ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Bar number and address):

Todd A. Porter, Esq. CSB# 148993

1052 Main Street, Suite #D, Morro Bay, California 93442
Telephone No: Tel: (805) 772-1050 Fax: (805) 772-2592
Attorney For (Name): Defendant, Brent M. Perucca

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

• San Luis Obispo Branch, 1035 Palm Street, Rm 385, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
• Grover Beach Branch South 16th Street, Grover Beach, CA 93433
• Paso Robles Branch 901 Park Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE

Plaintiff
VS.

BRENT M. PERUCCA
Defendant
CASE NO :
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY CONFERENCE LC 090841

Briefly describe the nature of the discovery dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue:
Court Orders & Instruction: At the 03/16/10 hearing, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to "provide" Verified
responses to all 1st round Discovery propounded by Def., without objection “within 10 days” (normally 5 days
in U.D. action), which makes responses due to Defendant no later than 03/26/10. The Court stated it was
granting Def's request for sanctions, but reserved ruling on the amount until further hearing on 04/06/10. The
Court further ordered Def., to brief the compliance of Plaintiff's responses and the related fees incurred to date.

Statement of Fact & Law: Three (3) days after the Court's deadline passed (i.e., on 03/29/10), Def received
unverified and deficient responses to all Discovery. "Unsworn responses are tantamount to no response at
all." (Emphasis). Appleton v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 (1988); See also Zorro Inv. Co. v.
Great Pacific Securities Corp., 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914, 138 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1977). Moreover, little substance
was provided, no additional documents were provided, and Plaintiff, US BANK, continues to assert in bad faith
they have no obligation to produce the information and documents in possession of its authorized agents (T.D.
Service Co. ("TD CO"), and HomEq Servicing ("HOMEQ"). Even the Proofs of Service were not signed.

No power of sale (foreclosure) can be exercised until the requirements of CC §§2924, et. seq., and CC §2923.5
are met. As set forth in Miller v Cote (1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894 (Headnote 1), the procedure for
foreclosing on security by a trustee’s sale pursuant to a deed of trust is set forth in CC, §§2924, et. seq. “The
statutory requirements must be strictly complied with. . . .” (Emphasis added).

In an attempt to comply with these statutory duties, US BANK, as the principal, appointed TD Co., as
This request must be served on opposing counsel in the same manner as the request is filed with the clerk. Any opposition must be filed within 2 business days
of receipt of request and served on opposing counsel in the same manner as the opposition is filed with the clerk. (The content of this document must be
limited to this 2 page form and must be prepared in 12 point type.

CSC01
Rev. 2/10
 Case Name: U.S. BANK v. PERUCCA Case No: LC 090841

the “authorized agent for the beneficiary” and on 01/29/09, TD CO filed a defective Notice of Default & Election
to Sell with the address in Paso Robles. [See Ex “B” to Judicial Notice Request filed 03/11/10]. Thus, U.S.
BANK used its agent & trustee, TD CO, to try to fulfil its duties per CC §§2924 et. seq. Also, U.S. BANK used
agent HOMEQ to service the loan. US BANK also used HOMEQ to attempt to do it’s duties per Code. [Ex “E” to
same Judicial Notice]. In said Exhibit, re CC §2923.5 compliance, it alleges certified mailing, return receipt to
2217 Fresno St., Paso Robles, Ca. Defendant met & conferred to locate the return receipt, but was ignored.

The information in possession of Plaintiff’s agents was expressly set forth in the Discovery requests. Moreover, at
the last hearing, Plaintiff already argued it wasn't the Trustee and the Discovery sought was possessed by the other
Agents. The Court dismissed that argument and Ordered the production of all Discovery. Plaintiff, in bad faith,
continues to deny its obligation to produce said Discovery. E.g., US BANK responds “Plaintiff is unaware of the
relevant facts. Facts regarding Notice of time and place of the Sale are facts that are known to the foreclosing
trustee. The foreclosing trustee is [TD CO]” Likewise, re CC §2923.5, US BANK evades by saying the facts are
with, “James C. Clymer [HOMEQ]. Contact information to be determined and provided.” Re RFP responses --
about 1/2 say “Plaintiff produces the attached documents which were previously provided”. Said docs are on their
face deficient and partly why the compel motions were needed. E.g., statutory affidavit’s of mailing are required
to be kept, the Code also requires the person and the mailing both be identified, and they aren't. Also, an affidavit
purports to attach the Notice mailed, but no such Notice is actually attached. To most other RFP’s, US BANK says
“Plaintiff has requested these documents and will produce them upon receipt. Due to the nature of volume of
documents, Plaintiff requests sufficient time to conduct document review prior to production.” It has been months
since the 1st round of Discovery was to be responded to (UD is 5 days to respond, not 35 days). Plaintiff filed this
UD, but continually claims it is not prepared to respond, thus admitting noncompliance with the Court's Orders.

D's Counsel has spent considerable billable time in attempting to get compliance with Discovery over several
months: 7.3 hours discounted to 3.5 hours for reviewing, researching & preparing (2) detailed Meet & Confer
letters (never responded to by Counsel); Preparation of (4) Motions to Compel with exhibits [RFAs 5.3 hours,
RFPs 8.2 hours, and two (2) Form Rog Motions (UD & General) 3.5 hours, but not including time (as discounted)
to draft the Sep Stmts per CRC Rule 3.1345]. Counsel also spent 1.6 hours preparing for the last Discovery
hearing (not including travel time, and waiting to be called). Counsel spent well over 1.8 hours (but discounted
my billing again) in reviewing the recent deficient responses & preparing this brief, per Court’s Order. I expect to
spend at least 1.5 hours preparing for and attending this next hearing. My billable rate is $250.00 per hour. I'm in
my 20th year of practice. I am Martidale BV rated. I request sanctions for my discounted hours in the amount of
$5,950.00. I also request the Court impose its own sanctions against Plaintiff’s Counsel in an amount in the
discretion of the Court for again failing to follow Court order(s).
Dated: 04/1/10, ____________________ TODD A. PORTER, Attorney for Defendant, BRENT M. PERUCCA
This request must be served on opposing counsel in the same manner as the request is filed with the clerk. Any opposition must be filed within 3 court days of
receipt of request and served on opposing counsel in the same manner as the opposition is filed with the clerk. (The content of this document must be limited
to this 2 page form and must be prepared in 12 point type.

CSC01
Rev. 2/10
 1 Proof of Service
State of California, County of San Luis Obispo
2
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of 18
3 and am not a party to the within action, my business address is 1052 Main Street, Suite #D, Morro Bay,
California 93442.
4
On April 1, 2010, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
5
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY CONFERNECE (CONT’D)
6
on the interested parties in this action:
7
X By Mail. I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and
8 processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Following ordinary
business practice, I served the above-described document(s) on all interested parties named below, by
9 placing at my place of business, the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing with the United States
Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business, addressed as follows:
10
David R. Endres, Esq.
11 THE ENDRES LAW FIRM, APC
2121 2ND Street, Suite #C105
12 Davis, California 95618
13 By Certified Mail to:
14 By personally delivering copies to the person served. Person served:
15 I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1011. Please see address above.
16
X By facsimile. By sending a copy of said document by facsimile machine for instantaneous
17 transmittal via telephone line to the offices of the addresses listed above using the following telephone
number(s):
18 David R. Endres, Esq., at (530) 750-3366
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
20 and correct.
21 Executed on April 1, 2010, at Morro Bay, California.
22
23 TODD A. PORTER
24
25
26
27
28
U S B A N K V. P E R U C C A
SLO C o. Superior Court, Case #LC 090841
Disc Conference re Defendant’s Motions to Compel -1-