule

Conflict. In cases that are governed by a Case Schedule, the trial date may be adjusted, prior to tire Final Date to Change Trial, by motion, to a Monday no more than 28 days before or 28 days after the trial date listed in the Case Schedule.

(2) Change of Trial Date. A motion to strike a trial date, or change a trial date more than 28 days before or after the original date, shall be made hi writing to the assigned Judge, or if there is no assigned Judge, to the Chief Civil Department, and shall be decided without oral argument. If a motion to change the trial date is made after the Final Date to Change Trial Date, as established by the Case Schedule, the motion will not be granted except under extraordinary circumstances where there is no alternative means of preventing a substantial injustice. A motion to strike or change a trial date may be granted subject to such conditions as justice requires.

(3) Amended. Case Schedule. When a trial date is changed, the judge changing the trial date may amend the case schedule or may direct that the parties confer and propose a new schedule. Unless some other deadline for submitting the proposed case schedule is set by the court, the parties must submit a proposed case schedule for signature by the assigned judge no later than twenty days after the order changing the trial date is signed.

(4) Change of Trial Date on Court’s Motion. The Court on its owninitiative may, if necessary, change the trial date.


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC- ....... ATTORNEYS A T LAV' ______2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560

SEATTLE, WA 98121 2 0 6-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Especially in divorce cases a liberal view toward granting continuances is taken by most

courts, and this is particularly so where the continuance is the first one sought. In re Marriage of

Chamberlin, 44 Wn.2d 689 (1954).

There are two basis to continue the trial in this matter. The first is undersigned counsel’s

unavailability for the trial on April 7, 2014. Undersigned counsel has non refundable airline

tickets and will be out of the country the week of April 7, 2014. This motion is being filed prior

to the deadline for a Motion to Change Trial in the case schedule. Therefore, the Court should

continue the trial pursuant to KCLR 40(e)(1) cited above.

The second basis is Twila’s failure to abide by the discovery rules and deadlines as

indicated above. This case involves substantial assets including two residences and parcels of

real estate in King County, a residence and parcel of real estate in Alaska, a residence and parcel

of real estate in Arizona, a commercial real estate building in Alaska, numerous bank and

investment accounts that all need to be valued and characterized as either separate or community

property. There are significant and important documents in the Seattle residence that have not

been provided and Twila has failed to designate a neutral third party to pick up the file cabinets

and documents in the residence as agreed on the KCLR 37 conference. It is also important to

note that Twila has not provided a Possible Primary Witness List to Gerald, despite the January

6, 2014 due date. Even if the Court grants the Motion to Compel Discovery as requested in this

motion, there will not be enough time to value all of the properties, hire an expert to perform the


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLCATTORNEYSJVTJ-AW______ - _


206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

tracing that will be necessary regarding Gerald’s separate property, and participation in

mediation as required by the Court Rules. Therefore, Gerald asks the court to grant his Motion

for Continuance from April 7, 2014 to June 9, 2014. Otherwise, there will be a substantial

injustice to Gerald.

2. PURSUANT TO KCLR 37, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER TWILA TO COMPLY WITH GERALD’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND AWARD HIM FEES FOR HAVING TO FILE THIS MOTION.

King County Local Rule 37 provides authority for the Court to compel a party to provide

answers to discovery. Specifically, KCLR 37 states as follows:

(d) Failure o f Party to A ttend at Own Deposition or Serve A nsw ers to Interrogatories or Respond to Request fo r Production or Inspection. If a party' or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take his or her deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or (2) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories, or (3) to serve a mitten response to a request for production of documents or inspection submitted under CR 34, after proper service of the request, the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others, it may take any action authorized under CR 37. In lieu of any order or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising the party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney' fees, caused by' the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award, of expenses unjust.

The failure to act described in this subsection may not be excused on the ground that die discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by CR 26(c). For purposes of this section, an evasive or misleading answer is to be treated as a failure to answer. (Emphasis added).

MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL PURSE ANT TO KCLR 40(e) AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY Page 11

TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC____________________ ATTORNEYS AT LAW ______


206-728-8000

13579

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779

Twila has not provided any written signed answers to Gerald’s Requests for Production

of Documents despite them being received by her attorney on October 28, 2014. She has failed

to identify the neutral third party to pick up and remove the file cabinets from the Seattle

residence after the CR 26(i) conference held on January 8, 2014. Twila has also not provided her

medical and counseling records that are clearly relevant to the claim of domestic violence that

she plead in her Petition for Dissolution. The fact that her attorney sent a letter objecting to the

production of certain records is not an excuse for her failure to provide the documents requested

as clearly KCLR 37(d) requires her to file a Motion for a Protective Order i f she believes she has

a basis to object to the requested discovery. Because she has not filed such a motion, she has

waived her right to do so. Gerald is entitled to an Order Compelling Discovery and is providing

the court with a proposed order along with this motion.

Respectfully submitted this J2 / ̂ day of January 2014 by:


<LPhilip C. Tsiii, WSBA #27632 Attorney for Respondent


TSAI LAW COMPANY, PLLC----- ATTORNEYS AT-LAW- -


206-728-8000

PAGE 0209/30/2013 21:39 13603782047

Exhibit F

Philip C. Tsai

Subject:Attachments:

Sent:To:Cc:

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]]Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:39 PM 'Howard, Greg'; 'Kerry Bowers''Karma Zaike'; 'Erika S. Reichley'RE: Markham 13-3-08383-7: Motion for Continuance/Protective Order Agreed Order Continuing Trial and Withdrawing Motions.pdf

Dear Mr. Howard,

Attached to this email is an agreed order regarding a continuance of the trial date and both parties w ithdrawing their motions to compel and for protective order as referenced below. Please submit this Order to Judge Inveen for approval. Thank you for your attention to this email.

Very tru ly yours,



This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This Information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. * I

From: Howard, Greg fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:52 AM To: Kerry BowersCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley; [email protected]: RE: Markham 13-3-08383-7: Motion for Continuance/Protective Order

Judge Inveen is currently at a judicial conference out of state.

It is my hunch that she has the materials w ith her as she took some of the pending motions I believe.

I will try and ask her and get back to you as soon as I hear anything new. GH

Greg S. Howard,Bailiff to the Honorable Laura C. Inveen King County Superior Court 516 3rd Avenue, Rm W864Seattle, W A [email protected]

Please note the court phone num ber has recently changed to: (206) 477-1617

l






From: Kerry Bowers fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:53 PM To: Howard, GregCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley; [email protected]: Markham 13-3-08383-7: Motion for Continuance/Protective Order

Mr. Howard,

In the above mentioned case, a Motion for Trial Continuance and Motion for Protective O rder were before Judge Inveen on 2/6/14 w ithout oral argument. Can you advise if Judge Inveen has issued a ruling yet? Thank you.

Legal AssistantThe Law Offices o f Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300Seattle, Washington 98125P.206.365.5500F. 206.363.8067

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents; rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy all copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

2



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

In re the Marriage of: )))

TWILA MARKHAM, ))

Petitioner, ).)

and ))

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, ))

Respondent. )) )

___________________________________________________________________________________________________)

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

Clerk’s Action RequiredContinue Trial Date from April 7, 2014 to June 16, 2014

I. STIPULATION

COME NOW the parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, KARMA L.

ZAIKE and PHILIP TSAI, and hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order continuing the trial

date in the above-captioned matter from April 7, 2014 to June 16, 2014. A continuance is

needed because (1) counsel for Respondent has a personal conflict with the existing trial date

of April 7,2014 and will be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date; and (2)

the significant discovery and valuations need further time.

Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing Trial DatePage 1 o f 3

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The parties have agreed to abide by the following agreements pending trial:

1. The Husband will deposit at least $30,000 per month, commencing with the month of February, 2014 into the joint account (protocol for deposits will be status quo) for payment of joint expenses. If the account balance is at $10,000 or below, the Husband agrees to make additional deposits to maintain the $10,000 threshold.The characterization of said deposits and expenditures are reserved for trial. This order is without prejudice to either party to request changes to the expenditure deposits; and

2. Both parties’ motions to compel and for protective order are temporarily withdrawn to allow the parties to work together and develop a discovery plan to move forward with discovery. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, either party may renew his/her motion at a later date.

3. Mail which arrives in Kodiak will be opened by Karl Loeffler and anything that relates to Ms. Markham will be sent to her. If it relates to both parties, he will make a copy and send to Ms. Markham. Karl will also be authorized to send all copies of financial statements and bills to Ms. Markham.

Date: February 12,2014

MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC

KARMA L. ZAIKE, WSBA #31037 ■ TWILA MARKHAM Petitioner/Wife

Electronic Signature Approved

Date: February_,2014

P - U p C- (*""*■---- ------------ - ^ <-fad~L<dPHILIP TSAI, WSBA #27632 GERALD MARKHAMAttorney for Respondent Respondent


LAW OFFICES------ -------- — ........— ■ - - -Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc

- 11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300------------------ -SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 • FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

123

4

5

67

89

10

11

121314

IS16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

T o:19072764661

The parties have agreed to abide by the follow in g agreem ents pending trial:

1. H ie H usband w ill deposit at least $3 0 ,000 per m onth, com m encing w ith the month o f February, 20 1 4 into tile jo in t account (protocol for deposits w ill be status quo) for paym ent o f jo in t expenses, I f the account balance is at $10 ,000 Of b elow , the H usband agrees to m ake additional deposits to m aintain the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 threshold.The characterization o f said deposits and expenditures are reserved for trial. This order i* w ithout prejudice to either party to request changes to th e expenditure deposits; and

2. B oth parties' m otions to com pel end for protective order w e tem porarily withdrawn to allow the parties to w ork together and develop a d iscovery plan to m ove forward With discovery. I f the parties are unable to teach agreem ent, either party m ay renew his/her m otion at a later date.

3. M ail w hich strives in Kodiak w ill b e opened by K arl LoefQer aod anything that relates to M s. Markham w ill b e sent to her. I f it relates to both p arties, h e w ill m ake e copy and send to M s. Markham. Karl w ill also be authorised to send all

______cop ies o f financial statem ents and b ills to M 's.M arkham .—

D a te February 1 2 ,2 0 1 4

M ICHAEL W . B tJQ N l & A SSO C ., PLLC

K A R M A L . Z A IK E , W S B A # 3 1 0 3 7TW ILA MARKHAM Pethionec/Wife


Date; February 2014

PHILIP T SA I, W SBA #27632 GERALD M ARKHAMAttorney fo r R espondent R espondent

Stipnktiwi and Agreed Order Continuing Trial Date Pngs 2 of3

um/,prelawIWiCHAM-W. BUtlNl & ASSOC-, PLLC11M>0 R0O6S/&TWNE, STS. W08EA.TO&WA SB1J5(»;»)J«M 8oa*W 39lW tE S«J6) 365^007

Exhibit G

<,r*-

135

. 79

1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779


In re the marriage of:

TWILA MARKHAM

Petitioner,

and

GERALD MARKHAM

Respondent. .

)))))))))))3

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

ORDER ON MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE AND COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

c , L& jz- rt f s A c-ft

THIS MATTER, having come before the undersigned Judge of the above entitled court,

the Respondent, Gerald Markham, appearing by and through his attorney of record, Philip C.

Tsai of TSAI LAW COMPANY;, PLLC, and Anthony M. Urie, the Petitioner, Twila Markham,

appearing by and through her attorney of record, Karma Zaike, the Court having reviewed the

records and files herein, and for good cause shown, NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

• : U The Motion to Continue the trial is Granted. Trial shall be continued to (check one

box) [ ] ' April 28,2014

: ' ' Or

June 9, 2014

ORDER ON MOTIONFOR'CONTINUMCFVFTRIAL PURSUANT TO KCLR 40(e) A N D _____MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TODISCOVERY Page I- .

--------TSATTAWCOMPA.'NX'PIXC. ATTORNEYS AT i A W

210! FOURT! I AVENUE, SUITE 1560 • SEATTLE, WA 98121

206-728-8000

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY

MARKHAMPlaintiff/Petitioner

vs :

MARKHAMDefendant/Respondent

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Order Amending Case Schedule

Clerk’s Action Required

T h e tr ia l d a te is re se t, and th e C ourt am ends th e case sch ed u le as show n b e lo w

Case Events

Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses

Change of Trial Date

Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses

Discovery Cutoff

Deadline for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution

Exchange of Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits .

(NOT APPLICABLE for cases involving children) Deadline to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness

Inspect Exhibits

Use of Discovery/Depositions at Trial

Motions in Limine

Trial Brief

Amended Due Date

3/10/2014

3/24/2014

4/7/2014

5/5/2014

5/12/2014

5/19/2014

5/19/2014

5/27/2014

6/2/2014

6/2/2014

6/2/2014

2/19/2014 Page 1

Joint Statement of Evidence

Trial

6/2/2014

6/9/2014

Pursuant to King County Local Rules, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in the King County Local Rules, may be imposed for failure to comply.

Dateded: ^

Honorable Judge Laura Inveen

2/19/2014- Page 2

1

2

3

4

■56

7

8

9

10

11

12

1.314

15

1617

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ipVtVW in*? t\


In re: . ))

TWILA MARKHAM, ): ■ U ' )

Petitioner, ) :. and )

)GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, )

)Respondent. ) ___________)

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. JUDGMENT SUMMARY

A. JudgmehtCreditor: \ TWH>A MARKHAMB. Judgment Dfehtor: ' x GERALlXW- MARKHAM

Attorney Fees: \ \ $3,000 \D. '"Attorney’s Fees, Costsâud Other Recovery Amciupts N.

ShaHvEear Interest at 12^kper annum. \E. Attome^sfor Judgment Crediteq:: Kqrma L. Zaike ^f : Attorney fobju^gment Debtor: " " x ^ j PhilipC. Tsai

Antoony-M. Urie

ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pagelof3-

LAW OFFICES _______________Michael w. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE. STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 • FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

JAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23O/t

25

;£SN

n . ORDER

This Motion having been brought by the Petitioner/Wife, for a Protective Order

limiting the scope of the Respondent’s Requests for Production, the court having reviewed the

Petitioner's motion, Respondent’s response and Petitioner’s reply (if any) and the Court being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

\ 1, The Petitioner’s motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. The purpose of

discovery is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the

issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent practicable. Washington State Physicians Ins,U

Exchange, v. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d 299,858 P.2d 1054 (1993). However/the Husband h S a ^

-attempfeeRtr use the discovery process as a means to burden and harass the Wife and to gain

unauthorized access to the parties’ home, seeking to impose obligations on the Wife beyond

those allowed by any applicable Local Rules or governing case law. Therefore, the objections

contained in the Wife’s letter dated November 18,2013 which is attached hereto are

sustained, and the Husband’s Requests for Production are limited in scope to comport with the

objections therein.“'fWs- uo vfd ,5k&jA iV\

'2. The~Wife ShatPhave judgment against the Husband ill the ainumrt-of $3;0Q0-fbriWvc. \cu_4uo^ rc c-or-d J 4o -4U»

j-psy VcJsJc la/C_ ^ ^

■ 1

ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER - Page 2 o f 3.

LAWOFFICES_________________Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 06125(206) 365-5500 » FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

!1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Tt> Aâ-<£— -t̂ !>l4-Ol.(~ a> I: ^4 Wl.puO \ &XcL p i 'A '^ i -{jj>\-£z- [jVcÛ pr^yvck- v /c -ri^c .j <0-aS '^ 0 5 . -^CMrS»-^-c^j- Vo V-C—C l_̂ —£'— ( \ Cj4 Z> Vpj^_<C^"Lc> ^ S o*-5i "pC>/ P"'— L/"\ ^4v_si-

SS<i>vCrvvCjo- \ <i ( '2-£>ll> c£>nrz& )ponX^ce Cd^ ^ S scJ; £aM<\MiX-cXo/u**^ C |

'^XiAJL̂ A- ^ p U r ^THE HONORABLE L. TNVF.EN

Presented by:


KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA #31037 Attorney for the Petitioner

I

ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER- Page 3 o f3 '

LAW OFFICES_________________Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 9812S(206) 366-5500 • FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

of MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOCLSJES, PI1C

11300 Roostvm Wif Nonrmusr, Sum 300 SE«TTLE>'W«SHINCTON 98125 I*=2D6.365.5500 0:205.363.8067

AnOBNBYUMiciuuW-Bugh

LuMCmraasEHCouEscD*suJ.Goo»m

Mffl<MiiBrDwu&ra™icxJbmubImbd

BusrattM.lHKS' CirEBUKEAMmuEtvEmSiumO'CoMa

liiAraFraff BrnSom̂QiiHniB

K*s2»LZ«iz Namib M.Beckuann

' November 18,2013

Mr. Anthony Urie Mr. Dice Takahashi

. Attorneys at Law 18130 Midvale Ave. N Ste. A Shoreline, WA 98133

Re: ' Markham v. Markham

Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:

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

.. regarding the appropriate scope of, and response to, the requests.

The purpose of discovery is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff . and more a fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent practicable. Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993). Mr. Markham’s 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. Markham’s objections. That is not acceptable. Without limitation, Ms. Markham objects to the Requests for Production to the extent

■ that it seeks to impose obligations on Ms. Markham beyond those allowed by any applicable Local Rules or governing case law. Ms. Markham responds and objects as set forth in detail below:

REQUEST NO. 1: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action. The propounded discovery purports to require Ms. Markham to conduct a search of all files in her custody or control in an 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 parties’ 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, Markham’s 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. Markham’s home. Attempting to improperly use the discovery process to obtain entry is unacceptable. If Mr. Markham truly wants an inventory and/or- appraise items in the family home, he may hire an independent appraiser. His request to require Ms. Markham to produce 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. Markham’s personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Furthermore, the parties have no ownership or control over real property located at 808 NE 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. Markham’s personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and is unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. 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.. Markham’s son.

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

Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will produce statements of accounts to which she has access for two years. These statements cannot be produced immediately. It is

. expected that these documents will be available for review by December 15,2013, but will be produced sooner if possible.

REQUEST NO. 6-7: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the requests are harassing ...... and invasive; they seek information relating to medical, physical,, and mental health,

which are privileged under various provisions of state and federal law; and they seek

&§

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18,2013 ■Page 3

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

REQUEST NO. 8: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is harassing and invasive; it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action; and it. seeks

. information relating to mental health, which is privileged under various provisions of state and federal law. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.

REQUEST NO. 9: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine (referred to respectively as

. “privileged documents” and “privileges”). Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.

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

", Markham’s possession,

\ Without waiving objection, documentation in Ms. Markham’s 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 jand improperly demands entry into Ms. Markham’s personal residence. The discovery 1

_____________ ___ ,j .requests production.pf “photos,’’.“wah.-ati,” .md.“ojther.personalitems,!’..withoutany._________ _______

Mr. UrieMir. Takahashi ;November 18,2013 Page 4

specificity.

. Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham believes she knows the items to which Jeny refers. The items have been packaged and are ready to be delivered. Please provide a time you are available in your office when Mr. Markham will not be present and Ms. iMarkham 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 jscope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non- iparty. Mr., Markham’s RFP seeks information with no relevance to any pending action by seeking the production of information relating to property over which the parties have no ownership rights or control.

REQUEST NO. 17: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome. Ms. 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. Markham’s knowledge, there are no tax returns in her home.She believes Jerry kept copies in Friday Harbor and there may be older returns in Kodiak. ;

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

.REQUEST NQ.-19:_This Request forProduction does not make sense.--- ------------ -...... - ....... - - -......-

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18,2013 Page 5

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

Ms. Markham has not completed her investigation into the subject matter 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, M s. M arkham w ill produce responsive documents by sending copies of the sam e addressed to counsel. Please im m ediately confirm that neither Mr. Markham n or counsel on his behalf w ill be appearing at M s. Markham’s home. I f Mr. M arkham or his agents appear, it w ill be a violation o f the crim inal No Contact Order currently in effect and law enforcem ent w ill 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. Markham’s behalf. Please advise.

Yours truly,

Karma L. Zaike

. KLZresr Cc: Client

Exhibit H

12

3456

78

9

10

11

12

1314151617181920

21

22

232425

s ®STAVAILAgL;<E

%r% A' Q;

°5>

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OP WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

In re -the M arriage o f:

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

and

•Petitioner,

fr-G E R A L D W A Y N E M A R K H A M ,

Respondent

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

Clerk’s Aettoa Required Continue Tried. Late from April 7,2014 to Jufte 16,2014

(NO ENVELOPES PRQVJD.

STIPULATION

COME NOW die parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, KARMA L.

ZAJKE and PHILIP TSAI, and hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order continuing the trial

date in the above-captioned matter from April 7,2014 to June 16,2014. A continuance is

needed because (1) counsel for Respondent has a personal conflict with the existing trial date

of April 7,2014 and will be out of the country and unavailable for trial on that date; and (2)

the significant discovery and valuations need further time.

---------------------- ------------- --- ----- ------ ------ LAW OFFICES —----- ---------------Michael w . Bugni & Assoc., pulg1130D ROOSEVELT WW HE, STE. 30D

Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing Trial Date Seattle; w a 9»12sp ' . a ° (208) 36M 500 • FACSIMILE (208)363-8087

£U?

The p arties h ave agreed to ab ide b y the hallow ing agreem ents pending trial:

1 . H ie H usband w ill d ep osit at least $3 0 ,0 0 0 p er m onth, com m encing w ith the month, o f February, 2 0 1 4 into the jo in t account (p rotocol for deposits w ill b e status quo) fo r p aym en t o f jo in t expenses. i f th e account balan ce is a t $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 or b elow , th e H usband agrees to m ake additional deposits to m aintain the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 threshold. T he characterization o f said deposits and expenditures are reserved fo r trial. T his order is w ith o u t prejudice to either party to req u est changes to th e expenditure d ep osits; and

2 . Berth p arties’ m otion s to com pel and for p rotective order are tem porarily w ithdraw n to a llo w th e parties to w ork togeth er and develop a d isco v e iy p lan to m ove forw ard w ith d iscovery. I f th e p arties are unable to reach agreem ent, either party m a y ren ew h is/h er m otion at a la ter date.

3 . M ail w in ch arrives in K odiak w ill b e opened b y K a il L oeffler and anything th at rela tes to M s. M arkham w ill b e sen t to h er. I f i t relates to b oth p arties, h e w ilt m ake a co p y and sen d to M s. M arkham . K arl w ill also b e authorised to sen d a ll co p ies o f fin a n cia l statem ents and b ills to M s. M arkham.

'D ate: February 1 2 ,2 0 1 4

M IC H A EL W . B U G N I & A SSO C ., PLLC

KARMA L. ZA3KE, WSBA# 31037 TWKAMAEKHAMPetitionex/W ife

E lectron ic Signature A pproved

D ate: F ebruary,__,2 0 1 4

PHILIP T S A I, W S B A # 2 7 6 3 2 A ttorney fo r R esp on d en t

^ tfaG ER A LD M ARK H AM R espondent

Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing M ai DatePage 2 o f3

— -LAW OFFICES.......... ............. ...Michael W. Bugni &. Assoc, pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAV RE, STE. 300 SEATTLE,WA 83125(206) 3533500 • FACSIMILE (206)333-8087

To 119372754691 Pa?o:2-'3

23

4

5

$

7 5 9

10n

'1313

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22

23

2*| 255

l i e parties have agreed to abide by tta follow ing usp&mmts pending trial;

L Tbs Hnsfcatid w ill depositat least $30,000 month, com m encingwith fee laordho f Febiw ay, 2014 into the joint soeemnt (protocol for deposits wall fee status <juo) for psam art o f jo in t expanses, Iftha account bafanae is at $10,000 Of below, foe

33» oharactaizefion o f «Id deposits aftfi expandltares m reserved for trial, This o tfo sis withontprejadloe to either party to rerpast changes to fo e expenditure dsposfcg and

2. Beth jJartioB* motions to compel tmd for protective order ere tampararBiy

m oveforwwd with tHacoVei?. Kfo» parties ®» tenable to reach agreem cat, either psrty may renew hMi&rmoti on at a tensr date,

3. M ail which Strives in Kodiak-will be Opened by Katl Loafficr apd anything that relates to Mk Markham will bo sent to her. I f itretatpsto both parties, hsw ilf Biako a copy and send to Ms. jVfrrkhflra. Kwl -wit! s f e fe? authorised to send all

__ copies o f financial statements and blits to Mb j ytWkfrm ..,,

February 12,2014

M KHAHb W , B U G N I* ASSOC^TIiJC

i A X , ZATKE* W S B A j 3X 037

E fcetenio Slgsatesre Approved

Date; F«bmmy^20I4

PHILIP TSAI, WSBA#27<?32 Attorney for Respondent

tXERAITJ MARKHAM Respondent

L&umrasiSL

atipnlrtfen and Agreed Order Continuing TwiJBateBaj»2ef3

WlCMSleL W. 9UOW & ASSOC., PLLC new RoossvEtrvwrNBsrc.we iE«m»wiif „ , „„„(BDWMtttrfAOSHUS <Wt>?f»>S!!B7

1

2

3456

7 S

H. ORDER

THIS MATTER, having come on by Stipulation of bofli parties, through their

respective counsel of record, and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that the trial date in this matter, cunrently setfor April 7,2014, is

continued until June 16,2014. The stipulations above are adopted as the order of the court as

if set forth fully herein.

910

11

12

1314151617181920

21

22

232425

It is further ORDERED that the Judicial Assistant shall prepare an Amended Case

Schedule.

Date: 3 / (1 j / MJ I ® (^ C O M M ISSIO N E R

Presented by:


K A R M A L . Z A IK E ,W S B A # 3 1 0 3 7

Copy Received; Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived by:

CL p -PHILIP TSAI, WSBA #27632 Attorney for Respondent


----------LAW OFFIGES.............. ..............• - ■-Michael W. Bugni & Assoc, pu.c11300 ROOSEVELTWAY NE, STJH. 300 SEATTLE, WA 83125(208) 365-5500 « FACSIMILE (208)333^057

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

°*y


In re the Marriage of:

TWILA MARKHAM,

Petitioner,

and

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM,

Respondent

NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER VACATING AND SUBSTITUTING ORDERS

Clerk’s Action Required Continue Trial Date from June 9, 2014 to June 16, 2014

(MO ENVELOPES PROVIDED I.

I. STIPULATION

COME NOW the parties hereto, by and through their attorneys of record, KARMA L.

ZAJKE and PHILIP C. TSAI, and hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order vacating certain

orders of the court and substituting the CR 2 A Agreement of the parties which is attached

hereto. Both parties had filed discovery motions in January, 2014 and the Respondent filed a

motion to continue. While the motions were pending, the parties worked to resolve the

pending issues. One of the issues is that counsel for the Wife is unavailable during the week

LAWOFF1CES ___________Michael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllc1130D ROOSEVELT W AYNE, STE, 300

Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing Trial Date Se a t t l e , w a B812SPage 1 o f3 f \ ( W63-B0S7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24;

25

of June 9 (specifically June 11 -13), thus the parties agreed to set over trial to June 16,2014

in the event trial is necessary. Additional negotiations resulted in a signed CR 2A Agreement

which was not submitted to the court before orders on the pending motions were issued.

Date: March 10,2014


KARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA # 31037

Date: March I* ,2014

P\ r ^ P £■' LPHILIP C. TSAI, WSBA #27632 Attorney for Respondent

FWILA MARKHAM Petitioner/Wife


GERALD MARKHAM Respondent

XL ORDER

THIS MATTER, having come on by Stipulation of both parties, through, their

respective counsel of record, and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that the court approves tire CR 2A Agreement attached hereto. The court

incorporates said agreement into this order and mates it an order of the court The following

orders shall be and the same are hereby VACATED:

Docket Sub 49 Order Amending Case Schedule

Stipulation and Agreed Order Continuing Trial Date Page 2 of 3

LAW OFFICES______________________Michael W. B ugni & A ssoc., pllc11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 36125{205)365-5600. FACSIMILE (206)363-803?

1

2

3

456

78

910

11

12

13

14151.6

17181920

21

22

232425

Docket Sub 50

Docket Sub 51

Order Granting Petitioner’s Request for Protective Order

Order on Motion for Trial Continuance

Date: 11/20 N C=C^— >^ 1 Tftfi HONORABLE LAURA INVEEN

Presented by;


lKARMA L. ZAIRE, WSBA # 31037

Copy Received; Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived by.

y g C t - , ■SÎ, WSBA 427632PHILIP TS

Attorney for Respondent

Stipulation and AgreedXDrder Continuing Trial Date

Pag' 3rf3 r?fy

LAW OFFICESMichael W. Bugni & Assoc., pllg11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NE, STE. 30D SEATTLE, WA 38125(206) 3B5-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 333-8087

Exhibit I

Philip C. Tsai

Subject:

Sent:To:Cc:

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]] Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:50 AM 'Kerry Bowers'; '[email protected]' 'Karma Zaike'; 'Erika S. Reichley'RE: Markham: File Review

Kerry,

This email will confirm that your office unilaterally canceled the meeting in your office today at 12:00 noon in which you had originally proposed to allow us to inspect and copy the documents that were located in the Seattle residence. You indicated that you did not have an office in which we could inspect the documents. I asked why we could not have used Ms. Zaike's office as you stated there were 5 crated of documents and you did not provide an answer. It is very inconvenient for you to have canceled this important event at the last minute.

I ask that we be able come come tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. to inspect and copy the documents instead o f 12:00 noon. Please confirm that time will work. Mr. Markham is making schedule changes to make this work so your cooperation would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. TsaiAttorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, Washington' 98121Phone: 206-728-8000Fax: 206-728-6869



From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(ailawaate.netl Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:21 AM To: phil(5)tlclawco.com: [email protected] Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: Markham: File Review

This email will confirm that we were unable to reach agreement over the logistics o f facilitating the review of the parties' files today. Please let me know if you would like to reschedule for tomorrow after 12:00, and I w ill reserve a conference room. If tomorrow is not a possibility, please propose another date that would work for you and your client. Thank you.

Mr. Tsai,

.epjqf- *.

l



mailto:kerrv(ailawaate.netl



IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents; rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy all copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

2

Philip C. Tsai

Sent:To:Cc:

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]] Tuesday, February 11,2014 6:32 PM

Subject:

'Karma Zaike' 'Kerry Bowers' RE: Markham

Karma

Yes, tomorrow (Wednesday) works to come and view the documents. We will plan to be there around 10:00 a.m. Thank you.

Very truly yours,


Visit our Website at: www.TLClawco.com

This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510- 2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

---- Original Message.....From: Karma Zaike rmailto:karma(Slawgate.netl Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:27 PM To: Philip Tsai Cc: Kerry Bowers Subject: Markham

I will send you tonight or tomorrow morning the proposed agreement regarding discovery and a new trial date provided your client will standby the proposals we discussed today.

Ms. Markham has delivered files to my office, consistent with the request for production. Please let me know when you would like to schedule a time to come in. I still have Wednesday morning blocked off if you want to stop by that morning in lieu of the deposition.

Phil

-Karma=

l


http://www.TLClawco.com

mailto:karma(Slawgate.net

Exhibit J

PhnjjDj^JTsaii

F rom : Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]]S e n t: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:24 AMT o: 'Karma Zaike'C c: 'Kerry Bowers'; '[email protected]'S u b je c t: RE: Markham Dissolution

Karma,

What is frustrating is your failure to allow my professional copy company to simply retrieve the documents for copying. Why would Jerry come out and mark all of the documents for copying only fo r you to claim that you now do not have possession o f the documents to copy? You still have not advised me where the documents are located if they are not in your office. We agreed to have Jerry inspect and copy the documents. Please comply by producing the documents for copying. Thank you.

Very truly yours,




From: Karma Zaike [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:02 AM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Kerry Bowers; [email protected] Subject: RE: Markham Dissolution

Sorry Phil, but this is really frustrating. First, the discovery requests are for “video inspection,” not copying. Next, we sent you thousands of pages of electronic statements and you complained. Then, I have Ms. Markham haul the entire file cabinet down to my office so your client can do his “video inspection” - which, incidentally, he spent two hours doing - and, finally, you complain about it.

Let me know what you want copied and I will arrange to have it pulled for Sound.

-Karma

From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:[email protected]: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:53 AMTo: Karma Zaike

l






Cc: Kerry BowersSubject: Re: Markham Dissolution

Karma,

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding your below email. Obviously, the reAson that Jerry inspected and marked the files was so they could be copied. It also makes no sense that you say the files are no longer available.Where are they?

Very truly yours,

Philip C. TsaiAttorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, WA 98121Phone: 206-728-8000Fax: 206-728-6869

Visit our website: www.TLClawco.com

This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally'privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying o f this communication is strictly prohibited.

On Feb 19, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Karma Zaike <karma(a)lawgate.net> wrote:

Phil,When asked, there was no confirmation that the files needed to be copied, so they are no longer available. Please let me know what files Jerry wants from the list he made and the files will be made available.Thanks,Karma

From: Philip C. Tsai fmailto^hilOitlclawco.comlSent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:31 AMTo: Karma ZaikeCc: Kerry BowersSubject: Markham Dissolution

Dear Karma,

I am sending Sound Copy to your office this morning to retrieve the files so they can be copied and then returned to your office. Are you available at 12:00 noon for a phone conference to discuss the other issues in this case? Please confirm. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. TsaiAttorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560

2


Seattle, Washington 98121 Phone: 206-728-8000 Fax: 206-728-6869



3


Exhibit K

Philip C. Tsai

Subject: Markham: 2013 taxes-Deadline for disclosure of Jerry's plan

From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:50 PM To: 'Karma Zaike'Cc: 'Erika S. Reichley'; 'Kerry Bowers'Subject: RE: Markham: 2013 taxes-Deadline for disclosure of Jerry's plan

Dear Karma:

In reply to your email of March 19, 2014, some of the issues raised in that email we addressed in our counter offer of last night. As to our providing you the information to file a jo int tax return as requested in your email o f March 19, 2014, please be advised that we are not possessed of any communication on that date or any o ther date requesting any specific information of Mr. Markham. The only request I am aware of dealing with tax returns is *fl 12 of your settlement offer of February 21, 2014 and it propose that Jerry prepare a joint tax return for the parties (as he has throughout their 33 years o f marriage).

Twila's role in that process has been to organize the parties' expenditures by categories and providing Jerry the copies o f the parties 1099's or other evidence o f revenue. Jerry's role has been to review all o f the material Twila has prepared to see if she properly categorized them, total up the revenues for both his law practice (SCH C) the rentals (SCH E), and prepare the depreciation schedules for both and then prepare the necessary supporting schedules for the interest, stock, Ltd. Partnerships and bond revenues and their sales on schedule D. To do this he needs the work paper's Twila has traditionally prepared and her 1099's.

Accordingly, it's not Jerry who has delayed this process. Nor based on our preliminary analysis of the parties respective income this year, is filing a jo int tax return to Jerry's individual financial advantage! Certainly not if the communications necessary to do that has to be conducted through attorneys and involve CPA's necessitating substantial fees. Nevertheless because they have done so it the past as part o f the global settlement just made he was willing to attempt to do that th is last year.

In that spirit, I should also point out to you because it occurs to us that Twila might soon be thinking o f applying for her social security, that there are some unusual rules that might effect that unless she waits until the parties divorce becomes final after she turns 65.

In furtherance o f that spirit o f possible future cooperation, we would make the further request that Twila release Jerry's cell phone number 206-669-1607 so that he may in anticipation of their divorce transfer it to another plan. He has given this number to the Alaska Court's, family and business associates and it appears on his pleadings and letterhead. The number was initially his and on his own separate plan until the parties joined it on Twila's to get Jerry an new cell phone. Now he's advised he can't transfer it, in the absence of an authorization from Twila. If she would give the okay, he could go to an AT&T office and have the number transferred.

Also in that vein, in view of Jerry's belated discovery o f evidence (in both their filing separate tax returns in 1980 and their 25th anniversary "remarriage" certificate leading him to the belief that Twila Petition alleging a 7/6/80 marriage date was in error by a year (an error incidentally that she frequently made), could she e ither produce their marriage certificate confirm ing her petition or if she doesn't have it at least agree to stipulate that Jerry may amend his answer to conform to the evidence at the Las Vegas Nevada Marriage registry (to avoid the need fo r a motion) and we'll order that up?

l


Next, in connection with the original documentation and additional discovery requested in my in my settlement letter (the M ill Bay Road condemnation file, the 4001 Borland Drive sale file and all o f the files containing all prior year Federal Tax Returns in the 810 58th Street, Seattle residence together with their supporting work papers) I am going to add to the list o f specific needed documentation the parties "estate planning" file that needs to be produced. Jerry reports it was also in his office in the tall standup file cabinet in his "old" (spare bedroom) office. But since it was not in what you have represented was that entire file cabinet (which he now believes was incompletely produced as shown by the conspicuous the omission o f numerous years o f files containing the parties "Seattle copy" o f their jo int tax returns together with their work papers). Accordingly, he asks that a search be made of both his entire "old" and "new" office area (in what was formerly the garage) as well as in the furnace room and any other possible location for this and the other files mentioned in his settlement letter that he's indicated he needs to both fairly docum ent his settlement proposal and if necessary his case.

Finally, there is the matter of Twila's deposition and the other motions that we'd agreed to suspend before the court ruled on them but were nevertheless addressed by the court. I agree with you given the impending tria l date, the time to try to get this case settled fairly and am icably w ithout incurring a great deal o f expenses is right now. Having as you've pointed out taken 30 days to respond to Twila's offer (because of the need to secure many necessary documents first from you, and when those were discovered to be incomplete from Alaska), we don't w ish to have it appear that we are unfairly rushing her to respond to ours. Nevertheless, we do not perceive she has the same document impediment. Accordingly, I w ill note Twila's video deposition with the required 20 days in the future and set a deadline to renew my motions by April 1, 2014 if there is no responsive indication from you that leads us to believe this matter can be settled before then and unless discovery is provided with all documents in the Seattle residence.

I welcome any suggestions from you that might allow the parties to address settlement or failing that discovery, in a more orderly fashion including another (brief) continuance of the trial. But we know and appreciate your client's desire to promptly be "divorced" from Jerry and on with her own separate life as she has made th a t clear by her actions in this case. That being her desire, Jerry too wants to facilitate that. However the parties marriage was a long one and its history involves the analysis of a substantial number of documents (much of which Jerry on ly now has obtained due to no lack o f his own diligence). And for all we can foresee presently the current trial date should not present an impediment to the fa ir trial o f his claims if that is what Twila wants as long as the additional documents are provided. However if she wants to have the opportunity to fairly (and inexpensively) explore the prospects o f an amicable

settlement, given the current trial date merely 2.5 months away, both may not be possible. It would be a shame after a loving marriage o f 33 years, which Jerry wants only to end with the knowledge that his w ife is being fairly provided for both under the law and under the equities here. If you have any other suggestion as to how we might fairly affect that, I would be open to that as well.

Very tru ly yours,




2


Exhibit L

From: Philip C. Tsai fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:18 PM To: Karma ZaikeCc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry BowersSubject: Re: Markham: Confirming discovery conference

Karma,

Pursuant to my calculation, Mr. Markham's responses are not due until February 24, 2014. Also, I am not available on Friday at 10:00 am for a premature discovery conference. I have to discuss the status of the answers to your discovery requests with Mr. Markham before any such conference and will let you know on Monday when I am available to do so.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. TsaiAttorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, WA 98121Phone: 206-728-8000Fax: 206-728-6869

Visit our website: www.TLCIawco.com

This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use o f the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.



Exhibit M

Emily ]. Tsai, esq/Philip C. Tsai, Esq,.T O D D D E VALLANCE, E S C L LUCKY LUFKIN, ESCL DAVID W . KITCHELL, ESCL.A SCOTT MARLOW, ESO. MARCIA FISCHER, ESQ.________

2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1560 ‘ALSO adm itted in California

SEATTLE, W A 98121 PHONE: (206) 728-8000 FAX: (206) 728-6869WWW.TLCLAWCO.COM

February 20,2014

Karma Zaike, Esq.Michael W Bugni & Associates 11300 Roosevelt Way NE Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98125-6243


Re: Markham Dissolution

Dear Karma,

This letter shall serve as a partial response and objection to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents you sent via email on or about January 21,2014. First, I calculate the due date for your discovery requests as February 24, 2014 which includes 3 days of mailing pursuant to CR 5. Your Interrogatories unilaterally set a CR 26(i) conference for Friday, February 21,2014 without consultation with me. As I indicated in my email to you yesterday, I am not available for a premature discovery conference at 10:00 a.m. on February 21,2014 as I need to discuss the status of the responses with Mr. Markham. However, I anticipate having further responses to your discovery requests by the due date of February 24, 2014.

With respect to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production you submitted, I provide the following objections at this time. Specifically, Mr. Markham objects to your discovery on the basis of:

1. The discovery is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, fails to describe the documents sought with reasonable particularity, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

2. The discovery asks for irrelevant, immaterial, oppressive or information that is equally available to the Petitioner.

3. The discovery seeks information protected by attorney work product, attorney-client privilege and/or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.

4. The discovery fails to provide adequate time to comply with the request.

http://WWW.TLCLAWCO.COM

Karma Zaike, Esq. February 20,2014 Page 2

5. The discovery seeks a premature disclosure of experts to the extent that therespondent has not determined which expert witnesses may be called at trial if not already disclosed in prior discovery.

Without waiving any of the above objections, Mr. Markham will provide answers to your discovery requests on or about February 24,2014. If you believe a CR 26(i) conference is necessary after receiving Mr. Markham’s discovery responses, please contact me so we can schedule a mutually agreeable date and time.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Very truly yours,


PI Âttorney at Law

cc: client

Exhibit N

From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:[email protected]!Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:45 PM To: Karma ZaikeCc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; [email protected] Subject: RE: Markham: Confirming discovery conference

Dear Karma,

I write to advise Jerry was not able to get to Kodiak, Alaska over the weekend to obtain the documents that are responsive to some of the discovery requests due to heavy wind that grounded all the airplanes. Therefore, I will need additional time to obtain the documents from Jerry and provide answers. This delay was not anticipated by anyone as in fully intended to have the discovery responses to you today but for Jerry not getting to Kodiak. Please advise whether a 7 day continuance of providing the responses (to next Monday) is agreeable in light of the continued trial date. I may be able to get them to you sooner, but would rather have sufficient time to do so rather than request a further extension.

I also appreciate your sending the settlement proposal on Friday evening and would like to focus the energy in this case towards providing a response to your proposal and settlement instead of engaging in formal discovery. Given that you put together the proposal with specific values fo r the property, I need to review with Jerry whether appraisals are necessary or whether we can proceed with, using those or modified values. Please confirm whether you still want to have the boats and aircraft appraised now, or whether that can wait until you receive our substantive response to your settlement proposal. If we wait to have those done until after you receive our response, it may save the parties money. Please let me know. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. TsaiAttorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, Washington 98121Phone: 206-728-8000Fax:206-728-6869






Exhibit O

From: Karma ZaikeSent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:13 PM To: 'Philip C. Tsai'Cc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; anthonvurietaamail.com Subject: RE: Markham: Confirming discovery conference

Phil,

Ms. Markham will agree to a moratorium in discovery until Monday, March 3.

-Karma Zaike

Exhibit P

Philip C. Tsai

Subject:Attachments:

Sent:To:Cc:

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]]Monday, March 10, 2014 6:23 PM 'Karma Zaike''Kerry Bowers'Markham DissolutionAnswers to Interrogatories Gerald Markham.pdf

Dear Karma,

Please see the attached Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production. I am sending over the originals via ABC messenger along w ith some of the documents which are responsive to the requests. I have more documents in my conference room that are available for you to inspect. Please contact me regarding a mutually agreed date and time to perform the inspection. Thank you.

Very truly yours,




1



Exhibit Q

From: Philip C. Tsai rmailto:phil@tldawco,com1 Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:24 PM To: Kerry Bowers Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: RE: Markham: File

Kerry,

I do not have the hard copies in my office any longer. Let me see when I can get them back or whether I can get soft copies for you. Thank you.

Very truly yours,




From: Kerry Bowers fmailto: [email protected]]Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:45 PM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: Markham: File

Mr. Tsai,

I am arranging for Sound Legal Copy to come and pick up the documents from your office for copying. I would like to have them picked up tomorrow. Can you let me know how many files/boxes there are? They should be able to return the documents in one to two days depending on the volume. Thank you.

Kerry Michael BowersLegal AssistantThe Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300Seattle, Washington 98125P.206.365.5500F. 206.363.8067

mailto:phil@tldawco,com1



Exhibit R

Philip C. Tsai

From: Kerry Bowers [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:20 AMTo: Philip C. TsaiCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. ReichleySubject: RE: Markham: File

Mr. Tsai,

W e would like to have these documents by the end of the week. Please let me know when they can be picked up for copying or when you expect to send soft copies. Thank you.

C* O* yowernLegal AssistantThe Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC.11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300Seattle, Washington 98125P.206.365.5500F. 206.363.8067

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIA.L: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents; rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy all copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

From: Philip C. Tsai rmailto.'phikaitlclawco.coml Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:24 PM To: Kerry Bowers Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: RE: Markham: File

Kerry,


Very truly yours,



This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is

1



not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(a)lawaate.netl Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:45 PM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: Markham: File

Mr. Tsai,

I am arranging fo r Sound Legal Copy to come and pick up the documents from your office fo r copying. I would like to have them picked up tomorrow. Can you let me know how many files/boxes there are? They should be able to return the documents in one to two days depending on the volume. Thank you.

a nL&r-np sm e/iaet. k.-yoowew


IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note'that forwarding or showing this email to any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents; rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy all copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

2

mailto:kerrv(a)lawaate.netl

Exhibit S

Markham Discovery Document Index

NO. Document Title Number of Pages

1. 2010 Income Taxes 308

2. 2011 Income Taxes 323

3. 2012 Taxes 512

4. Markham 2013 Taxes 157


6. 1978 contract sale of 211 Mill Bay Rd 26

7. 1981 Gerald and Twila Part 2 23

8. 1981 Gerald and Twila 7










18. 1988 Mildred Markham Fiduciary Income Tax 15

19. 1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Legal papers Part 2 8

20. 1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Legal papers 36

21. 1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Work Papers part 2 1

22. 1988-89 Mildred Markham Estate Work papers 19

23. 1989 Mildred Markham Fidudiary Income Tax 8

24. 1989 Mildred Markham(audited) Estate Tax 14




28. 1993 Gerald and Twila part 2 3



31. 2010 Tax Retum.pdf (from twila) 135

32. 2010 X letter 2

33. Contract Bristal Bay permit 2013 31

34. Contract Bristol Bay Permit 2015 pt. 2 26

35. First Davidson IRA calc. 2

36. Markham (2009) 10.18.10 Amm 142

37. Markham 1995 pt. 2 21

38. Markham 1995 pt. 4 1

39. Markham 1995 taxes part 3 4

40. Markham 1995 taxes 46

41. Markham 1996 pt. 4 1

42. Markham 1996 pt. 5 12

43. Markham 1996 Taxes Pt. 2 29

44. Markham 1996 Taxes Pt. 3 2


46. Markham 1997 Pt. 2 32

47. Markham 1997 pt. 3 11

48. Markham 1997 pt. 4 149. Markham 1997 Taxes 40

50. Markham 1998 pt. 2 50

51. Markham 1998 pt. 3 46


53. Markham 1999 34



56. Markham 2002 Pt. 2 31



59. Markham 2004 Tax 45

60. MAKKHAM 2005 Taxes 31



63. Markham 2008 144


65. Markham 2009 Amm. 10.18.10 142

66. Markham 2009 as filed 10.15.10 138

67. Markham 2010 (Autosaved).tax2010 1

68. Markham 2010 Amm. (final) 172

Exhibit T

Philip C„ Tsai

Subject:

Sent:To:Cc:

From: Philip C. Tsai [[email protected]]Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:39 AM 'Philip C. Tsai'; 'Karma Zaike''Erika S. Reichley'; 'Kerry Bowers'; '[email protected]' RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery

Dear Karma,

Following up on the below, I address additional issues you raise below:

1) Yesterday, I provided you with the PERS release you provided last Friday. Also, Mr. Markham is unaware of any PERS documents that he has that haven't been provided you. A large working files of his communications with his employment with the Municipality of Anchorage in 2003 and PERS since his retirement in 2004 was in his basement office at the parties Seattle house at 810 NE 68th. Despite our requests that you perm it us to make an inspection o f this office you've refused that and specificaily you've failed to produce this file of documents. Thereafter, when Mr. Markham responded he had no other documents other than what was in this office (which he had no access to) but offering to provide a release to PERS, none was proposed to him before you filed your Motion to compel.

2) The. boat is available for appraisal at 198 Journeys End Way in Friday Harbor on 48 hours notice on any day that Mr. Markham is. not away from Friday Harbor attending his sessions w ith Dr. Maiuro, meeting with his counsel or other legal matters. It is however in a state of repair. He currently has no plans April 7-9 but unavailable the rest o f the week. Do you want to have it inspected then? Please advise.

3) The plane is likewise available for inspection in Friday Harbor on like notice, but given the name of your appraiser we assume you would like it inspected at their location at Crown aviation in Everett. Mr. Markham can make it available for inspection there at 1PM tomorrow until 3PM on Thursday this week. Otherwise he needs the plane to make his frequent trips into Seattle but can probably make it available on any day he is scheduled to be there. If tomorrow is too soon, perhaps April 16 ,2014? Please advise.

4) This is the first you've made mention of the Appraisal of the Alaska properties since we agreed to suspend discovery pending our exchange of settlement offers. However it has come to our attention that shortly before that suspension occurred Mrs. Markham apparently had no reservations directing Appraisal Company of Alaska (perhaps with Mrs. Markham or other agents present) to enter the 2201 Bancroft Condo and appraise it on or about February 15, 2014 w ithout our advance knowledge or opportunity to be present or have our own appraiser present. This was done despite the fact that Mrs. Markham's awareness that Mr. Markham was scheduled to be in Anchorage February 16, 2014 (in anticipation of arguing before the Alaska Supreme Court on February 18, 2014) when he conveniently could have been there for the inspection. Moreover as a result of this appraiser's carelessness when this appraiser returned the keys to the car port combination hidden key box where Mr. Markham kept a set of keys for his access to this property when working there (which Mrs. Markham unilaterally provided this appraiser the combination to), her appraiser jammed the keys in the box making it impossible for Mr. Markham to open it when he arrived and necessitating he stand out in the bitter Anchorage cold for several house calling a mutual friend to determ ine whether Mrs. Markham had changed the combination to the lock. It is for reasons such as this (as well as common courtesy) that we have a Rule 34. Moreover, we see that Mrs. Markham further had the charge of that appraisal to Mr. Markham's "office expense" credit card. That was not appropriate.

5) You likewise disobeyed rule 34 last summer, when after your divorce litigation was filed in May, Mrs. Markham waited until she knew Mr. Markham had left Friday Harbor for Alaska and then drove there and entered the 198 Journey's End Way property in Friday Harbor (titled in Mr. Markham's name) w ithout his knowledge (but certainly with yours) and removed numerous items from it (purchased with what you now contend were community funds). Then more recently, this February before we agreed to suspend discovery to exchange settlement offers you unilaterally

l


attempted to send your appraiser there again in violation of Rule 34. In response Mr. Markham didn't threaten anyone that day but merely indicated the appropriate action that would be taken if the civil rules were not followed. You have since given proper notice of your intent to conduct the inspection and to inventory the personal property there and indicated this would occur on April 21-23, 2014. One of those days would be acceptable to us but fail to to see why you need to tie Mr. Markham and this property up for all three. Please choose one date.

6) There is also the issue o f your prior request to have Mrs. Markham present during this appraisal. As you are aware the restraining order put in place prevents Mr. Markham from being present where Mrs. Markham is w ithout a third party present. But when we sought to comply with that order by having him present at her deposition you objected to that? Clearly she cannot w illfully go to a location where she knows he is and thereby force him to leave at the risk of being held in contempt. And we fail to see why her presence in Friday Harbor is necessary. In her unannounced July 2013 entry, Mrs. Markham removed all o f the parties personal property she apparently wanted she (I'm sure w ith your knowledge) entered the Friday Harbor house (again titled in his name) and removed the various items of personal property she wanted (without leaving any "inventory" of what she took). The value of the remaining household items that she didn't take is insignificant. She certainly had the opportunity to make any "inventory" she wanted then. Moreover you have denied Mr. Markham a like opportunity to be present during any appraisal, inspection or inventory

o f the properties at 810 NE 58th and 809 NE 59th by simply agreeing the Mrs. Markham would absent herself (but have an agent present) while he does so and entering a simple stipulation in the criminal proceedings to allow him that fair opportunity. Accordingly we feel that if Mrs. Markham wishes to persist in this that any "inventory" be performed by "Maria Madrigal the housekeeper Ms. Markham chose to employ for several years in Friday Harbor (at Ms. Markham 's expense in what will undoubtedly exceed the value of any personal property you are not already aware of there) and that this inventory should be done simultaneously w ith your appraisal both while Mr. Markham is present.

Accordingly, despite your misrepresentations, as the forging reflects we have and we will continue to attempt to professionally cooperate with you (without the drama) toward a full and fair exchange of discovery, but meanwhile we would like to see your like responses to our (long) outstanding requests mentioned in our most recent emails. And when we conclude Mrs. Markham's deposition, we would like to attempt further settlement discussions or participate in mediation which I can assure you has been so for attempted by us in the utmost good faith.

Regarding mediation, Cheryll Russell indicated she is available on May 9, 2014 and May 16, 2014 available for mediation. Please let me know if either of those dates works with your schedule. Thank you.

Very truly yours,




From: Philip C. Tsai [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 6:11 PM To: 'Karma Zaike'

2



Cc: 'Erika S. Reichley'; 'Kerry Bowers'; '[email protected]'Subject: RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery

Karma,

Contrary to your below contention, the documents on the CD are the documents that are in response to your Requests for Production. You must not have reviewed them if you are contending they are the same documents that I previously sent. Please perform a careful review of the documents before you make statements that are completely false. I sent you approximately 200 MB of files today on the CD and what you characterize as "out of date" are the documents which are part o f the tracing analysis in specific answer to your discovery requests.

As i previously indicated to you, the CD I provided contains a plethora of documents which show the tracing and nature of Mr. Markham's separate property.

We have not had a CR 26(i) conference regarding any of the discovery issues raised in your below email and the issues raised in the motion you filed with the court. The reason that CR 26(i) exists is to allow the parties to work together cooperatively to reduce the need for motions and needlessly involving the Court in discovery issues. Your failure to comply with CR 26(i) is evidence that you are not acting cooperatively regarding discovery and not understanding the difficulty in compiling documents in multiple locations spanning over a 30 year period. The bottom line is that you have not complied with the civil rules regarding discovery motions which I will point out to the Court in the response to be filed on behalf or Mr. Markham.

Regarding your questions below regarding appraisals, if you would have complied with CR 26(i) prior to just unilaterally filing a motion, i would have been able to provide you with dates and possibly an agreement to have joint appraisals to reduce the costs of this proceeding. However, once again, your failure to abide by the civil rules has prevented this from happening.

Thank you for your attention to this email.

Very truly yours,




From: Karma Zaike fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 4:56 PM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; [email protected] Subject: RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery

Phil,

3




Cooperation? You’re asserting that / have failed to cooperate? Wow, that is bad faith if I’ve ever seen it. You know how I’ve worked to get you access to documents, sent you OUR spreadsheet, given you OUR WORK PRODUCT, plus given you delay after delay and you have the nerve to assert that / haven’t cooperated? I’ve seen you do many things, but that’s a new low.

The CD contained all of the out of date documents you previously sent. They were not new documents. Don’t try to pretend that you’ve made any effort that could remotely be construed as due diligence. It’s just not there. Try obstruction, obfuscation and delay.

I ask you again: when are the documents going to be available?

When is Mr. Markham going to make the boat available for appraisal?

When is Mr. Markham going to make the plane available for appraisal?

When is Mr. Markham going to make the Alaska properties available for appraisal?

Is Mr. Markham going to comply with the Notice of Entry for the Friday Harbor property or is he going to threaten the appraiser again?

I didn’t want to file the motion, but I need to move Ms. Markham’s discovery forward. Since your client has refused to cooperate, the judge must intervene.

Oh, and where is that PERS form? Are you going to respond?

-Karma Zaike

From: Philip C. Tsai fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 4:03 PM To: Karma ZaikeCc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; [email protected] Subject: RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery

Dear Karma,

As promised, I sent via messenger a CD containing a plethora of documents in response to the discovery requests you sent over. Contrary to your contention, you have not attempted to schedule a CR 26(i) conference w ith me to discuss any discovery issues w ith me since the time I provided Mr. Markham 's Answers to Interrogatories and since we entered the Agreed Order and Stipulation regarding discovery. Your motion was prematurely filed and failed to comply with the discovery rules regarding cooperation. Your below email is only an attempt to try and excuse the failure to comply with the discovery rules despite our attempts to work together more cooperatively with respect to this case. Mr. Markham's settlement offer was in good faith and was an attempt to achieve a fair and equitable division of property. Once again, I provided a plethora of documents today in good faith compliance w ith the discovery requests. I ask that you strike your Motion to Compel as it fails to comply with the rules regarding discovery. Otherwise, I will have to ask for attorney's fees and costs.

Thank you for your attention to this email.

Very truly yours,

Philip C. Tsai

4



Attorney at LawTsai Law Company, PLLC2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1560Seattle, Washington 98121Phone: 206-728-8000Fax: 206-728-6869



From: Karma Zaike fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 3:50 PM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Erika S. Reichley; Kerry Bowers; [email protected] Subject: RE: Markham: Failure to proceed with discovery

Phil and Tony,

As you can see in the motion, I’ve bent over backwards trying to speak with you. You put me to voice mail, you bait and switch your availability or you simply ignore the requests. For example, yes, the inquiry below was sent to you. But it has been sent at least twice this week for the records you promised were available in your office. What was your response? Radio silence.

I’ve been asking since February that you disclose when Mr. Markham will make his vessels, aircraft and the Friday Harbor property available for appraisal. Your response? Radio silence.

I’ve been trying to coordinate appraisals with you since February, possibly January for the Alaska properties. Your response? Radio silence.

At your request, my client put discovery on hold so that you could respond to our settlement offer. You know as well as I that your response was bad faith. It smells of angry ex-husband, not seasoned family law litigator in tone and content.

You got your continuance and now you’re squandering it by setting up roadblocks to Ms. Markham’s discovery. Enough is enough. I can’t force you to respond, but I can request the assistance of the court in obtaining information to allow Ms. Markham to prove her case.

By the way, where is the PERS release sent earlier today that your client promised to sign? What, no answer?? Not surprising. Unfortunately, I can’t wait any longer.

-Karma Zaike

From: Philip C. Tsai fmailto:[email protected]: Friday, March 28, 2014 9:08 AMTo: Kerry BowersCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. ReichleySubject: RE: Markham: File

5





Karma

I am perplexed regarding why you sent the below email yesterday morning and then filed a Motion in the afternoon claiming we are not cooperating with discovery. I will send a soft copy of the documents being gathered in response to the discovery requests today. We are gathering all o f the documents, which span for over 30 years. We are acting in good faith. If you do not strike the motion, we will ask for attorney's fees and costs for your failure to comply with CR 26(i) and the Order we just entered declaring we would work together to develop a discovery plan. Thank you.

Very truly yours,




From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(5)|awaate.netl Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:39 AM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: RE: Markham: File

Mr. Tsai,

Will the documents be available tomorrow if I arrange for Sound Copy to pick them up? Let me know if you would rather send a soft copy. Thank you.

Legal AssistantThe Law Offices o f Michael W. Bugni & Associates. PLLC11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300Seattle, Washington 98125P.206.365.5500F. 206.363.8067

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you arc the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents; rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy all copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

From: Philip C. Tsai fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:24 PM To: Kerry Bowers

6


mailto:kerrv(5)%7cawaate.netl


Cc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: RE: Markham: File

Kerry,


Very truly yours,




From: Kerry Bowers rmailto:kerrv(5)lawaate.netl Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:45 PM To: Philip C. TsaiCc: Karma Zaike; Erika S. Reichley Subject: Markham: File

Mr. Tsai,

I am arranging for Sound Legal Copy to come and pick up the documents from your office for copying. I would like to have them picked up tomorrow. Can you let me know how many files/boxes there are? They should be able to return the documents in one to two days depending on the volume. Thank you.

Legal AssistantThe Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300Seattle, Washington 98125P.206.365.5500F. 206.363.8067

IMPORTANT/CONFIDENT1AL: this email and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client privilege or other privileges, and is intended for use only by the intended recipients(s). If you are the intended recipient, please note that forwarding or showing this email to any other person may result in waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this email in error, please do not read, reproduce, or distribute its contents; rather, please immediately notify the sender, delete the email, and destroy ail copies of the email and any attachments. Thank you.

7


mailto:kerrv(5)lawaate.netl