You are on page 1of 4


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
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

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

“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.

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.
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

You might also like