12

3456

78

91011

12

13141516171819202122

232425

FILED14 JAN 27 PM 4:03

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

E-FILED CASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383-7 5

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

)In re: ) NO. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

)TWILA MARKHAM, )

) PETITIONERS MOTION FOR Petitioner, ) PROTECTIVE ORDER

and ))GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM, )

Respondent. ))

____________________________________________ )

I. MOTION1. Relief Sought. Twila Markham, the Petitioner herein, by and through her

attorney of record, Karma L. Zaike, of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, moves this Court for a Protective Order limiting the scope of discovery propounded by Respondent/Husband to the Petitioner/Wife.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 1 o f 5 LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W . B u g n i & A s so c . , p l l c11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3456

78

9101112131415161718192021

22

232425

2. Background. A full background description is set forth in the Wifes Response inOpposition to Motion to Continue Trial filed together with this motion and will not be repeated here.

3. Grounds. The Wife was served with the Husbands Requests for Production on October 28, 2013. It quickly became clear to the Wife and her attorney that such discovery was not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery that will be admissible evidence at trial. Rather, the bulk of the Husbands requests serve as a poorly disguised attempt to obtain unnecessary access to the parties home over the Wifes objections and as a tool by which to burden and harass her.

4. On October 29, 2013, a request for a discovery conference to limit discovery, was sent to Mr. Urie. On October 30, Mr. Urie responded with a 14 page letter in which, among other things, he stated:

Further to your proposal to have a discovery conference as to YOUR OBJECTIONS to our recent proposed discovery, be advised that to date we have not received your objections and therefore your proposal is premature. The discovery rules simply don't provide for a conference in advance of your filing objections to our requests, however the balance of this email may address some of your concerns. If after we receive and study your (we assume very specific) objections and we think any are not well taken, we will contact you and arrange a meeting to discuss them. We expect you will professionally respond to our requests and to any request for a discovery meeting we there after think we need as we have professionally responded to yours. Exhibit 1.

5. Due to Mr. Uries refusal to conduct a discovery conference by phone, a detailed letter to the Husbands attorneys on November 18, 2013, outlining the Wifes specific objections to his Requests for Production. Exhibit 2. However, as with the October 30, 2013

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 2 o f 5 LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W . B u g n i & A s so c . , p l l c11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 . FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

3456

78

91011121314151617181920

21

22

232425

request for discovery conference, the letter expressed a willingness to work together in goodfaith to determine the appropriate scope of the Husbands discovery requests, as well asprovide a list of documents the Wife was willing to produce. The wife has since producedmore than 1,000 pages of documents, including but not limited to all of the parties tax returnsin her possession, bank statements, credit card statements and other financial statements in herpossession for a minimum of two years for all of the colossal number of accounts in which theparties have an interest, and has packed up much of the Husbands personal property, whichremains ready to be delivered, as stated in my letter.

6. For months, Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi refused to respond to the 11/18/13discovery letter. Counsel for the Wife was unable to bring a motion for protective orderbecause the CR 37 conference, had not been completed. A partial discovery conferenceoccurred on January 8 with Mr. Tsai and Mr. Urie, but was incomplete as follows:

In addressing Request for Production No. 1 ,1 asked Messrs. Tsai and Urie to provide a general identification of documents Mr. Markham sought. There was never an agreement to allow any person to paw through the Wifes home contents. The proposal for a neutral party was to be accompanied by more specific information that the husband sought. No such specificity has been provided.In discussing RFP #2 with Messrs. Tsai and Urie, Mr. Tsai stated he would communicate with his client to determine what tangible personal property Mr. Markham wanted identified. Ms. Markham proposed assets valued at more than $1,000. Mr. Tsai said he would speak with Mr. Markham to narrow the scope of contents in the home he wanted itemized along with a proposal as to how the inventory was to be completed. No response was provided.Regarding Request No. 3, Mr. Tsai stated he was not sure if the video inspection... [of] the real property... was or was not intended to be the real estate appraisal for the parties home and rental. Mr. Tsai could not answer the question and said he would respond at a later date. Mr. Tsai could not state why his Request #3

11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Pg. 3 o f 5 MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOC., PLLC

12

345678

910

1112

1314151617181920

2122

232425

requested entry into a home in which neither party has an interest. He stated that if, in fact it was true that the parties have no interest in the home located at 808 NE 59th, then he would withdraw the request. He never responded.Regarding Request No. 4, Mr. Tsai could not state what computers were sought or how he proposed to copy the internal information without destroying the original data. He had no plan other than the Request which requested production for video taping the exterior of the computers in the home. Again, Mr. Tsai could not state why a request was being made o f Ms. Markham for a home which neither she nor Mr. Markham had no interest. Again, Mr. Tsai said he would respond at a later date but failed to respond.7. After going through only four questions, it was painfully obvious that Messrs. Tsai

and Urie had never reviewed my letter of November 18 with Mr. Markham, nor had they conferred between themselves as to the scope of discovery needed. It was obvious neither had any idea what he was looking for and no idea why prior counsel had sought Adam Logges information from Ms. Markham. Mr. Urie excused himself early from the discovery conference, then shortly thereafter, Mr. Tsai requested a recess so that he could consult with his client and Mr. Urie. No response was ever provided.

8. The motion to compel should be denied because Messrs. Tsai and Urie have failed to participate in a discovery conference in good faith. Mr. Urie refused to consult informally, then both Messrs. Tsai and Urie failed to read and confer with one another or their client to provide a reasonable idea of what is sought in discovery.

9. The Wife has made a substantial effort to obtain documents she believes are relevant and necessary for the parties to determine the scope of their joint estate for division after a 33 year marriage. She is willing to cooperate, but the current discovery requests are so

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 4 o f 5 LAW OFFICES_____________________M ic h a e l W . B u g n i & A s so c . , p l l c11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE. WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

12

345678

910

11

12

1314151617181920

21

22

232425

broad and overly burdensome that she cannot begin to understand what remains to be produced beyond the thousand pages of documents which have already been produced.

10. If the court does not limit the scope of the pending discovery, then the Wife alternately requests that a Special Discovery Master be appointed to oversee the discovery. All costs should be fronted from the parties largest asset, an Ameritrade account (#4823) hold solely in the Husbands name with a balance of $5.2M at the time of separation.

11. Because the Husbands conduct necessitated this motion, the Wife also requests attorney fees incurred in obtaining this order, pursuant to CR 37(a)(4). Ms. Markham has incurred attorneys fees as set forth in the attorney fee declaration filed with this motion.

MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

DATED: January 27, 2014Karma L. Zaike, WSBA #31037 Attorney for Petitioner/Wife

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER- Pg. 5 o f 5 LAW OFFICESM i c h a e l W . B u g n i & A s so c . , p l l c11300 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE, WA 98125(206) 365-5500 FACSIMILE (206) 363-8067

EXHIBIT 1

LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY M. URIE, pllcA Professional Limited Liability CompanyA t t o r n e y a t l a w

Admitted in Washington & California

18130 Midvale Ave N. Shoreline, WA 98133

Ph: 206-542-4066 Fax: 206-542-6655

Cell: (206)859-3400 Email: anthonyurie@gmail.com

October 30, 2013

Ms. Karma Zaike Attorney At Law 11300 Roosevelt Way N.E. Suite 300Seattle, WA 98125

In re: Markham vs. MarkhamKing County Case No. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Dear Ms Zaike:

My response to your October 23, 2013 letter regarding Mr. Markham's objections to producing "statements for all bank accounts" was in final draft before I received your current email. I think the response (infra) should address all your concerns. If after you receive it you still wish to have a discovery conference about OUR objections to your first request for production augmented by your October 23, 2013

Page-1

email, please set a time on Thursday a.m. and we will place a conference call to you. But that conference needs to be so limited.

HFurther to your proposal to have a discovery conference as to YOUR OBJECTIONS to our recent proposed discovery, be advised that to date we have not received your objections and therefore your proposal is premature. The discovery rules simply

I don't provide for a conference in advance of your filing objections to our requests, however the balance of this email may address some of your concerns. If after we receive and study your (we assume very specific) objections and we think any are not well taken, we will contact you and arrange a meeting to

| discuss them. We expect you will professionally | respond to our requests and to any request for a I discovery meeting we there after think we need as we I have professionally responded to yours.

I would think from the very comprehensive answers we gave to the rest of your discovery that his (proper) objections do not remotely suggest Mr. Markham is trying to be obstreperous or unreasonable in responding to your discovery. Nor has he otherwise been in response to your late August representations that its now Mrs. Markham's intents to retract her earlier May 9, 2013 representation offering to allow him to demonstrate, he has no anger management issues to Dr. Maiuro's satisfaction and try to reconcile and instead proceed directly to a divorce.

Page- 2

As we represented to you in all good faith, our intent in bringing our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was twofold. First we believed it was right. But we also sought bring awareness to the serious Washington inheritance tax consequences that will befall her heirs from a her claim to a Washington domicile and the pursuit of her divorce here. You however chose to somehow convince her that this was being done to gain some sort of procedural advantage when nothing was further from the truth? Thats now unfortunately her loss.

In addition you've persuaded her to respond in an unnecessary and irrelevant punitive manner by having her and her son file affidavits attempting to support a claim that her husband is a long time batterer when your letter of May 9, 2013 clearly reflects she did not initially so claim. Rather then she was then willing to defer to Dr. Maiuro's evaluation as to whether he even had an anger management problem? Moreover she and her son know (and you should) that there is not one police or medical document in these parties long loving marriage supporting that claim. On the contrary having put this issue in evidence you've clearly effectuated a waiver to Mrs. Markham's privilege to her many years of psychiatric counseling, the Seattle Fire, ambulance and Virginia Mason records of April 19, 2013 and all of her medical records that proceeded (and followed) Mr. Markhams April 24, 2013 arrest which your claim now forces us to seek.

Page- 3

Rather if its now Mrs. Markhams intent to proceed directly to a divorce, we only seek to effect a fair and amicable professional exchange of all of the important documents relevant to this proceedings. As you can see from our first request for production our first concern is for the integrity of all of these parties relevant files. As your client is further well aware, the house in Seattle that they jointly occupied immediately prior to Mr. Markham's arrest, contains a substantial volume. Our first concern regarding your production (and ours) is compliance with WA Civil Rule 38(b), which clearly directs

"A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business".

It is for this reason that our request for production demands that all of the files at this residence be produced and a video record made of their position in the file, box or where ever theyre located (when this discovery was served) be done by us at the earliest opportunity before they are disturbed and copied.Until this is done it will be difficult for either party to meet the others request in compliance with this rule.

But with a basic amount of professional cooperation we should be able to do this in short order. Be advised that due to his familiarity with these documents and things and the only person capable of assisting his counsel in this inspection, Mr. Markham's

Page- 4

presence will be necessary at that home through out every phase of that inspection.

In our last court hearing the court ruled the DV order was not an impediment to the parties presence together. On the contrary its basic to his constitutional right of due process and confrontation. And in recognition of that fact his DV stipulated order of continuance expressly permits the Markham's may have contact in the presence of a 3rd party as necessary to pursue their divorce. However we do not seek to force that or affect any other ulterior purpose in this request. Mrs. Markham's presence is not requested at this inspection. She can choose to be absent and instead have her counsel there.

However when our proposed inspection and production is complete if we are not in a position to have a mediation to attempt to resolve this matter, we will need to promptly thereafter take Mrs. Markham's deposition. This needs to be done at the 810 NE 58th residence where the documents we seek are located so that she will have easy access to them while testifying and we anticipate Mr. Markham's presence will also be essential for that. Accordingly to move this along as you've requested please advise of a proposed time after the proposed inspection and production when we may notice that.

It is also possible however that after the video inspection we propose and your response to our current discovery, that we might alternatively be in a

Page- 5

position to have the mediation you proposed in your May 9, 2013 letter? If this matter is to proceed to a divorce Mr. Markham would of course like to do so in the least stressful to Mrs. Markham and least costly manner, and to be fair to her in all things. But your recent introduction of unfounded charges of domestic abuse is hardly conducive of that!

Accordingly if you are going to persist in that path, we will need to get all the relevant facts to the issues you unilaterally raised in your domestic violence charges out on the table. And as well to see the documents in demanded in our request. So far your conduct in the course of this litigation gives us little hope we will voluntarily see any of that. We hope if you persist in interjecting these unfounded and irrelevant charges your responses will disabuse us of that notion.

Alternatively an easier way to move forward in good faith, with the least amount of stress and expense to both parties and hopefully mediate this dispute in good faith would be for you and I to consider a written stipulation that domestic abuse is not an issue in this divorce. The reason that I am suggesting this approach achieves multiple purposes.

1. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of producing psychological and medical records which at the end of the day will establish no Domestic Abuse Complaints to her medical providers. And it will save Mr. Markham the

Page-6

expense of rebutting these unfounded and irrelevant allegations.

2. It will save Mrs. Markham the expense of paying her attorney to litigate irrelevant issues. There are no children here and if this matter is to proceed to a divorce it should only be about a division of money and assets. Your insertion into this divorce the claim of domestic abuse which is unsupported by anything but Mrs. Markham and her sons interested testimony is contrary to what all who know them will testify was a very happy relationship and marriage for nearly 35 years. And its a marriage where Mrs. Markham was provided from her husbands tireless work as a trial lawyer, well over a Million dollars in accounts in her sole name to and a virtually remodeled extremely valuable home in Seattle titled in her own name (as well as several more titled jointly), to provided her the freedom to live apart from Mr. Markham if she ever felt the need. I hardly think at the end of the day, the financial freedom that she has enjoyed in addition to a fine lifestyle including the annual use of and traveling to, multiple vacation homes (near her children from other relationships and marriages) will remotely support a claim to domestic abuse.

AS TO YOUR RECENT REQUEST FOR BANKACCOUNTS after we accomplish our videoinspection, I would like to hope a further amicable

Page-7

resolution of your current concerns could be obtained by your client simply doing the work that the law obligates her to do before trying to shift this burden on to us. Repeating what we did in our discovery response the only "bank accounts" that Mr. Markham is aware of are as much or more in Mrs. Markham's custody and control than his. To be more specific (although that is unnecessary, as your client knows all this) the only "banks accounts" statements in his sole name (but hardly his sole control) are those of the First National Bank of Alaska (FNBA) Kodiak. But for the period of your request (and some substantial time previously) these statements have at Mrs. Markham's request been sent to the parties Seattle address to facilitate their payment of expenses.

In addition Mr. Markham authorized Mrs. Markham as an additional signatory on all of those accounts except his trust account. And we further believe she has online access to those accounts (that Mr. Markham also presently does not). Finally at your May 9, 2013 letter's request Mr. Markham did not terminate her authority to continue to temporarily maintain the "status quo" with respect to the payment of those bills customarily paid from those accounts (and refreshed their balances when necessary to allow her to do so. Accordingly, she should have all of those statements and as you can see from our recent discovery, it is we that need to request production of them from her! If (remotely) after you've discussed this with your client (in connection with our request)

Page- 8

you feel you don't have all of these statements, please identify specifically which statements you don't have and on pre-payment of my client's estimated costs (including his and his counsels' future and past professional time for attending the discovery conference you scheduled, my October 1, 2013 email, and this one (from funds in accounts in Mrs. Markham's personal name) following an appropriately noticed discovery conference we will hear your reasons why we should be securing those records from this bank when your client can just as easily?

The only other "bank account" that Mr. Markham is aware he has any "control" of is a joint account that the parties maintained at Islander Bank in Friday Harbor to enable them to pay local bills. There was only a few hundred dollars in that account when the parties separated following which Mr. Markham funded it with $2000 to allow him to be able to pay Dr. Maiuros fee before it became clear Mrs. Markhams son Adam Logghe would arrange for delivery of his FNBA "traveling" office check book to him. Since then Mr. Markham also deposited some small refunds that have come to the parties Kodiak address into that account for convenience. And for that reason in the future (and its preprinted checks) he wishes to keep this account open for now and he's had its statements since generated forwarded from Kodiak to him in Friday Harbor. For statements prior to that time Mrs. Markham knows best where those are since she established the manner of filing them

Page- 9

but they either came to and remained in Kodiak or were sent on to Seattle. Either way Mr. Markham in Friday Harbor has no personal knowledge of their whereabouts and no convenient manner of knowing.

While we think the sums involved in that account are insignificant, if you insist on copies in his immediate possession to verify that, forward a check for $100 (again from Mrs. Markham's personal funds) to my office for his professional time and copy costs and on his return to Friday Harbor later this week, he will copy those that he has and we will produce them in due course. If on receipt of these you seek more, upon receipt of a similar check, and express directions as to their location, he will similarly request Karl Loffler in Kodiak to look for any that may be in Kodiak. Or if this proves unsuccessful he will advise and (again upon pre-payment of a reasonable sum for his time and costs) he will consider securing copies from the bank. But again this is a joint account so she has equal access to them.

On information and belief there are at least two other current "bank accounts" (and may have been others in the period you requested) with Seattle banks that your client has managed virtually exclusively and has virtual total control of. The first of these was with Bank of America but on information and belief she closed or took most of the money from that account and transferred it to a branch of Union Bank. There were also accounts at Key Bank on Ravenna and US Bank

Page-10

(Mr. Markham believes on Roosevelt) at one time. Whether she took steps to put Mr. Markham's name

on those accounts he is uncertain. Suffice it to say he doesn't have custody of any the statements in Friday Harbor and if he has any control of them he's unaware of it. The same goes for the "bank statement" regarding charges for any and all safe deposit box which Mrs. Markham has maintained in the past. Since we have requested she identify and likewise produce all bank statements in our recent request we assume you will be similarly forthcoming as to these regarding any safe deposit boxes she controls in your responses to our requests?

Finally although your discovery requests didn't seek them and hence theyre not addressed in our responses, there is the matter of our pending request for the parties substantial "brokerage" accounts and which we anticipate in light of our discovery requests you might likewise serve discovery requests on us to acquire. Let us save you that effort by seeing if we can agree to mutually exchange these? So far as Mr. Markham is aware the parties each had two DA Davidson accounts (one personal and one IRA each) and one each at TD Ameritrade.

Prior to filing her petition, Mr. Markham believes Mrs. Markham had hard copies of the DA Davidson accounts coming to Seattle. But whether she had two statements being printed one of which went to Seattle or had the Kodiak statement forwarded to Seattle he's not clear. Regardless she should have all of these up

Page-11

to that point. Following service of her petition, since arriving in Kodiak in late June, Mr. Markham learned that copies of these statements were coming to Kodiak so he took possession of those that thereafter arrived and since he left Kodiak has had those that have arrived in the mail since forward these on to him.

However shortly after he left Kodiak, Mrs. Markham also had another person (without Mr. Markhams knowledge or authority) enter this house (which he owned before the parties were married, is titled in his sole name and which her April 15, 2013 affidavit acknowledgers she has no interest in) and take some cash for a rent payment on another Kodiak property (on Kashavaroff St.) which that affidavit also admits was not titled in her name and likewise has no interest in and had that mailed directly on to her! So whether when that occurred that person also forwarded her the DA Davidson statement and he has all of the DA Davidson statements for this period is unclear. However Mrs. Markham also has access to her statements for the accounts in her sole name online.

In our desire to acquire a complete copy of all of these statements going back to the inception of these account (as well as copies of her earlier brokers statements) if you will produce all of those (going back as far as Mrs. Markham has) without a demand for prepayment of costs, we will produce those recent ones that he has acquired in the same fashion. After that I propose any statements that are then missing

Page-12

be either printed offline by the party that controls that account or request it from DA Davidson.

Mr. Markham also has no copies of TD Ameritrade statement for that brokerage house for account in her sole name and requests all of those since she opened that account. If Mrs. Markham advises that copies of those earlier statements are also in Kodiak (and where they are located), he would likewise agree to provide copies of those without prepayment of costs if she will do likewise as to those she has in Seattle.

There is also the matter of the records of several Bank CDs and US Treasury Bond funds that were liquidated in 2008 that Mr. Markham believes are no longer active but which explain how some funds came to be in accounts in Mrs. Markham's name Those records are in Seattle and we seek she produce them.

Also there is a 401K account and a 457 account that Mr. Markham funded while working at the City of Anchorage totaling about $100K, and some stock held by ALPS (Alaska's Legal E&O carrier which have been forwarded quarterly to Seattle the records of which she has. Also her life insurance policy. He also has the records to a whole life policy begun before their marriage.

Also she has in Seattle the records pertaining to the ongoing sale of the property on Mill Bay Road that was his mothers house and some surrounding rentals to Kevin and Jerry Arndt. She also has in Seattle, the

Page-13

records of an earlier substantial sale of the commercial Straut building as well as a two Alaska liqueur licenses and two other houses (the wagon wheel houses) nearby on Larch St. in Kodiak. These properties were all left to Mr. Markham in his mothers will and the proceeds from them where thereafter deposited in separate accounts maintained in his own name.

Mrs. Markham also has in Seattle the records of an earlier sale of a house at 4001 Borland, Anchorage that Mr. Markham had before the parties married. All of the funds from its sale was likewise deposited in separate accounts maintained in his own name.

If your client thinks there is anything else weve inadvertently overlooked (and that is certainly possible) please advise.

Page-14

EXHIBIT 2

of MICHAEL W. BUGNI & ASSOCIATES, PI I.CAttorneys

MiciiaelW. Bugni Laura Christensen Colberg

Daria J. Goodwih Margaret DoYUsFnawmicK

JennieLaird KristynaM .Iarch

Ciirjsiv eA M ayoie Yvetie Smith O'Coisnbll

T.uAnb P erry BnASOLTAN-QuRRAlE

Karma L. Zaike Natalie M. Beckmann

Mr. Anthony Urie Mr. Dice Takahashi Attorneys at Law 18130 Midvale Ave. N Ste. A Shoreline, WA 98133

November 18,2013

Re: Markham v. Markham

11300 Roosevelt Way Northeast, Suite 300 Seattle,Washington98125

P:206.365.5500 F:2O6.363.8067

info@lawgate.net

Dear Mr. Urie and Mr. Takahashi:I am writing in response to the Requests for Production served on October 28,2013. Ms. Markhams objections to said discovery are asserted below. Please note, however, that Ms. Markham will work with you in good faith to attempt to reach mutual agreement regarding the appropriate scope of, and response to, the requests.The purpose of discovery is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent practicable. Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993). Mr. Markhams discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery that will be admissible evidence at trial. In fact, it is a poorly disguised attempt to obtain unnecessary access to the parties home over Ms. Markhams objections. That is not acceptable. Without limitation, Ms. Markham objects to the Requests for Production to the extent that it seeks to impose obligations on Ms. Markham beyond those allowed by any applicable Local Rules or governing case law. Ms. Markham responds and objects as set forth in detail below:REQUEST NO. 1: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action. The propounded discovery purports to require Ms. Markham to conduct a search of all files in her custody or control in an attempt to locate any documents that might be responsive, and requires Ms. Markham to produce all e- mails sent to anyone over the entire course of the parties relationship. To the extent that the request calls for Ms. Markham to produce documents located at 808 NE 59th St., Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the parties have no control or ownership rights over the property.REQUEST NO. 2: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The criminal No Contact Order prohibits Mr. Markham

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18,2013 Page 2from entering Ms. Markhams home. Attempting to improperly use the discovery process to obtain entry is unacceptable. If Mr. Markham truly wants an inventory and/or appraise items in the family home, he may hire an independent appraiser. His request to require Ms. Markham to produce all tangible personal property in her custody or control for inspection, without designating any limitation as to the extent or value of such property is unreasonable.Without waiving said objection, Ms. Markham will produce a list of all personal property to the extent that she is aware that the property has a value of $1000 or more. Alternatively, as stated above, she will cooperate with a neutral third party hired by the respondent to conduct an inventory of personal property valued at $1000 or more.REQUEST NO. 3: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is invasive and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Furthermore, the parties have no ownership or control over real property located at 808 NE 59th Street. Ms. Markham will provide a list of vehicles in her custody or control and she will cooperate with a neutral third party hired by the respondent to inspect real property owned by the parties.REQUEST NO. 4: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is invasive and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence, and to the extent that it seeks information with no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and is unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. Markham to produce all of the computers and their hard drives, including old or retired computers, that have ever been located at 810 NE 58th Street. The parties have no ownership or control over any computers owned by Ms. Markhams son.REQUEST NO. 5: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome.Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will produce statements of accounts to which she has access for two years. These statements cannot be produced immediately. It is expected that these documents will be available for review by December 15, 2013, but will be produced sooner if possible.REQUEST NO. 6-7: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the requests are harassing and invasive; they seek information relating to medical, physical, and mental health, which are privileged under various provisions of state and federal law; and they seek

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 3information that has no relevance to any pending action. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.REQUEST NO. 8: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is harassing and invasive; it seeks information that has no relevance to any pending action; and it seeks information relating to mental health, which is privileged under various provisions of state and federal law. Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.REQUEST NO. 9: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine (referred to respectively as privileged documents and privileges). Ms. Markham will not produce privileged documents.REQUEST NO. 10: . Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope, is unduly burdensome and requests infoimation which is not in Ms. Markhams possession.Without waiving objection, documentation in Ms. Markhams possession is available for inspection at the Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni & Associates, PLLC, 11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Third Floor, Seattle, WA. Please schedule an appointment.REQUEST NO. 11: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request has no relevance to any pending action.Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a photograph of Phinney for Mr. Markham.REQUEST NO. 12: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome.Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will provide a list of tangible items which were personal to Mr. Markham or which have a value over $1,000 (see RFP #2) that were removed from the parties real property located in Friday Harbor, Alaska or Arizona within the past two years.REQUEST NO. 13: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad and improperly demands entry into Ms. Markhams personal residence. The discovery requests production of photos, wall art, and other personal items, without any

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 4specificity.Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham believes she knows the items to which Jerry refers. The items have been packaged and are ready to be delivered. Please provide a time you are available in your office when Mr. Markham will not be present and Ms. Markham will have the items delivered.REQUEST NO. 14: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome. The request purports to require Ms. Markham to produce passwords and statements for any and all accounts which have ever been paid for out of funds held in the names of the parties.Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham will disclose passwords she currently uses for access to current asset and liability accounts, as well as those paid for out of funds held by the parties within the two years preceding this action, ft should be noted that Mr. Markham already has access to these passwords and accounts. He does not have permission to change the passwords or make unauthorized transfers to/from any account.REQUEST NO. 16: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request is beyond the scope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non- party. Mr. Markhams RFP seeks information with no relevance to any pending action by seeking the production of information relating to property over which the parties have no ownership rights or control.REQUEST NO. 17: Ms. Markham objects to the extent that the request is overly broad in temporal scope and unduly burdensome. Ms. Markham also objects on the ground that the request seeks materials that are obtainable from other sources, including but not limited to party discovery and/or other non-party sources. Ms. Markham is not going to be executing a waiver.Without waiving objection, Ms. Markham has already delivered to Mr. Markham 2010 - 2012; To the best of Ms. Markhams knowledge, there are no tax returns in her home.She believes Jerry kept copies in Friday Harbor and there may be older returns in Kodiak.REQUEST NO. 18: Ms. Markham objects on the ground that the request has no relevance to any pending action and on the ground that the request is beyond the scope of CR 34 in that it requests Ms. Markham to produce information held by a non-party.REQUEST NO. 19: This Request for Production does not make sense.

Mr. Urie Mr. Takahashi November 18, 2013 Page 5Ms. Markham specifically reserves the right to modify and supplement these objections and responses. Ms. Markham assumes no obligation to supplement her responses beyond those imposed by the Civil Rules, if any. By agreeing to search for documents responsive to the Requests for Production, Ms. Markham does not represent that such documents do in fact exist.Ms. Markham has not completed her investigation into the subject matter of the action or the underlying facts, evidence or allegations. This response is made to the best of her current knowledge, information and belief. Ms. Markham makes no representation that any responsive documents exist or will be produced. Ms. Markham reserves the right to conduct additional investigation and to assert additional objections.Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ms. Markham will produce responsive documents by sending copies of the same addressed to counsel. Please immediately confirm that neither Mr. Markham nor counsel on his behalf will be appearing at Ms. Markhams home. If Mr. Markham or his agents appear, it will be a violation of the criminal No Contact Order currently in effect and law enforcement will be immediately contacted.I am out of the office between November 25 and December 9. If I do not have correspondence from you limiting the scope of discovery prior to my return, then I will be forced to seek a protective order on Ms. Markhams behalf. Please advise.

Yours truly,

Karma L. ZaikeKLZ:esr Cc: Client