LAW OFFICES OF

THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES

152 South Harvard Street Hemet, California 92543 (951) 925-3808 Fax (951) 925-3239

May 25, 2011 Barry, Gardner & Kincannon Attention: Cathy A. Knecht 2214 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008

RE:

Bradley v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al. Inadequate and inappropriate responses to Special Interrogatories

Dear Ms. Knecht: As you know, your office received Set Number One of the Special Interrogatories propounded to HSBC Bank, USA National Association. Included were twenty-six (26) interrogatories, and not even one was answered by you. Recently, I received the Responses prepared on behalf of HSBC, and every single one of them contained only objections. I have reviewed the objections and find that none of them is genuine. I would appreciate a goodfaith effort at resolving some of the issues through discovery. I sincerely hope that discovery motions will not be necessary, however, please consider this letter to be offered for meet and confer purposes. Please refer to Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277. This case discusses frivolous objections being raised to interrogatories. I have taken the interrogatories and typed in red print after each of them the substance of your objections. Enclosed please find the document I created using this process. You can see that you have used irrelevancy as an objection to almost every interrogatory. In this regard, you should understand that the Assignment of Trust Deed from MERS as nominee for Royal Crown Bancorp to HSBC, as Trustee. is central to the cause of action seeking to cancel the Trustees Deed Upon Sale. Every interrogatory related to the assignment is directly relevant. Included Interrogatories are 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 25, and 26.

Page 1 of 2

You have stated that you object on the grounds of relevancy due to the fact that the interrogatories will not lead to admissible evidence. However, it is not necessary that the matters sought to be discovered be admissible in evidence at trial. CCP 207.010. Associated Brewers Distr. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal. 2d 583, 587. For purposes of discovery, there is a liberal standard for relevancy. Discovery should not be denied on the grounds of irrelevancy if there is a reasonable possibility that the answers sought by a given line of questioning will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or be helpful in preparation for trial. Doubts as to relevancy should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173. On several occasions, you have objected based upon assumes facts not admitted into evidence and lacks foundation. These are evidentiary objections which might be raised at time of trial, not at the discovery process. It is not a proper objection to an interrogatory that the interrogatory assumes a fact not in evidence. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 421. Not only is the objection improper, but many of the facts are indeed already placed into evidence. We have certified copies of recorded documents, and these are already admissible evidence. These documents serve as the basis for many interrogatories. It is proper for a party, such as Leanna Bradley, to ask what Defendants contend. A party may be required to disclose not only the evidentiary facts but also to disclose whether he or she is making a particular contention either about the facts or possible issues in the case. See Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281, 282. Certainly, Interrogatory 6 falls into this category. When asked regarding Stephanie Goble and Randy LaDon Potts and whether they were employees of HSBC on 9/28/09, you quoted a code section applying only to subpoenas. This is not a request for production of documents and it is not a subpoena. HSBC is merely asked to answer whether these two persons were employees, and there is no proper objection to avoid these interrogatories. I realize that you did not want to take the time to answer the interrogatories prior to the demurrer hearing. However, there is no legal justification for your failure to do so. Please reconsider and send proper interrogatories well before the deadline for a motion to compel further responses. Sincerely,

Linda J. DeVore, Attorney for Leanna Bradley cc: Client

Page 2 of 2