Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Fannie Mae

Perry v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al Case # MSC10-02914

Page 1 of 2 Notice and Motion to Compel Further Discovery Defendant FNMA. – SET TWO

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

LEIGHTON LEE PERRY Plaintiff pro se

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

Leighton Lee PERRY, Plaintiff, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title estate, lien or interest in the property described in this Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’ title thereto and as DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Defendants

Case No.: No. MSC10-02914 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES TO FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (SET TWO) REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LEIGHTON LEE PERRY; SEPARATE STATEMENTS; Judge: Hon. Dept: 31 Date: February 28, 2013 9:30 a.m.

To Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) and AlvaradoSmith, APC, attorney of record

for FNMA:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 9:30 AM, on February __28_ , 2013, or as soon thereafter as the

matter may be heard, in Dept. 31 of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, 785 Court St., Martinez,

California, Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry will move the Court for an order compelling Defendant FNMA

to respond to and produce, without objections, SET TWO of Plaintiff’s Form and Special Interrogatories

and Request to Produce Documents, and impose monetary sanctions against Federal National Mortgage


Page 2 of 2 Notice and Motion to Compel Further Discovery Defendant FNMA. – SET TWO

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

Association (“FNMA”) in the amount of no less than $267 for its persistent and wrongful obstruction of

discovery and lack of verification as referenced in the Declaration of Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry.

This motion is made pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedures §§2030.300, 20301.310,

and 2033.290 on the following grounds:

1. That Respondent has violated the “negotiate in good faith” relationship between parties and

directive to use discovery as a tool to reduce court resources by pleading numerous “boiler plate

junk” objections to highly relevant requests for production of documents and Form and Special

interrogatories with such insufficiency and evasion as to cast doubt as to the merits of their actions.

2. That Respondent has failed to serve a timely response pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Proc

§2030.290(b) to Plaintiff’s Form and Special Interrogatories, and to Requests for Production of

Documents served upon FNMA. Efforts at meet and confer have been fruitless, allowing the Court

to award sanctions in the form of waivers to further objections by Respondents for failing to verify

their responses.

3. That Respondent has failed to seek a protective order within the 30 days allotted by §2030(h) of

the Code of Civil Procedure despite raising general objections citing privilege, confidentiality, or

work product in lieu of identifying documents with particularity and objection.

This motion will be based on the notice of motion, the attached memorandum of points and

authorities, attached exhibits, the Statements in Support of Motion to Compel, the record and files of this

case, and any further oral or documentary evidence introduced at the hearing of this motion.

Dated: April 13, 2013

___________________



Page 3 of 4 Points & Authorities for Motion to Compel Defendant FNMA. – SET TWO

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about November 11, 2012, Plaintiff served his set of discovery on Defendant Federal National

Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) [see Exhibit “A”]. On December 7, 2012, Plaintiff stipulated to an

extension request to December 31, 2012, received by David Chavez in an email with correspondence

attached [Exhibit “C”]. On December 21, 2012, FNMA served Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for

Admissions by regular mail to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff presented his concerns in follow-up email and correspondence which was discussed in a

long phone call by parties. Subsequent emails were exchanged, primarily regarding the lack of

verification by FNMA.

As of the filing of this motion unmet promises by FNMA’s counsel have left Plaintiff no choice but

to file this motion to maintain his rights to discovery [Cal. Code Civ. Proc 2031.310(c)] .

Plaintiff is authorized under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, and

2033.290 to move to compel further responses. The conduct evidenced above is precisely the type of

conduct that the discovery statutes are aimed at remedying, and accordingly, an order should issue

compelling Defendant FNMA to immediately produce the requested information and documents.

II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS

FNMA objected to the production of numerous categories of documents requested in Plaintiff’s SET

TWO. As fully set forth in the separate Statement filed concurrently herewith and the Declaration of

Plaintiff attached hereto, the documents requested are either directly relevant to the subject matter of this

action or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The requested documents relate primarily to the history of Plaintiff’s loan file. These original

documents strike to the heart of the matter; whether FNMA has a beneficiary interest or security interest

in Plaintiff’s property and thereby might claim the right of a non-judicial foreclosure. The information

Plaintiff seeks is not available from other sources, as the sole source of the documents and information is

in FNMA’s possession or control and not otherwise obtainable by Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff would

be entirely unable to prosecute its underlying causes of action were these documents kept from his

discovery efforts. Under such circumstances C.C.P. §2031.310 authorizes Plaintiff to compel the



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

production of such documents.

Plaintiff’s Statement addresses each of the boilerplate objections that FNMA presented to frustrate

discovery. With few exceptions FNMA has objected with different variations of the junk objections that

the request is overbroad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, ill-constructed, vague, confidential /

proprietary, or is ambiguous or unintelligible.

Where there is no legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the burden to show

good cause for productions is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. TBG Ins. Services

Corp v. Superior Court, [96 Cal. App.4th 443, 448] (2002). Once that showing is made the burden shifts

to the party opposing the production to justify the objection. Kirkland v. Superior Court, [95 Ca.App.

4th 92, 98] (2002); Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies, [52 Cal.App. 4th 813, 818] (1997) “in

response to proper discovery request, burden is upon health care provider to establish that compilation of

requested patient billing records would be unduly burdensome or oppressive”. The fact that there is no

alternative source for the information is an additional factor in determining good cause for production.

See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court, [65 Cal 2d 583, 587] (1967).

III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ORDER FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Responding Party consistently uses the objections of “overly broad”, “unduly burdensome”,

“vague”, “ambiguous”, and “not relevant to issues raised in this action” in the majority of their

responses to Propounding Party’s Request for Special Interrogatories. In Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd v

Superior Court, [51 Cal App 4th at P. 1516] the court stated “the use of boilerplate objections is

improper”; Coy v. Superior Court, [58 Cal App 2nd at pp 220-221] “the burden falls upon the

responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully RESPONSE discovery”.

Propounding Party submits that Respondent is the only source for the evidence of the power to sell

Plaintiff’s home through non-judicial means and is relying on Plaintiff’s loan file to do so. Respondent’s

objection to these requests for production of documents as seeking documents that are neither relevant

nor reasonable calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence is without merit. In this action the

information sought is relevant to 1) Defendant’s non-judicial foreclosure of Plaintiff’s primary residence

and 2) the enforceability of Plaintiff’s promissory note and deed of trust as relied upon by Defendant to

determine note holder not in due course of their beneficiary and security interests. Denying Plaintiff an



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

opportunity to discover whether such efforts by Respondent was proper and Respondent’s meritless

objections to Propounding Party’s request for production of documents will result in unfair and

irremediable harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff would have the court note that no Verification to Responding Party’s answers to his special

interrogatories has been served to Propounding Party as of the filing of this motion. As such,

Responding Party cannot claim legal rights of having responded to Propounding Party’s interrogatories

within statutory limits. Although a response composed of objections with a sprinkling of good faith

responses was served, no verification accompanied it as required in Cal. Code of Civil Proc.

§2030.210(a) “The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under

oath …”.

IV. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR OBSTRUCTING PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY EFFORTS

California Civ. Code Proc §2030.300(d) states

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with §2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust”.

And Cal. Civ. Code Proc §2031.310(h) echos

Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with §2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Monetary discovery sanctions include “the reasonable expenses … incurred by anyone as a result of

that conduct”. (C.C.P. §2023.020). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions against

Defendant FNMA in an amount no less than $267. Plaintiff’s expenses include

Filing fees $90

Recorder fees 30

Service costs 65

Printing costs, including paper, toner, printer expense, printer maintenance 72

Total $267

In light of the dramatic increase of the cost of filing motions to this court, the Court’s recent denial

to modify the terms of the preliminary injunction, and Defendants profusion of junk objections solely to



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

cause economic disadvantage to Plaintiff, the Court should consider punitive sanctions by waiver of

objections to further responses and such other issue sanctions as the Court may deem proper [CCP

§2023.030], and further monetary awards. California Code of Civil Procedure §1008 provides –

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion. (c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.

By the time this motion is heard Plaintiff will have had to pay 3 months rent at $780 due to the

unconscionable delay of Defendants. If the court considers Plaintiff’s age of 65, a sanction for the delay

may be trebled as a penalty for Elder Abuse [Cal. WIC Code 15610.30].

V. CONCLUSION

The age old shysters’ legal advice goes something like – “if you don’t have the facts, argue law. If

you don’t have the law, argue facts. If you don’t have law or facts, argue rules”. This court is now

considering a motion that is only likely being made because the facts held solely by Defendants, if

brought to light, would leave them defenseless against Plaintiff’s allegations in this action. For example,

responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories state that his loan was not securitized. Yet Plaintiff cites a

letter received from Chase Home Financial, LLC, stating that FNMA was the ‘investor’. For this reason,

if for nothing else, Plaintiff requests the court issue an order: 1) compelling Defendant FNMA to

provide answers to the special interrogatories as set forth in the separate Statement; (2) compelling

Defendant FNMA to immediately produce the documents requested in the separate Statement; (3)

imposing issue and monetary sanctions against Defendants in the amount of no less than $226.

DATED: April 13, 2013

__________________________________

Leighton Lee Perry, Plaintiff pro se


Page 1 of 3 Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Defendant FNMA. – SET TWO

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




Case No.: No. MSC10-02914 DECLARATION OF LEIGHTON L. PERRY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, ALONG WITH CONCURRENTLY FILED SEPARATE STATEMENTS

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF LEIGHTON LEE PERRY

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL

On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action.

Plaintiff makes a motion for order compelling Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association

(“FNMA”) to respond to Request for Production of Documents and respond to Form and Special

Interrogatories, and in support thereof declares as follows:

1. On or about July 25, 2011, Plaintiff served its first set of discovery on Defendant Federal National

Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) [see Exhibit “A”].

2. On August 29, 2011, FNMA served Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and Responses

to Plaintiff’s Request For Production of Documents by regular mail to Plaintiff.



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

3. On September 7, 2011, Defendants were absent from a Case Management Conference without pre-

arranging for their absence. Plaintiff was thereby denied the opportunity to raise the issue of the

status of discovery before the court.

4. On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff complied with the statutory meet and confer obligations by

following up with FNMA’s boilerplate objections in an email with Jenny L. Meredith of

AlvaradoSmith, APC, in which parties agreed to extend time to allow response to a different set of

discovery to another Defendant.

5. This was followed up by 2 phone calls made by Plaintiff on October 6, 2011 to Ms. Meredith, and

a second call to her supervisor, S. Christopher Yoo. Both calls went unanswered and Plaintiff left

messages regarding the topic of discovery and that they should call him back.

6. As of the filing of the motion on November 14, 2011, no return call had been made by Defendants.

7. On November 17, 2011 a hearing was held in Department 60 with parties present as a result of the

tentative ruling stating parties should appear. At that hearing Commissioner Sanders determined

that Plaintiff did not wait long enough to allow Defendants to reply and dismissed the motion after

stating Plaintiff could re-submit the discovery by varying the questions somewhat.

8. A third discovery hearing was held in Department 60 on July 19, 2012, when Plaintiff filed a

motion for a protective order for 80 requests of discovery filed by Defendants upon Plaintiff.

Again, the tentative ruling of Commissioner Sanders was that both parties were to appear. At the

hearing the attorney for Defendants conceded the requests were excessive, and parties agreed to

further meet and confer and eventually resolved the discovery to parties’ satisfaction.

9. On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff served a second set of discovery (“SET TWO”) upon Defendant

FNMA by overnight mail. The requests were modeled from requests served on Plaintiff by

Defendant FNMA’s counsel.

10. Defendants requested an extension to December 31, 2012, in correspondence dated December 7,

2012, to which Plaintiff stipulated. [Exhibit “C”]

11. Plaintiff was served with responses on December 21, 2012. The responses from Defendant FNMA

were, and remain, not verified.

12. Defendant’s counsel has not determined a date for their amended responses in either



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

correspondence, email, or in any telephone conversation. Defendant’s counsel still has failed to

provide a privilege log for the documents upon which he raises those objections.

Defendant’s counsel has yet to provide verification for FNMA even though Plaintiff has repeatedly

offered to be served by email.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true

and correct.


__________________________




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

LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT “A”

Statements: Requests, Responses, and Objections for Form Interrogatories SET TWO

EXHIBIT “B”

Statements: Requests, Responses, and Objections for Special Interrogatories SET TWO

EXHIBIT “C”

Statements: Requests, Responses, and Objections for Production of Documents SET TWO

EXHIBIT “D”

Request for Production of Documents SET ONE

EXHIBIT “E”

Request for Special Interrogatories SET ONE

EXHIBIT “F”

Correspondence by FNMA of December 7, 2012, requesting extension


EXHIBIT “A” - Statements: Requests, Responses, and Objections for Form Interrogatories SET TWO Page 1 of 20

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




Case No.: No. MSC10-02914 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES TO FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (SET TWO)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM

INTERROGATORIES

RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11:

At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so, state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON; and

(b) a description of your duties.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11;

(a) Yes



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

(b) Federal National Mortgage Association

OBJECTION TO RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11:

Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. FNMA as

‘agent’ for defendant FNMA, requires further elaboration of its duties to, presumably, itself, particularly

in the roles of trustee, master servicer, investor, beneficiary, underwriter.


Are you a corporation? If so, state: (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation; (b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was used; (c) the date and place of incorporation; (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:

No (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A (e) N/A


Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. FNMA is

described on its own website as a federally chartered corporation. No wonder FNMA refused to verify

these responses.


At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; (d) the policy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance company; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy


No (a) N/A



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

(b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A (e) N/A (f) N/A (g) N/A


Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. FNMA

‘guarantees’ mortgages by pooling them together to sell to investors. Why did AIG, the huge insurer, go

bankrupt insuring FNMA loans? Was Plaintiff’s loan involved in a CDS (credit default swap)? FNMA

holds a portion of each payment for a mortgage insurance ‘reserve’. This is common knowledge.


Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the

INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.


No


Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. FNMA

‘guarantees’ mortgages by pooling them together to sell to investors. Why does the U.S. Treasury pour

funds into FNMA to cover “losses”? Was Plaintiff’s loan involved in a CDS (credit default swap)?

FNMA holds a portion of each payment for a mortgage insurance ‘reserve’. This is common knowledge.

If these are the “losses” Plaintiff has right to information regarding his loan if FNMA held it.


State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:

(State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).


Responding Party objects on the ground this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to



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

this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Responding Party objects to the term "INCIDENT" as vague and ambiguous, causing Responding

Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive.

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and

oppressive.


Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. JP Morgan

Chase Bank NA as ‘agent’ for FNMA, for example, would have been contacted by the ‘Note Holder’

conveying their decision to declare a default, and their decision to pursue non-judicial foreclosure. As

alleged assignee of the Subject Loan Responding Party would have negotiated the terms of the

transaction with the prior ‘Note Holder’ and arranged for the physical transfer of the promissory note if

it had not been destroyed.

“Vague” is a sanctionable objection. See Standon v. Superior Court (1990), 225 Cal.App.3d 898

[Court referred to objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" "...as a 'nuisance' objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."] It is not enough that the question or questions are burdensome; the objecting party must also

demonstrate that the questions are so unjust that they amount to oppression. West Pico Furniture Co. v.

Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 407, 419, (1961). It must appear that the amount of work required to answer

the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the

ends of justice to require answers. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court, 263

CalApp.2d 12, 19 (1968). Defendants provide no estimate of effort to substantiate their objection.


Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning

the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview.





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





oppressive.

Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as

follows:

No (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A


Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. JPM as servicer

receiving Plaintiff’s QWR, for example, would have contacted the ‘Note Holder’ for a copy of the

original promissory note, or might have contacted the possessor of the actual note, or might have

contacted someone to forge a copy of the note because the note was no longer available.


Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement

from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy.







oppressive.




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

follows:

No (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A


Propounding Party has a right to acquire knowledge sufficient to construct his case. JPM provided a

dump of the collateral file which contained a dialogue of screen shots of computer access to business

records. The contact information for the persons capturing those shots are relevant for potential

depositions. No dump of a loan or collateral file has been received from FNMA.


Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state:

(a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report.







oppressive.


follows:





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


receiving Plaintiff’s QWR, for example, would have contacted the ‘Note Holder’ for a copy of the

original promissory note, or might have contacted the possessor of the actual note, or might have

contacted someone to forge a copy of the note because the note was no longer available. Where is the

report explaining how the ‘not available’ promissory note was (re?)produced and turned over to the

possession of counsel for JPM?


Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If

so, for each inspection state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310); and (b) the date of the inspection.







oppressive.


follows:

No (a) N/A (b) N/A



has added fees for multiple home inspections that were not recorded in the collateral file dump provided

by JPM.


Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your



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

pleadings and for each:

(a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of tho se facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1;

Responding Party objects because the interrogatory calls for one or more legal conclusions and/or

for information, opinions, or impressions protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work

product doctrine. The interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and uncertain particularly as to the terms

"material allegation," "special or affirmative defense," and "PERSONS who have knowledge," and

"which support your denial or special or affirmative defense." Responding Party further objects on the

grounds that the interrogatory is unduly overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive. Subject to and without

waiving these objections, Responding Party states:

Second Affirmative Defense - Estoppel

Plaintiff is estopped from due to his failure to meet his contractual obligations under the Deed of Trust. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Second, Fourth, Tenth, and Twenty-Third

Affirmative Defense in their entirety for failure to produce a pleading that survived demurrer and

proclivity for wasting Plaintiff’s and the Court’s resources. No second amended answer to address these

defenses was filed or served per the order of July 20, 2012.

Third Affirmative Defense - Waiver

Plaintiff has waived any purported right of relief from defendant's foreclosure actions due to Plaintiffs failure to meet his contractual obligations under the Deed of Trust. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.



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


Plaintiff moves to strike as a falsity “due to Plaintiffs failure to meet his contractual obligations

under the Deed of Trust” as Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust and initiated a suit to prevent

Defendant from conducting wrongful foreclosure proceedings.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Third Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify a contract obligating Plaintiff that named Defendants.

Fourth Affirmative Defense - Unclean Hands

Plaintiff is subject to the equitable doctrine of Unclean hands due to his failure to meet his contractual obligations under the Deed of Trust. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.






Fifth Affirmative Defense - Privilege

Defendant's foreclosure actions are privileged pursuant to the statutory authority provided in California Civil Code §2923.5 et seq. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Fifth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify facts supporting a claim of privilege in a contract to which they are not named and to

which the Court has already ruled for Plaintiff.

Sixth Affirmative Defense - Ratification

Plaintiff ratified Defendant's right to initiate foreclosure proceedings when plaintiff executed the Deed of Trust that specifically provides for the institution of foreclosure proceedings upon



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

Defendant's default (See, Deed of Trust, If 19) (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909


Plaintiff moves to strike as a falsity “Plaintiff ratified Defendant's right to initiate foreclosure

proceedings” as Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust and initiated a suit to prevent Defendant

from conducting foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff moves to strike as a falsity “the Deed of Trust that

specifically provides for the institution of foreclosure proceedings upon Defendant's default” as

Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust and there is no such wording in that document.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Sixth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify facts depicting acts or omissions on the part of Defendants that were ratified by

Plaintiff as Defendants are not named parties to the contract.

Seventh Affirmative Defense - Consent

Plaintiff consented to Defendant's right to initiate foreclosure proceedings when plaintiff executed the Deed of Trust that specifically provides for the institution of foreclosure proceedings upon Defendant's default (See, Deed of Trust, If 19) (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12,1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Plaintiff moves to strike as a falsity “Plaintiff consented to Defendant's right to initiate foreclosure

proceedings” as Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust and initiated a suit to prevent Defendant

from conducting foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff moves to strike as a falsity “the Deed of Trust that

specifically provides for the institution of foreclosure proceedings upon Defendant's default” as

Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust and there is no such wording in that document.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Seventh Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify the content and extent of any purported promises, representations, concealments,



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

and/or omissions, if any there be, that are purportedly attributable to, or made by these answering

defendants, and that Plaintiff fully consented thereto..

Eighth Affirmative Defense - Statute of Limitations

The Deed of Trust at issue in this matter was executed by the Plaintiff in 1988. More than four years have elapsed since the execution of the deed subjecting this complaint to the four year statute of limitations of Civil Code § 337. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Eighth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify any statute that applies to the commencement of actions other than for the recovery of

real property (Code Civ Proc §335 referring to Code Civ Proc §337). There is no “Civil Code § 337”.

Furthermore, the ruling of the Court of July 20, 2012 was

“Demurrer is also sustained with leave to amend as to the Eighth Affirmative Defense. In stating a statute of limitations defense, Code Civ. Proc. § 458 requires that the appropriate Section and Subsection numbers be provided for each cause of action.”

Ninth Affirmative Defense - No Damages

The Plaintiff entered into a loan with the defendant's predecessor and promised to re-pay the sum borrowed, plus interest. The Plaintiff fails and refuses to re-pay the sums owed. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Plaintiff move to strike as a falsity “entered into a loan with the defendant's predecessor” as

Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust. Plaintiff moves to strike as a falsity “Plaintiff fails and

refuses to re-pay the sums owed” as Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust and initiated a

wrongful foreclosure proceeding to prevent Plaintiff from acquiring a reverse mortgage to pay off the

Subject Loan.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Ninth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for



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

failure to specify facts mitigating Defendant’s act of misrepresenting their beneficiary interest in

Plaintiff’s loan, to which they are not a named party, thereby incurring damages to Plaintiff.

Tenth Affirmative Defense - Absence of Fault

Defendant's right to initiate foreclosure proceedings was made clear in the Deed of Trust that plaintiff executed in 1988 (See, Deed of Trust, If 19) (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.






Eleventh Affirmative Defense - Compliance with Contract and Law

Defendant has the right to initiate foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the terms of the Deed of Trust (See, Deed of Trust, f 19), and pursuant to California Civil Code § 2923.5 et. seq. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Plaintiff move to strike as a falsity “Defendant has the right to initiate foreclosure proceedings

pursuant to the terms of the Deed of Trust” as Defendant was not named in the Deed of Trust.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Eleventh Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts they were in compliance with a contract to which they are not a named party.

Thirteenth Affirmative Defense - Reasonableness

Defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings pursuant to its rights under the Deed of Trust and pursuant to California civil Code § 2923.5. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party. (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.



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


Plaintiff move to strike as a falsity “pursuant to its rights under the Deed of Trust and” as Defendant

was not named in the Deed of Trust.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts they acted in a reasonable manner by pursuing a foreclosure when evidence of

a loan was not available to them.

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense

This affirmative defense was raised as a precautionary measure so that the defense would not be

waived. Discovery and investigation are continuing.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Fourteenth Affirmative Defense in its

entirety for failure to specify facts they were in compliance with a contract to which they are not a

named party. As such, they fail to present facts showing how they are exempt from statutorily defined

attorney fees.

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense - No Punitive Damages



Plaintiff move to strike as a falsity “pursuant to its rights under the Deed of Trust” as Defendant was

not named in the Deed of Trust.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Fifteenth Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts they were in compliance with California statutes when they caused Plaintiff to

stop making payments by failing to return a lawfully requested Qualified Written Request.

Seventeenth Affirmative Defense - No Actual Controversy

Defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings pursuant to its rights under the Deed of Trust and pursuant to California civil Code § 2923.5. (b) Plaintiff and the person deemed most knowledgeable by the Responding Party.



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

(c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Seventeenth Affirmative Defense in its

entirety for failure to comply with the order of the Court of July 20, 2012

[“Plaintiff’s Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend with respect to the First, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses. … The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses are not proper defenses because they simply refute elements of the causes of action stated in the complaint.”].

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense - Compliance with Foreclosure Laws



Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Sixteenth Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to comply with the order of the Court of July 20, 2012

[“Plaintiff’s Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend with respect to the First, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses. … The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses are not proper defenses because they simply refute elements of the causes of action stated in the complaint.”].

Eighteenth Affirmative Defense - Bona Fide Encumbrancer





Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Eighteenth Affirmative Defense in its



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

entirety for failure to specify facts substantiating beneficiary interest on the part of Defendants that are

not named parties to the contract. Furthermore, the Calvo v. HSBC decision rendered the term

‘encumbrancer’ moot for deed of trust loans as not being ‘other encumbrancers’ in its interpretation of

Civ. Code §2932.

Nineteenth Affirmative Defense - Plaintiffs Interest is Subject to Beneficiary's Interest





Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Nineteenth Affirmative Defense in its

entirety for failure to specify facts substantiating beneficiary or lender or Note Holder interest on the

part of Defendants that are not named parties to the contract.

Twentieth Affirmative Defense - Right to Add Additional Defenses

This affirmative defense was raised as a precautionary measure so that the defense would not be waived.

Discovery and investigation are continuing.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Twentieth, Twenty-First, and Twenty-

Second Affirmative Defenses in their entirety for failure to specify facts substantiating their claims.

Respondent’s Twientieth Affirmative Defense was renumbered to the Twenty-Third Affirmative

Defense in their amended answer.


Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each PERSON:

(a) state the names ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have

knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state



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

the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.




Propounding Party needs detailed answers to the question asked in light of its affirmative defenses

regarding damages from actions of other defendants.


Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so: (a) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.


Responding Party objects to the term "INCIDENT" as vague and ambiguous, causing Responding Party

to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Propounding Party's definition

of the word "INCIDENT" is the initiation of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by RESPONDING

PARTY pursuant to California Civil Code §2923.5 et seq. By definition, non-judicial foreclosure

proceedings pre-suppose the failure of a trustor to fulfill its obligations under a deed of trust. This

interrogatory is designed to refer to personal injury. Accordingly, responding Party responds as follows:

Yes (a) The plaintiff neglected to honor his obligations under the deed of trust, resulting in the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. (b) Plaintiff (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Propounding Party moves to strike as a falsity “plaintiff neglected to honor his obligations under the

deed of trust, resulting in the initiation of foreclosure proceedings”. Plaintiff alleges was induced into



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

dishonoring a discredited obligation by illegal acts on the part of Defendants who fail to corroborate

their interest in Plaintiff’s loan.


Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury: (a) identify it; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.



Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Propounding Party's

definition of the word "INCIDENT" is the initiation of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by

RESPONDING PARTY pursuant to California Civil Code §2923.5 et seq. By definition, non-judicial

foreclosure proceedings pre-suppose the failure of a trustor to fulfill its obligations under a deed of trust.

This interrogatory is designed to refer to personal injury. Accordingly, responding Party responds as

follows:

Yes (a) The plaintiff neglected to honor his obligations under the deed of trust, resulting in the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. (b) Plaintiff (c) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust dated June 15, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0119320; Notice of Trustee's Sale dated September 22, 2010 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office as Instrument Number 2010-0206909.


Propounding Party moves to strike as a falsity “plaintiff neglected to honor his obligations under the

deed of trust, resulting in the initiation of foreclosure proceedings”. Plaintiff was induced into

dishonoring a discredited obligation by illegal acts on the part of Defendants who fail to corroborate

their interest in Plaintiff’s loan.


Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:



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

(a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.


(a) 1,2,8,9,10 (b) Defendant is in possession of the original note. As stated in the objection, California law does not require that the original note be in the possession of the party initiating non-judicial foreclosure. See Cal. Civ.Code § 2924." San Diego Home Solutions, Inc. v. Reconstrust Co., (S.D.Cal. 2008) 2008 WL 5209972, at *2. See also Putkkuri v. Reconstruct Co., No.08cvl919 WQH (AJB), 2009 WE 32567, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2009). (c) Defendant's person most knowledgeable and Plaintiff. (d) Deed of Trust dated May 12, 1988 and recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's office as Instrument Number 88-84405; Promissory Note executed by Plaintiff on May 12, 1988. (a) 4,5 (b) Plaintiff claims that his letter of June 9, 2010, is a "Qualified Written Request" under Civil Code §2943. Civil Code 2943, as applied to federally chartered institutions such as JPMorgan, is preempted by Federal law. Lopez v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 729 [130Cal.Rptr.2d42]. (c) N/A (d) Admissions made in Plaintiffs complaint and discovery requests. a) 3,6,7,12 (b) The request is a double negative and/or is unintelligible. (c) Plaintiff (d) N/A (a) 6 (b) Discovery continues. (c) Discovery continues. (d) Discovery Continues.

OBJECTIONS TO RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1:

Admissions 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 Plaintiff moves to strike the statement “Defendant is in possession of the original note” from this

Response as a false and misleading superfluity. No certified, authenticated document has been presented

to substantiate a claim of “original note”.

Admissions 4, 5. “Unintelligible” is a sanctionable objection. See

Standon v. Superior Court (1990), 225 Cal.App.3d 898 [Court referred to objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" "...as a 'nuisance' objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."] Plaintiff moves to strike this response to the Form Interrogatory as misleading and irrelevant. It is

misleading because Plaintiff’s letter of June 9 was a reminder letter and referred to the QWR submitted



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

to Defendants January 27, 2010. It is irrelevant because Defendant states no facts that defendant FNMA

is a chartered national savings bank to which Lopez applies, and Federal regulations upon which the

decision was based have since changed. Civil Code §2943 does not affect the servicing1 or status of any

element of a loan, it only incidentally affects the lender’s operation, and a lender’s failure to comply

with the statute enables a tort cause of action which is exempted by existing regulation.

Admissions 3, 6, and 12 are not double negative. “Unintelligible” is a sanctionable objection. See

Standon v. Superior Court (1990), 225 Cal.App.3d 898 [Motion to compel document production more than 45 days after the response denied as untimely. Court referred to objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" "...as a 'nuisance' objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."] (a) 6 (b) Discovery continues. (c) Discovery continues. (d) Discovery Continues. Admission 6 relates to charges against Plaintiff’s loan, specifically the fee allowed by California

Civ. Code 2943 charged as a result of providing a copy of the promissory note and depicted in the JPM

Bates file JPM1 - 523. See

Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002), 94 Cal.App.4th 1390 [corporate depsition; "…the witness or someone in authority is expected to make an inquiry of everyone who might be holding responsive documents or everyone who knows where such documents might be held."]


Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each breach describe and

give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement.


Yes, Plaintiff failed and refuses to honor his obligations to make payments under the Deed of Trust and

the Promissory Note.


Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s phrase “… and refuses to honor his

1 The term ``servicing'' means receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any loan, including amounts for escrow accounts described in section 2609 of this title, and making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the loan [USC TITLE 12 CHAPTER 27 Sec. 2605(i)(3) “Servicing”].



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

obligations …” as superfluous, misleading, and without legal basis.

DATED: December 20, 2012

ALVARADOSMITH

A Professional Corporation


and correct.


__________________________



EXHIBIT “B” – Statements: Requests, Responses, and Objections for Spcl Interrogatories SET TWO Page 1 of 13

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




Case No.: No. MSC10-02914 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (SET TWO)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES SET TWO

Plaintiff Leighton Lee Perry (“Propounder”), requests that Quality Loan Service Corp (“QLS” or

“Respondent”), answer each of the following special interrogatories, fully and completely under oath,

within the time and in the manner prescribed by California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.010 et seq.

As required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.010 et seq., each answer must be as

complete and straightforward as the information available to YOU permits. If an interrogatory cannot be

answered completely, it must be answered to the extent possible.

All interrogatories objected to for reason of ‘privilege’ or ‘trade secret’ should be listed on a



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

privilege log and returned to Plaintiff with the responses.

INSTRUCTIONS

The term "FNMA" shall mean Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association, their agents,

officers, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on their behalf.

The term "JPMorgan" shall mean Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., their agents, officers,

employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on their behalf. It also references Chase

Home Finance, LLC, which was incorporated into JPMorgan subsequent to filing this action., their

agents, officers, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on their behalf.

The term "QLS" shall mean Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp, their agents, officers, employees,

accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on their behalf.

The term "YOU" or "YOUR" shall mean Defendant JPMorgan, their agents, officers, employees,

accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on their behalf.

The term "DOCUMENT(S)” shall mean and include the term "writing" as defined in California

Evidence Code § 250, and includes writings of any kind in your possession, custody or control,

regardless of where located. The term "DOCUMENT(S)" shall further be defined as including all

copies of any of the above which bear notations of any sort not present on the original, and all drafts,

revisions or amendments of any of the above.

The term "DOCUMENT(S)" shall further be defined as including information stored by computer or

on a computer disk, diskette, tape or card, as well as any electronic recording, tape recording, video,

file, or similar recording of words, sounds, or information of any kind.

The term “DOCUMENT(S)” is synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) and includes computer records in any format. A draft or non-

identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. The term “DOCUMENT(S)” also

includes any “tangible things” as that term is used in Rule 34(a).

When referring to a person, “identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person’s full name,

present or last known address, telephone number, and when referring to a natural person, the present or

last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in compliance with this paragraph,

only the name of that person needs to be listed in response to later discovery requesting the



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

identification of that person.

When referring to a document, “identify” means to give, to the extent known, the following

information: (a) the type of document; (b) the general subject matter of the document; (c) the date of the

document; (d) the authors, address, and recipients of the document; (e) the location of the document; (f)

the identity of the person who has custody of the document; and (g) whether the document has been

destroyed, and if so, (i) the date of its destruction, (ii) the reason for its destruction, and (iii) the identity

of the person who destroyed it.

The term “relating” means, whether directly or indirectly, concerning; referring; describing;

evidencing; or constituting.

The term “any” should be understood in either its most or its least inclusive sense as necessary to

bring within the scope of the discovery request all reasons that might otherwise be construed to be

outside of its scope

The term "Subject Property" shall mean the real property located at 6724 Waverly Rd., Martinez,

California 94553 in Contra Costa County, California APN 164-262-026 2.

The term "Subject Loan" shall mean the loan made by Valley Federal Savings and Loan to Plaintiff

in May of 1988 for $130,000 for purchase of the Subject Property and secured by a deed of trust

(“DoT”) naming All Valley Financial Corporation as Trustee.

The term “Servicer” shall mean any party named or unnamed in this action who receives payments

against the Subject Loan and distributes the proceeds.

The term "FAA" shall mean the First Amended Answer filed by YOU on or about May 2, 2012,

Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No MSC10-02914.

The term “QWR” refers to Plaintiff’s Qualified Written Request of January 27, 2010.

Each request for interrogatory is to be deemed a continuing one. If, after serving an answer, you

obtain or become aware of any further information pertaining to that request, you are requested to serve

a supplemental answer setting forth such information. If no such update is provided in a reasonable

period of time that you acquired such information, it may be excluded at trial or hearing.

Your responses to these Interrogatories may be recorded and presented on standard Compact Disk

media in PDF file format.



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

REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

IDENTIFY each person who answers these interrogatories including attorneys, accountants,

employees of third party entities, or any other person consulted, however briefly, on the content of any

answer to these special interrogatories.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Responding Party is Federal National Mortgage Association.


IDENTIFY each person who assisted in answering these interrogatories, including attorneys,

accountants, employees of third party entities, or any other person consulted, however briefly, on the

content of any answer to these special interrogatories.


David L. Chavez, shareholder, AlvaradoSmith, counsel for Responding Party


State all facts relating the Subject Loan to "Bowest Corp" depicted on the Assignment of Deed of

Trust filed in the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office on or around July 29, 1991 (instrument number

91-150118) of which YOU requested Judicial Notice in YOUR Request for Judicial Notice In Support

of Demurrer to Complaint as "Exhibit 2".




Responding Party objects to the term "relating the Subject Loan to" as vague and ambiguous, causing

Responding Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive.

OBJECTION TO RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

At the time the Notice of Default was filed the existing status for the original promissory note was

“not available … in paper .. or image format”. At the time of the assignment of the Subject Loan to

FNMA, Bowest was a mortgage servicing corporation which raises the possibility of who the unnamed

beneficiary may actually be.



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

“Vague and ambiguous” is a sanctionable objection. See

Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978), 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.[If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] ["Where the question specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions."


STATE all facts relating to YOUR correspondence dated March 11, 2010 in response to Plaintiffs

QWR, signed by Mark Lanceta and titled Requested Documents Not Available.


Responding Party objects to the term "relating to" as vague and ambiguous, causing Responding

Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Notwithstanding and

without waiving the foregoing objection Responding Party responds as follows:

The correspondence referenced in Special Interrogatory No. 4 speaks for itself. At the time the letter

was sent to the plaintiff the documents were not available. In the intervening time, the documents

became available and have been produced to the plaintiff.



Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978), 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.[If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] ["Where the question specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions."


State all facts relating to the Subject Loan with respect to YOUR statement in YOUR FAA that"...

an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded on or about July 29, 1991, with the Contra Costa County

Recorder's Offices as instrument number 91-150118, pursuant to which Fannie Mae was assigned all

beneficial interest under the Deed of Trust".


Responding Party objects to the entire interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, causing Responding

Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Responding Party objects

to this interrogatory on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and oppressive. Notwithstanding and



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

without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows:

The Assignment referenced in the Responding Party's answer speaks for itself.



Standon v. Superior Court (1990), 225 Cal.App.3d 898 [Motion to compel document production more than 45 days after the response denied as untimely. Court referred to objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" "...as a 'nuisance' objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."] It is not enough that the question or questions are burdensome; the objecting party must also






Noticed documents accepted with objection to the veracity of the contents therein do no “speak for themselves” [Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978), 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783."A party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions."]


State all facts supporting YOUR contention in YOUR FAA [|21] that"... Defendants do possess the

original Deed of Trust and Promissory Note" with respect to YOUR statement in the prior sentence that

"our record center does not have the requested document available on paper, microfishe, [sic] or image".





oppressive. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds

as follows:

In its verified answer, the Responding Party admits that a letter was sent to the plaintiff. Responding

Party further admitted that such letter stated that the documents requested by the plaintiff were not

available at the time the request was made. However, since the date of that letter, the documents have



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

been made available and Responding Party has in fact produced to the plaintiff the original Deed of

Trust and Promissory Note.



Standon v. Superior Court (1990), 225 Cal.App.3d 898 [Motion to compel document production more than 45 days after the response denied as untimely. Court referred to objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" "...as a 'nuisance' objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."] It is not enough that the question or questions are burdensome; the objecting party must also

demonstrate that the questions are so unjust that they amount to oppression. See

[West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 407, 419, (1961). It must appear that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require answers.] [Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court, 263 CalApp.2d 12, 19 (1968).] Defendants provide no estimate of effort to substantiate their objection.

Plaintiff moves to strike the phrase ‘… Promissory Note’ from the Response a falsity as no forensic

or corroborating evidence has been produced to confirm the claim the document in question is not a

forgery.


State all facts relating to a requested copy of the Note by Plaintiff to support YOUR assertion in

YOUR FAA [*|27] that "Defendants deny this was the first time this information was provided to

Plaintiff.




to this interrogatory on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and oppressive.



Standon v. Superior Court (1990), 225 Cal.App.3d 898 [Motion to compel document production more than 45 days after the response denied as untimely. Court referred to objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" "...as a 'nuisance' objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to



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

sanction."] It is not enough that the question or questions are burdensome; the objecting party must also

demonstrate that the questions are so unjust that they amount to oppression. See

[West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 407, 419, (1961). It must appear that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require answers.] [Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court, 263 CalApp.2d 12, 19 (1968).] Defendants provide no estimate of effort to substantiate their objection.


State all facts that support YOUR Third Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff is barred by the equitable

doctrine of waiver from any cause of action.


Objection- This interrogatory is duplicative of Form Interrogatory No. 15.


Unresponsive to instructions on Form Interrogatory.

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Third Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify a contract obligating Plaintiff.


State all facts that support YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense the FAC, including each cause of action

contained therein, is barred by virtue of the fact that all of the acts alleged therein to have been

performed by Defendants were privileged or justified.





Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Fifth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify facts supporting a claim of privilege in a contract to which they are not named.


State all facts that support YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense the FAC, including each cause of

action therein contained, is barred by Plaintiffs ratification of the actions undertaken.



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

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10;




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Sixth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify facts depicting acts or omissions on the part of Defendants that were ratified by

Plaintiff as Defendants are not named parties to the contract.

SPECIALINTERROGATORYNO. 11:

State all facts that support YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense the FAC, including each cause of

action contained therein, is barred by Plaintiffs consent.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Seventh Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify the content and extent of any purported promises, representations, concealments,

and/or omissions, if any there be, that are purportedly attributable to, or made by these answering

defendants, and that Plaintiff fully consented thereto.


State all facts that support YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense the FAC, including each cause of

action contained therein, is barred by virtue of the fact that Plaintiff has not suffered, and has not

pleaded damages as a result of the conduct alleged in the FAC.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Ninth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for

failure to specify facts mitigating Defendant’s act of misrepresenting their beneficiary interest in

Plaintiff’s loan, to which they are not a party, thereby incurring damages to Plaintiff.




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

State all facts that support YOUR Eleventh Affirmative Defense the FAC, including each cause of

action contained therein, is barred because Defendants have fully performed, discharged, and satisfied

all obligation and duties imposed upon them by the Subject Loan; any corollary agreements affecting or

affected by, the Subject Loan; any agency agreements affecting or affected by, the Subject Loan; and the

law.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Eleventh Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts they were in compliance with a contract to which they are not a named party.


State all facts that support YOUR Twelfth Affirmative Defense the FAC, including each cause of

action contained therein, is barred because Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if he prevailed on his

claims.




This interrogatory is not present in Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. Propounding Party moves to strike

Responding Party’s Twelfth Affirmative Defense in its entirety for failure to specify facts supporting a

claim Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched.


State all facts that support YOUR Thirteenth Affirmative Defense depicting the reasonable standards

applicable to an alleged beneficiary who refuses to be identified.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts they acted in a reasonable manner by pursuing a foreclosure when evidence of



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

a loan was “not available” to them.


State all facts that support YOUR Fourteenth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff is not entitled to

recover attorney fees.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Fourteenth Affirmative Defense in its

entirety for failure to specify facts they were in compliance with a contract to which they are not a

named party and to which the court ruled they were not the beneficiary at the time foreclosure

proceedings were initiated. As such, they fail to present facts showing how they are exempt from

statutorily defined attorney fees.


State all facts that support YOUR Fifteenth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff is not entitled to

recover punitive or exemplary damages.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Fifteenth Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts they were in compliance with California statutes when they caused Plaintiff to

stop making payments by failing to return a lawfully requested Qualified Written Request.


State all facts that support YOUR Eighteenth Affirmative Defense that the quiet title cause of action

does not diminish, modify, and/or affect any right that Respondents have under the subject deed of trust.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Eighteenth Affirmative Defense in its



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

entirety for failure to specify facts substantiating beneficiary interest on the part of Defendants that are

not named parties to the contract.


State all facts that support YOUR Nineteenth Affirmative Defense that this action does not diminish,

modify, and/or affect any right that the current beneficiary has in the DOT or in the Subject Property.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Nineteenth Affirmative Defense in its




State all facts that support YOUR Twentieth Affirmative Defense that the current beneficiary of the

DOT is a bona fide encumbrancer and holder of the beneficiary interest without claim of defense by

Plaintiff.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Twentieth Affirmative Defense in its entirety

for failure to specify facts supporting a claim that the current beneficiary of the DOT is a bona fide

encumbrancer and holder of the beneficiary interest without claim of defense by Plaintiff.


State all facts that support YOUR Twenty-first Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff is barred from

recovery as against the current beneficiary of the subject DOT based upon the doctrine of equitable

subrogation.






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

Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Twenty-First Affirmative Defense in its




State all facts that support YOUR Twenty-second Affirmative Defense that establish an entitlement

by equitable subrogation of a lien and the right to foreclose upon it if any default thereon arises, that bars

Plaintiff from any recovery from YOU.




Propounding Party moves to strike Responding Party’s Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense in its

entirety for failure to specify facts substantiating entitlement by equitable subrogation of a lien and the

right to foreclose upon it if any default thereon arises, that bars Plaintiff from any recovery from

Defendants.

DATED: December 20, 2012

ALVARADOSMITH

A Professional Corporation


__________________________

Leighton Lee Perry, pro se


EXHIBIT “C” – Statements: Requests, Responses, and Objections for Produce Documents SET TWO Page 1 of 22

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




Case No.: No. MSC10-02914 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (SET TWO)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

The following requests for production of documents were served on Respondent JP Morgan Chase

Bank NA (including Chase Home Finance, LLC by merger) on November 11, 2012. The responses

served on Propounder on December 23, 2012 follow each request.

RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

“To the extent that all or any of the requests seek information and / or documents subject to the

attorney-client privilege then the Responding Party asserts the attorney-client and / or work product

privileges to each of such requests as appropriate and to the extend necessary to avoid a waiver of such

privileges.

Responding Party responds to each and every discovery request subject to the foregoing, and each of



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

the foregoing statements and the objections are incorporated by the reference into each of the following

responses:”

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to the transfer of custody and/or physical possession

of Plaintiff s original promissory note documenting the Subject Loan. If none, state "none".

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1;

Responding Party objects on the ground this request seeks information that is not relevant to this

action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant has

produced the original note executed by the plaintiff which is in the possession of the defendant.

"Transfer of custody" is irrelevant. Responding Party further objects to this request on the ground that it

is burdensome, harassing and oppressive. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this

request is duplicative of requests made and answered previously, in responses to Set One of Plaintiffs

Requests for Production of Documents that were served upon the plaintiff on October 20, 2011.

Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, defendant refers Requesting Party to

documents previously produced as JPM 1-523.

ARGUMENT TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Objection – Plaintiff moves to strike the phrase “Defendant has produced the original note executed

by the plaintiff” as a superfluous falsity as no certification of the authenticity of the document alleged to

be the original promissory note has been entered as evidence.

Possession of a promissory note by itself is not indicative of a beneficiary interest. Note Holders

may retain documents payable to bearer in vaults they do not own. Physical custody is at issue because

Defendants cannot explain how they ‘produced’ an original promissory note presented on paper in 1988,

but was ‘unavailable in … paper … or image format’ in 2010. Whether a purported document granting

beneficiary interest in an action is a forgery under the California Penal Code is highly relevant to this

action.

It is not enough that the question or questions are burdensome; the objecting party must also





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



CalApp.2d 12, 19 (1968).


Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) not recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office

relating to the chain of succession of interest and/or transfer of beneficiary interest in the Subject Loan

starting from the original lender, Valley Federal Savings and Loan, to YOU. If none, state "none".

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:




Responding Party further objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and

oppressive. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is duplicative of requests

made and answered previously, in responses to Set One of Plaintiffs Requests for Production of

Documents that were served upon the plaintiff on October 20, 2011.







Due to the recent Calvo v HSBC Appellate decision deed of trust loans are not required to be

recorded with County Recorders, denying the public interest of knowledge of the likelihood of a clear

title and contrary to the TILA regulation that lenders must notify borrowers of change of beneficiary

interest and may record those changes with the states’ recorder offices. Therefore the only existence of

an unbroken chain of beneficiary interest is in the business or personal records of the beneficiaries who

were / are Note Holders. A potential Note Holder cannot acquire what is not the seller’s right to sell.

Since the current alleged Note Holder is not named on the original document the business and private



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

records of all Note Holders in the chain of interest must be proved.







Responding Party does not provide what requests were duplicated and what their answers were in

particularity. If Defendants cannot provide any titles, names, authors, and dates of documents in JPM 1-

253 then their response should be “None”.


Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating the Subject Loan to "POOL # 066627" depicted on the

Assignment of Deed of Trust filed in the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office on or around July 29,

1991 (instrument number 91-150118) of which YOU requested Judicial Notice in YOUR Request for

Judicial Notice In Support of Demurrer to Complaint as "Exhibit 2". If none, state "none".





Responding Party further objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and

oppressive. Responding Party objects to the term "relating the Subject Loan to POOL #066627"" as

vague and ambiguous, causing Responding Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if

any, is responsive.








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







records of all Note Holders in the chain of interest must be proved. This includes records of the process

of converting a loan account into a security asset. The indication of a a second asset or beneficiary

identifier on the original loan documents makes this request very relevant.








Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating YOU to any third party interest in the Subject Loan. If

none, state "none".


Responding Party objects to the terms "relating YOU" and "third party interest" as vague and

ambiguous, causing Responding Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is

responsive. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and

oppressive.


Documents provided by Defendants in JPM 1-523 refer to FNMA as ‘investor’, which is not a term

on the original contract documents. The term ‘investor’ connotates the loan account was converted to a

security asset, and as such, subject to third party interests, who may have paid off the balance of the

Subject Loan from all the billions of dollars the Federal government has poured into FNMA’s coffers.



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







REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6;

Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to any "value or consideration", as defined by

California statutes, paid or received for the sale or purchase of the Subject Loan by any and all parties to

this action, named or unnamed. If none, state "none".



action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding party

objects to the request as unintelligible, vague and ambiguous, causing responding party to speculate as

to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Responding party objects to the terms "all

third parties to this action" and "named and unnamed" as vague and ambiguous, causing responding

party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Defendant has produced

the original note executed by the plaintiff which is in the possession of the defendant. Responding party

objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and oppressive.












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



records of all Note Holders in the chain of interest must be proved as properly negotiated under the rules

of the Universal Commercial Code. This includes records of the sale, receipt, and physical note transfer

or possession in general accounting records and / or asset accounting records.

Propounder did not use the phrase “all third parties to this action” in his request but responder should

show the attempts made to determine who they may be in his response.








Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to any "value or consideration", as defined by

California statutes, paid or received by any and all third parties, named or unnamed, as a condition of

any transfer of the beneficiary interest of the Subject Loan. If none, state "none".



action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Responding Party objects to the request as unintelligible, vague and ambiguous, causing Responding


to the terms "all third parties to this action" and "named and unnamed" as vague and ambiguous, causing

Responding Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Defendant

has produced the original note executed by the plaintiff which is in the possession of the defendant.

Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and oppressive.


documents previously produced as JPM 1-523, and to the original documents produced to the plaintiff at



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

his deposition.












records of all Note Holders in the chain of interest must be proved as properly negotiated under the rules

of the Universal Commercial Code. This includes records of the sale, receipt, and physical note transfer

or possession in general accounting records and / or asset accounting records.

Responder should show the attempts made to determine who the third parties may be in his response.

If Defendants cannot provide any titles, names, authors, and dates of documents in JPM 1-253 then

their response should be “None”.








Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to servicing the Subject Loan by any Servicer, named

or unnamed. If none, state "none".




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


action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party

objects to the term "relating to servicing" as vague and ambiguous, causing Responding Party to

speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive.

Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and

oppressive. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is duplicative of requests


Documents that were served upon the plaintiff on October 20, 2011. Notwithstanding and without

waiving the foregoing objection, defendant refers Requesting Party to documents previously produced

as JPM 1-523.


California statutes address the change of loan servicer from the perspective of a borrower. They do

not address servicers from lenders’ perspective, or servicers from investor perspective. Plaintiff has the

right through discovery to view any agreements defining the roles of all servicers relating to his loan.

Given the likelihood the promissory note is a forgery, it is relevant to determine the culpability of

anyone dealing with the payments.











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to transfers by assignments and/or succession of

interest of the Subject Loan that were not recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office. If



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

none, state "none".




objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and oppressive. Defendant has

produced the original note and deed of trust executed by the plaintiff which is in the possession of the

defendant.


Objection – Plaintiff moves to strike the phrase “Defendant has produced the original note and deed

of trust executed by the plaintiff” as a superfluous falsity as no certification of the authenticity of the

document alleged to be the original promissory note has been entered as evidence.








records of all Note Holders in the chain of interest must be proved. If beneficiary interest is claimed by

right of succession, business and / or personal records should document that succession.











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



Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to any order or request to initiate a non-judicial

foreclosure. If none, state "none".






defendant. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is duplicative of requests









Plaintiff is simply requesting any documents depicting the beneficiary / principal determined a

default had occurred, elected to foreclose, and ordered his agent to to initiate a non-judicial course of

action.







If Defendants cannot provide any titles, names, authors, and dates of documents in JPM 1-523 that



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

respond to the request then their response should be “None”.


Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to any order or request to conduct a non-judicial

foreclosure. If none, state "none".






defendant. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this request is duplicative of requests









Plaintiff is simply requesting any documents related to any agent who is conducting a non-judicial

course of action. It appears an agent of an agent filed the notice of default, for example.











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



Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) relating to any insurance related to the Subject Property or the

Subject loan. If none, state "none".






defendant.





Plaintiff is simply requesting any documents related to any insurance payoffs or claims that would

affect the balance of the Subject Loan. Clearly if the loan were paid off there would be no basis for a

default and any credit default used at an auction would be a criminal offense.








Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) establishing and defining agency relationships among YOU,

defendants JPMorgan and QLS, their attorneys in Fact, or any unnamed party that relate to the Subject

Loan. If none, state "none".




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



Responding Party objects to the terms "establishing and defining" and "agency relationship" as

vague and ambiguous, causing Responding Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if

any, is responsive. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome,

harassing and oppressive.




Plaintiff is simply requesting any documents defining any agency relationships among the parties,

named or unnamed. It appears an agent of an agent filed the notice of default, for example, so the

powers of any agent are relevant.










Produce a full and complete copy of the collateral file for Plaintiffs loan. (CD format is acceptable).

If none, state "none".




Responding Party objects to the terms "collateral fine"[sic] as vague and ambiguous, causing

Responding Party to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is responsive. Responding



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

Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome, harassing and oppressive. Responding

Party further objects on the grounds that this request is duplicative of requests made and answered

previously, in responses to Set One of Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents that were served

upon the plaintiff on October 20, 2011. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection,

defendant refers Requesting Party to documents previously produced as JPM 1-523, and to the original

documents produced to the plaintiff at his deposition.


Objection – Plaintiff moves to strike the phrase “and to the original documents produced to the

plaintiff at his deposition” as a superfluous falsity as no certification of the authenticity of any

documents alleged to be original have been entered as evidence.

Responding Party has use the phrase ‘discovery is ongoing’ and this is merely an attempt to identify

any records added to the corollary file since its presentation to Plaintiff many months ago.




Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Third Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff is

barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver from any cause of action. If none, state "none".


Defendant refers Requesting Party to documents previously produced as JPM 1-523, and to the

original documents produced to the plaintiff at his deposition.








Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Fifth Affirmative Defense the FAC,



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

including each cause of action contained therein, is barred by virtue of the fact that all of the acts alleged

therein to have been performed by Defendants were privileged or justified. If none, state "none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Sixth Affirmative Defense the FAC,

including each cause of action contained therein, is barred by Plaintiffs ratification of the actions

undertaken. If none, state "none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Seventh Affirmative Defense the FAC,

including each cause of action contained therein, is barred by Plaintiffs consent. If none, state "none".




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










Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Ninth Affirmative Defense the FAC,

including each cause of action contained therein, is barred by virtue of the fact that Plaintiff has not

suffered, and has not pleaded damages as a result of the conduct alleged in the FAC. If none, state

"none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Eleventh Affirmative Defense the FAC,

including each cause of action contained therein, is barred because Defendants have fully performed,

discharged, and satisfied all obligation and duties imposed upon them by the Subject Loan; any corollary

agreements affecting or affected by, the Subject Loan; any agency agreements affecting or affected by,

the Subject Loan; and the law. If none, state "none".



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











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Twelfth Affirmative Defense the FAC,

including each cause of action contained therein, is barred because Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched

if he prevailed on his claims. If none, state "none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Fourteenth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff

is not entitled to recover attorney'fees. If none, state "none".






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








Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Fifteenth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff

is not entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages. If none, state "none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Eighteenth Affirmative Defense that the

quiet title cause of action does not diminish, modify, and/or affect any right that YOU have under the

subject deed of trust. If none, state "none".









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





Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support YOUR Nineteenth Affirmative Defense that a

current beneficiary exists that holds a beneficiary interest in the Subject Loan. If none, state "none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Twentieth Affirmative Defense that the

current beneficiary of the DOT was and is a bona fide encumbrancer, for value, and took its beneficial

interest in the Subject Loan free and clear of any claims made by Plaintiff. If none, state "none".












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


Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Twenty-first Affirmative Defense that

Plaintiff is barred from recovery as against the current beneficiary of the subject DOT based upon the

doctrine of equitable subrogation. If none, state "none".











Produce any and all DOCUMENT(S) that support your Twenty-second Affirmative Defense that

establish an entitlement by equitable subrogation of a lien and the right to foreclose upon it if any default

thereon arises, that bars Plaintiff from any recovery from YOU. If none, state "none".













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

and correct.


__________________________ Leighton Lee Perry,

Plaintiff pro se


EXHIBIT “D” - Request for Production of Documents SET ONE Page 1 of 1

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

REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Produce Plaintiff’s original promissory note for inspection by a forensic document expert at a date

and time convenient for parties. Plaintiff recommends the Law Offices of AlvaradoSmith in San

Framcisco be utilized for copying and inspection. The inspection may involve testing of the paper

and ink, and to a very slight degree alter the appearance slightly of the document if a paper sample

is taken, but not its content. If not in possession of subject document please state so.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Produce any and all the transfer and delivery receipts; custodial acceptance receipts; bailee letters;

and sales receipts from the transfer of Plaintiff’s loan from Valley Federal Savings and Loan

2. Produce any and all Mortgage Loan Schedule, Issue Supplements, Servicing Contract,

Supplemental Indenture, and Trust Indenture associated with, and depicting the details of,

Plaintiff’s loan.

3. Produce any and all "Deposit Agreement(s)" between any party or parties who could claim an

interest in Plaintiff’s loan including any GSE or other party. If none, state “none”.

4. Produce any and all "Assignment and Assumption Agreement(s)" between any party or parties

who could claim an interest in the loan including any GSE or other party. If none, state “none”.

5. Produce any and all compliance and exception reports produced by the Custodian responsible for

storage of Plaintiff’s Promissory Note. If none, state “none”.

6. Produce any and all the transfer report(s), transmittal report(s), bailee letter(s), and sales receipts

from the transfer of Plaintiff’s Promissory Note and Deed of Trust from Federal National

Mortgage Assn.


PROOF OF SERVICE Plaintiff’s Request for Documents, Admissions, Special and Form Interrogartories from Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. – SET TWO (JPM_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

26

27

28

REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

1. Please identify each person who answer these interrogatories and each person (attach pages if

necessary) who assisted, including attorneys, accountants, employees of third party entities, or any other

person consulted, however briefly, on the content of any answer to these interrogatories.

ANSWER:

2. For each of the above persons please state whether they have personal knowledge regarding the

subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

3. Please state the date of the first contact between April 1, 1988, and December 31, 1991, between

FNMA and Valley Federal Savings and Loan in the subject loan transaction; the name, job function,

business location, and telephone number of the person(s) in your company who was/were involved in

that contact and the name of the contact at Valley Federal Savings and Loan.

ANSWER:

4. Please state the dates of subsequent contact(s) between April 1, 1988, and December 31, 1991,

between FNMA and Valley Federal Savings and Loan in the subject loan transaction; the name, job

function, business location, and telephone number of the person(s) in your company who was/were

involved in those contacts and the name of the contact(s) at Valley Federal Savings and Loan.

ANSWER:

5. Please state the dates of any agents’ contact(s) between April 1, 1988, and December 31, 1991,

for FNMA or Valley Federal Savings and Loan in the subject loan transaction; the name, job function,

business location, and telephone number of the person(s) in your company who was/were involved in

those contact(s) and the name, job function, and business location of the agent.

ANSWER:

6. Please state the name of the Seller and Master Servicer and the date on which Valley Federal

Savings and Loan (originator) sold the subject loan to FNMA, any lending institution, or Sub Servicer of

FNMA pool #066627.

ANSWER:




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

7. Please identify all persons known or believed by anyone in FNMA or any affiliate to have

participated in the securitization of the subject loan including but not limited to mortgage aggregators,

mortgage brokers, financial institutions, Structured Investment Vehicles, Special Purpose Vehicles,

Trustees, Managers of derivative securities, managers of the company that issued an Asset-backed

security, Underwriters, Rating Agency, Credit Enhancement Provider not already identified.

ANSWER:

8. Please identify the person(s) or entities that were and are entitled, directly or indirectly to the

stream of revenue from the borrower in the subject loan.

ANSWER:

9. Please identify the person(s) involved in the underwriting of the subject loan. “Underwriting”

refers to any person who made representations, evaluations or appraisals of value of the security

instruments, and likelihood of the borrower to default.

ANSWER:

10. Please identify any person(s) who had any contact with any third party regarding the

securitization, sale, transfer, assignment, hypothecation or any document or agreement, oral, written or

otherwise, that would effect the funding, closing, or the receipt of money from a third party in a

transaction that referred to the subject loan that were not presented in items above.

ANSWER:

11. Please identify any person(s) known or believed by anyone at FNMA who had received physical

possession of Plaintiff’s promissory note (and allonges), the mortgage, or any document (including but

not limited to assignment, endorsement, allonges, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Assignment and

Assumption Agreement, Trust Agreement, letters or email or faxes of transmittals including

attachments) that refers to or incorporates terms regarding the securitization, sale, transfer, assignment,

insurance, hypothecation or any document or agreement, oral, written or otherwise, that would effect the

funding, or the receipt of money from a third party in a transaction, and whether such money was

allocated to principal, interest or other obligation related to the subject loan.

ANSWER:




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

12. Please identify the person(s) in custody of any document that identifies the loan servicer(s) in the

subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

13. Please identify any person(s) in custody of any document which refers to any instruction or

authority to enforce the note or mortgage in the subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

14. Other than people identified above, identify any and all persons who have or had personal

knowledge of the subject loan transaction, underwriting of the subject loan transaction, securitization,

sale, transfer, assignment or hypothecation of the subject loan transaction, or the decision to enforce the

note or mortgage in the subject loan transaction.

ANSWER:

15. Please identify every potential party to this lawsuit not identified above.

ANSWER:

16. Please state address, phone number, and employment history for the past 3 years of Tim

Bargenquast, Asst. Vice President, McCarthy and Holthus, LLP, Atty in Fact to Federal National

Mortgage Association, “designated as the Assignor” of the mortgage loan to FNMA (Assignment of

Deed of Trust recorded in Contra Costa County Register’s Office on August 30, 2010).

ANSWER:

17. Did Valley Federal Savings and Loan (originator) or previous servicers of this account receive

any compensation, fee, commission, payment, rebate or other financial considerations from the Seller

and Master Servicer of FNMA or any affiliate or from the trust funds, for handling, processing,

originating or administering this loan?

ANSWER:

18. Please describe and itemize each and every form of compensation, fee, commission, payment,

rebate or other financial consideration paid to Valley Federal Savings and Loan, the originator or

previous servicers of this account by FNMA or any affiliate, or from the trust fund.

ANSWER:




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

19. Please identify any party, person or entity known or suspected by FNMA or any of your officers,

employees, independent contractors or other agents, or servants of your company who might possess or

claim rights under the subject loan or mortgage and/or note.

ANSWER:

20. Please identify the custodian of the records that would show all entries regarding the flow of

funds for the subject loan transaction prior to and after closing of the loan. (Flow of funds, means any

record of money received, any record of money paid out and any bookkeeping or accounting entry,

general ledger and accounting treatment of the subject loan transaction at your company or any affiliate

including but not limited to whether the subject loan transaction was ever entered into any category on

the balance sheet at any time or times, whether any reserve for default was ever entered on the balance

sheet, and whether any entry, report or calculation was made regarding the effect of this loan transaction

on the capital reserve requirements of your company or any affiliate.)

ANSWER:

21. Please identify the auditor and/or accountant of your financial statements or tax returns.

ANSWER:

22. Please identify any attorney with whom you consulted or who rendered an opinion regarding the

subject loan transaction or any pattern of securitization that may have effected the subject loan

transaction directly or indirectly.

ANSWER:

23. Please identify any person who served as an officer or director with Federal National Mortgage

Association commencing with 6 months prior to closing of the subject loan transaction through

December 31, 2010. (This interrogatory is limited only to those people who had knowledge,

responsibility, or otherwise made or received reports regarding information that included the subject

loan transaction, and/or the process by which solicitation, underwriting and closing of residential

mortgage loans, or the securitization, sale, transfer or assignment or hypothecation of residential

mortgage loans to third parties.)

ANSWER:




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

24. Did any investor/certificate holder approve or authorize foreclosure proceedings on Plaintiff’s

property?

ANSWER:

25. Please identify the person(s) involved or having knowledge of any insurance policy or product,

plan or instrument describing over-collateralization, cross-collateralization or guarantee or other

instrument hedging the risk of default as to any person or entity acting as an issuer of any securities or

certificates. (Such instrument(s) relate to the composition of a pool, tranche or other aggregation of

assets that was created, included or referred to the subject loan and the pool or aggregation was

transmitted, transferred, assigned, pledged or hypothecated to any entity or buyer. A person who

“transmitted, transferred, assigned, pledged or hypothecated” refers to any person who suggested,

approved, received or accepted the composition of the pool or aggregation made or confirmed

representations, evaluations or appraisals of value of the home, value of the security instruments, ability

of the borrower to pay.)

ANSWER:

26. Please identify the person(s) involved or having knowledge of any credit default swap or other

instrument hedging the risk of default as to any person or entity acting as an issuer of any securities or

certificates. (Such instrument(s) relate to the composition of a pool, tranche or other aggregation of

assets that was created, included or referred to the subject loan.)

ANSWER:

Dated August 8, 2011