1 |MeCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP Gayle E. Jameson, Esq. (SBN: 207050) 2 | Jessica L. Partridge, Esq. (SBN: 260045) Rebecca L. Lang, Esq. (SBN: 249234) 3 | Anne Ogle-Knee, Esq. (SBN: 253824) 1770 Fourth Avenue 4 |'San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 243-3960 5 | Facsimile: (619) 243-1979 6 7 8 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, its assignees and/or successors SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HUNTINGTON PARK JUDICIAL DISTRICT Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, | Case No. 1200160 its assignees and/or successors, PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL Plaintiff, RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS McCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW vs. (SET ONE) David Barrera and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant(s). 18 | PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANTS David Barrera 19 | RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 20 | SET NUMBER: ONE (1) 21" Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq., Plaintiff Federal 22 |Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Plaintiff”) hereby objects and otherwise responds with 23 | supplemental responses to the first set of document requests of Defendant David Barrera 24 | Defendant”). 25 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 6 ‘The responses set forth below are made solely for the purpose of the above-entitled action, 27 | Bach response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, 28 | admissibility, and any and all other objections or grounds, which would require the exclusion of| 1 PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)-TeLEPNE (6H) 24-060 FACS (0) 242-179 Scmua Han eune PRR PRPRReRBeEE SE BURAERERRE SRLS any statement herein if the interrogatories were asked of, or if any statement contained herein was made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections or grounds may be asserted at the time of trial. Plaintiff does not make any incidental or implied admissions with regard to the contents of the requested documents contained herein. Rather, the fact that Plaintiff has responded or objected to any request(s), or part(s) thereof, should not be understood or interpreted to mean that, Plaintiff accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by Plaintiff's request, or that such responses or objection constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Plaintiff has answered all or part of any request is not intended, nor shall it be construed, as a waiver by Plaintiff of all, or any part of any, objections to any request. Plaintiff has not yet completed its investigation of the facts related to the present action, and as such, has not completed its discovery or its preparation for trial. Accordingly, the following responses are based upon information known to Plaintiff at this time, and are given without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to produce subsequently discovered evidence and facts, and to supplement, amend, modify, or otherwise change its responses contained herein. To the extent that a request calls for information that was prepared in anticipation of tigation or for trial, or for information or material covered by the attomey-work product doctrine, or which constitutes information that is privileged or proprietary, confidential, or a trade secret(s), Plaintiff objects to such request, and thus, will neither supply nor render any documents protected from discovery by virtue of these doctrines and privileges. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests as a whole, and to each request contained therein, to the extent that they seek information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s requests as a whole, and to each request contained therein, to the extent that they call for information which is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. PLAINTIFF'S SUPRLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) cmos, LLP McCARTHY & HOLTAUS, 3. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests as a whole, and to each request contained therein, to the extent that they are overly broad and require Plaintiff to make an unreasonable and unduly burdensome investigation. The search for and production of information requested in| Defendant’s requests would consume many hours of effort at great and unreasonable expense to Plaintift and would yield information which is neither relevant to, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to, the issues in the present action. 4. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests as a whole, and to each request contained therein, to the extent that they request Plaintiff to identify or produce information not in its possession, custody, or control, or documents which are equally available to Defendant. All General Objections are incorporated by reference into each Response as though set forth in full therein, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: All documents purporting or evidencing that Bank of America, N.A. granted Quality Loan Service Corporation authority to substitute the trustee under the Deed of Trust as the attorney-in-fact for Bank of America, N.A. RESPONSE TO REQUEST 4: Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s requests as a whole, and to each request contained therein, to the extent that they request Plaintiff to identify or produce information not in its possession, custody, or control, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to the extent this request secks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attomey work product doctrine. See Fontenot v. Wells Fargo, (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 256, discussing the holding of Gomes v. Countrywide (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149, “As ‘the court reasoned, Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a\(1), which states that a trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or an agent of any of them, may initiate foreclosure, does not include a requirement that an agent demonstrate authorization by its principal. (Gomes, at pp. 1155- 1156.)" Without waiving said objections, responsive documents are attached as FHLMC0001- 3 PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)