1. INTRODUCTION:

This Motion To Compel is based on Plaintiff Meaghan Keegan’s willful and

unjustified refusal to respond to most of Defendant’s discovery requests and refusal

to Meet and Confer.

On October 10, 2010 Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories -

General, pages 1 to 8 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.10. On October 9,

2010 and on October 17, 2010 Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests For

Admissions (Exhibit “A”). The first Request was “Admit that you tape-recorded

Bruce C. Fonarow on 11/17/2010 without his knowledge or consent.” These RFAs

were served by email and by Certified Mail on October 18, 2010 Receipt 7009 2250

0003 4665 9471. On October 17, 2010 Defendant served Plaintiff with Request For

Truth of Documents (Exhibit “B”). Defendant also served Plaintiff with RFPDs (See

Exhibit “C”). Defendant’s discovery sought information about the basis for Plaintiff’s

Complaint. Plaintiff served boilerplate “Preliminary Reservations on November 12,

2010 by U.S. Mail. Plaintiff’s response to “discovery” failed to provide a meaningful

response to a single discovery request.

Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to

Compel and award sanctions against Plaintiff for her flagrant abuse of the discovery

process.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 10, 2010 Plaintiff served Defendant with a four-page letter

dated November 8 2010 entitled “Re: Quarle vs. Keegan (sic) Meet and Confer”.

Plaintiff is alleging, “I ask that you provide a verification of your responses in the

form and with the content required by law. Also you should be aware that responses

to discovery are not deemed served until a proper verification is provided.”

Plaintiff waited almost a month to inform defendant of this. Furthermore

defendant did verify all of her discovery responses. As of today November 13, 2010

Plaintiff has not adequately responded to Defendant’s Meet and Confer efforts.

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests For Admissions and other

discovery requests violates the discovery rules and frustrates the purposes of

discovery. California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides that a party

1

is entitled to discovery information that is not privileged and that is reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Laddan vs. Superior

Court, 167 Cal. App. 2d 391, 395 (1959) holding that discovery may be had as to

“any matter. …relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”) The

fact, the truth that Plaintiff tape-recorded defendant and third parties is relevant to

this action. The fact that Plaintiff “wore a wire” and tape-recorded private meetings

with Bruce C. Fonarow and Jennifer McBride and others is relevant to this action.

The fact that Plaintiff filed an on going lawsuit (Keegan vs. Winthrop Jackman et al)

based on a false premise is relevant to this action. The fact that Plaintiff filed false

documents with the Department of Labor is relevant to Keegan’s lack of ethics and

improper behavior.

In Response to Defendant’s Request For Production of Documents #5 “Please

produce any and all documents which support your Second Cause of Actions (For

Invasion of Privacy and Publication of Illegally Obtained Information)” Plaintiff

responded “All such documents will be produced.” ; In Response to Defendant’s

R.F.P.D. #6 “Please produce any and all documents which evidence the dates that

Defendant allegedly recorded at least 40 (forty) conversations between you and

Defendant occurring within the last two years.” Plaintiff’s Response: “All such

documents will be produced.” Plaintiff filed the same responses to Defendant’s

RFPDs #8 and # 10. Plaintiff filed this frivolous lawsuit knowing full well that

Plaintiff herself: a) tape-recorded without permissions third parties; b) knowing

that Plaintiff often “wore a wire” and tape recorded not only conversations but also

private meetings with third parties. In pari delicto. Plaintiff even refused to respond

to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories. The inadequate response to Interrog. No. 2.3

requesting Plaintiff’s California Driver’s License is “Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information will not be disclosed. This interrogatory seeks information protected

by the California laws of privacy.” Defendant requested for the fourth time all

documents requesting any criminal or background information Plaintiff obtained or

has in her possession but Plaintiff refused to provide this information. Nonetheless

Plaintiff’s has threatened improperly to file a “302 Motion in a Civil Case.”

California courts have recognized that the purpose of the discovery rules is to

2

“enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate trial

strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise.” (See Williams vs.

Volkswagerwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 180 Cal App. 3d 1244, 12564 (1986)

This is exactly what happened in the 09/13/10 Berman Hearing when Plaintiff

submitted multiple false hearsay documents that “proved” that Quarle was an

Independent Contractor, that Quarle hired assistants, that Quarle “represented four

individuals in a “Class Action” lawsuit. that Quarle was “President of her own out of

state Corporation.” In other words, the discovery process is designed to “make a

trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues

and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” Juarez vs. Boy Scouts of America,

Inc. 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389 (2000) An important aspect of legitimate discovery from

a defendant’s point of view is the ascertainment, in advance of trial, of the specific

components of Plaintiff’s case so that the appropriate preparations can be made to

meet them. It is impossible to discover this other than from plaintiff.” Karz vs. Karl,

137 Cal. App. 3d 637, 650 (1982)

III. Plaintiff Must Amend Her Responses to Defendant’s Requests For

Admissions and Defendant’s Requests For Production of Documents because

they are Incomplete and Evasive in Violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010 (b)

Defendant is entitled to discover specific individuals who have information

and specific documents containing information relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations of

publication of “excerpts” of tape recordings. Defendant is allowed to ask Plaintiff to

state her contentions as to any matter or issue in the case, and the facts, witnesses

or writings on which the contentions are based. See C.C.P. Proc.§ 2030.010 (b);

Burke vs. Sup.Ct. 71 Cal. 2d 276, 281 (1969). Furthermore, facts supporting

Plaintiff’s allegations and the identification of witnesses with knowledge of

those facts are not protected under any privilege.

Upon receipt of a discovery request, Plaintiff is required to give a response

that is “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to

Plaintiff permits” and even if Plaintiff cannot answer completely, she must still

answer “to the extent possible.” (See C.C.P. Proc.§ 2030.010 (a), (b) Marcia Quarle

is not requesting that Plaintiff state what she may know after further discovery.

3

Rather Defendant expects that Plaintiff comply with her obligations to fully respond

to RFAs based on her knowledge at this time. For example RFA # 7 “Admit that you

consented to Quarle listening to and transcribing the Fonarow; Schmaljohann and

Caren Tapes that Plaintiff recorded in secret. ”This discovery is essential in order for

Defendant to conduct her own investigation.

IV. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Take Discovery While Refusing to

Respond to Defendant’s Discovery.

Discovery is a two-way street. Plaintiff is not entitled to a strategic

advantage to engage in her own discovery while simultaneously refusing to respond

to Defendant’s discovery. C.C.P. Proc.§ 2019.020 (a) which states, “the fact that a

party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or another method, shall not

operate to delay the discovery of any other party.”). It has been over one month

since Defendant served her discovery requests and Plaintiff has no justification for

failing to respond completely and straightforwardly to the discovery at issue during

this lengthy period of time.

CONCLUSION

FOR THE REASONS SET FOR ABOVE, Defendant respectfully requests that

this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Compel and order Plaintiff to withdraw her

boilerplate objections and provide complete response to Defendant’s RFAs and

Defendant’s RFPDs. Defendant further requests that the Court impose sanctions

against Plaintiff in an amount to be decided by this Court.

Dated: 11/13/10 10:17:29 AM

By: Marcia Quarle, Defendant In Pro Se

4