Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak As Co-Executors of The Estate of Bartek Frykowsk

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the..., 2006 WL 2542148...
2006 WL 2542148 (Cal.Superior) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)

Superior Court of California.
Central District
Los Angeles County
Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the Estate of Bartek Frykowski, Plaintiff,
v.
Nathaniel J. FRIEDMAN, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a
Professional Law Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
No. BC 339935.
September 15, 2005.
August 3, 2006.
July 13, 2006.
Motion in Limine # 3 to Preclude Admission of Evidence of Damages Not

Disclosed During Discovery; Declaration of Matthew J. Hafey in Support
Michael McCarthy (SB # 89588), Matthew J. Hafey (SB # 167122), Nemecek & Cole, A Professional Corporation,
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 920, Sherman Oaks, California 91403, Telephone: 818-788-9500, Facsimile: 818-501-0328,
Attorneys for Defendants, Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law
Corporation.
Honorable Gregory Alarcon.
Complaint Filed: September 15, 2005
[DECLARATION OF MATTHEW HAFEY RE MEET AND

CONFER AND PROPOSED ORDER FILED SEPARATELY]
Date: August 3, 2006
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: Dept. 36
TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 3, 2006, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 36 of the above-captioned court, located
at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, defendants Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; and Nathaniel J.
Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation (Friedman), before trial and prior to the selection of a jury, will move this
court, in limine, for an order precluding plaintiffs from introducing any evidence or contentions not disclosed by them
in heir responses to discovery.
The instant Motion is based upon this Notice, upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, upon
the pleadings and papers on file herein, the Declaration of Matthew Hafey and upon any such other and further oral or
documentary evidence that may be presented at the time of the hearing on this Motion.
2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

DATED: July 12, 2006
NEMECEK & COLE
<<signature>>
MICHAEL McCARTHY
MATTHEW J. HAFEY
Attorneys for Defendants
Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. INTRODUCTION
By way of this instant Motion, defendants Nathaniel J. Friedman and Nathaniel J, Friedman, a professional
Corporation, seek an order, in limine, precluding plaintiffs from introducing any evidence or contentions not disclosed
by plaintiffs in their responses to discovery propounded in this action.
2. THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE DISCOVERY ACT IS TO AVOID TRIAL BY SURPRISE
Our system of justice seeks to avoid trial by surprise, so that the outcome of a trial will be determined by fair balancing
of all the facts, rather than the happenstance of which party is better able to keep the other guessing as to its intentions.
To accomplish this goal, we have the mechanism of discovery, whereby one party can ask the other to reveal all of the
facts in its possession relevant to the issues in the case. The parties to the present action have vigorously engaged in
discovery since litigation commenced, and by this motion in limine, defendants seek to ensure that this effort will not
have been in vain.
The Court has the discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability
that its admission will... (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the
jury. California Evidence Code Section 352. Discovery rules are imposed to make a trial less a game of blindman's
buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. United States of
America v. Proctor & Gamble Co. 356 U.S. 677 (1956). See Chronicle Pub. Co. v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548,
561 (a principal purpose of discovery is to do away with the sporting theory of litigation -- namely surprise at trial).
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010 provides that:

[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject
matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the
claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be
obtained of the identity and locations of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well
as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, tangible
thing, or land or other property.

In Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d. 355, 376, the California Supreme Court held that California's
comprehensive discovery system was intended to achieve the following results:
(1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing
perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses;
(3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be
proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of
their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard
against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and (9) to expedite and
facilitate both preparation and trial.
Obviously, the purposes outlined by the California Supreme Court will be frustrated if a party is free at any time to
change or add to its previously served responses to discovery. And so the Legislature has provided, within the discovery
statutes, methods and deadlines by which a party can modify its discovery responses. For example, a deponent is free to
change his or her answers to deposition questions within 30 days of the transcript being made available to him or her.
(See Code of Civil Procedure 2025.520(b)). Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.310 provides that a party may serve an
amended response to an interrogatory which contains information subsequently discovered, inadvertently omitted, or
mistakenly stated. However, the propounding party can move for an order that the initial answer be deemed binding on
the responding party, And [a] party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission
only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties. Code of Civil Procedure 2033.300.
As this case has progressed, the defendants have served various discovery requests on plaintiff. Plaintiff has responded,
objected and provided (as permitted by Code) amended responses to these discovery requests. Defendants have prepared
their case to a substantial degree based on the information plaintiffs have disclosed in these responses. Thus, introduction
of previously undisclosed evidence or the assertion of disavowed contention would incurably prejudice the defendants
since it would be virtually impossible for the defendant, in the midst of trial, to adequately respond to this new and
unexpected evidence.
The courts of appeal have upheld the right of trial courts to exclude evidence because of failure to reveal the information in
a deposition (Campain v. Safeway Stores (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 62), in response to a demand for production of documents
(Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 241, or in an answer to an interrogatory (Thoren v. Johnston and Washer (1972)
29 Cal. App. 3d 270). A trial court also has the power to exclude contentions if they are not disclosed in discovery. See
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (1967) 250 Cal. App. 2d. 722). Therefore, this Court should issue an
order precluding plaintiffs from introducing evidence or contentions not previously disclosed during discovery.
Specifically, defendants have identified the following discovery responses to which plaintiffs gave incomplete, evasive,
or no responses at all:
Plaintiffs were asked to admit that Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and/or Linda
Kasabian have no assets which could be levied upon to satisfy the judgment originally obtained by defendants on behalf
of Mr. Frykowski. Plaintiffs denied this Request as to Manson and Atkins, and otherwise answered that they ha[ve] not
yet concluded [their] investigation and [do] not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.
See Response of Piotr Kona to Friedman's Request for Admissions, Set One Nos. 1, 4, served January 3, 2006 (attached
to Hafey Decl. as Exh. A); Response of Piotr Kona to Friedman, APC's Request for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 4, 10,
13 served July 3, 2006 (attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. B). 1

Plaintiffs were asked to admit that Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and/or Linda
Kasabian have no incomes which could be levied upon to satisfy the judgment originally obtained by defendants on behalf
of Mr. Frykowski. Plaintiffs answered that they ha[ve] not yet concluded [their] investigation and [do] not have enough
information to conclusively admit or deny this Request. See Response of Piotr Kona to Friedman, APC's Request for
Admissions, Set One, Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 served July 3, 2006 (Hafey Decl. Exh. B).
As to Manson, the only assets identified were royalties from a book entitled Manson: In His Own Words (but fail to
mention that Mr. Frykowski obtained a $25,000 lump sum payment from the publisher in exchange for a release of all
future royalties -- see Release, attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. E). See Piotr Kona's Response to Special Interrogatories
Set One, Interrogatory No. 6 (attached to Hafey Decl. As Exh. C). No amount of such royalties was disclosed in
Plaintiffs' Response or in documents produced by Plaintiffs, other than the $25,000 settlement. Hafey Decl. 8. Plaintiffs
assert that Manson will have income from exploitation of his likeness in the future, but the precise nature of the property
right or asset is unknown at this time, See Response of Piotr Kona to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 served January 3,
2006 (Hafey Decl. Exh. F). 2
As to Atkins, the only assets identified were royalties from a book entitled Child of Satan, Child of God. See Piotr
Kona's Response to Special Interrogatories Set One, Interrogatory No. 7 (attached to Hafey Decl. As Exh. C).
Plaintiffs assert that Susan Atkins will have income from a forthcoming book, but have not identified the name of the
book, whether anyone has agreed to distribute it, or even if it has been (or ever will be) written. See Response of Piotr
Kona to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 served January 3, 2006 (Hafey Decl. Exh. F). No amount of royalties from any
source was disclosed in Plaintiffs' Response or in documents produced by Plaintiffs. Hafey Decl. 112.
Finally, in response to Form Interrogatory 9.1 (c), which asks Plaintiffs to identify the amount of damages they allegedly
suffered as a result of defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs provided the following answer:
Specific amounts of damages prior to the judgment lapsing are unknown. Discovery has not yet been
initiated by Plaintiffs. As to damages occurring since the judgment lapsed the precise amounts are
unknown at present, but it is estimated they may be $500,000 or more.
Again, Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to update their Responses when Friedman APC served its Form
Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions and Friedman served his Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental
Demand for Production of Documents on June 2, 2006. Plaintiffs did not provide a Response to the Supplemental
Interrogatory, and responded to Friedman, APC's Form interrogatory 9.1 as follows:
Objection, repetitive (see Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409) asked and
answered in Form Interrogatories, Set One, dated November 14, 2005.
Piotr Kona's Response to Friedman, APC's Form Interrogatories, Set One; Hafey Decl. 14 and Exh. G. Plaintiffs
obviously overlooked the fact that Friedman the individual served his First Set of Form Interrogatories on November
14, 2005, and that a different defendant, Friedman APC was the proponent of the Form Interrogatories served on June
2, 2006. Hafey Decl. 15. Regardless, if Plaintiffs had any new information to impart, they should have provided it in
response to the Supplemental Interrogatory.
In short, Plaintiffs either refused or were unable to respond to basic discovery regarding assets and income belonging to
Manson, Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkle and Kasabian, without which Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case against
defendants, as Plaintiffs must prove that had defendants timely renewed the judgment, it would have been collectible.
Garretson v. Miller (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 563, 568-69. Moreover, Plaintiffs have steadfastly refused to produce any

evidence of the amount of damages suffered, or even a method of calculating such damage. Accordingly, Plaintiffs should
be precluded from offering any evidence of such damages at trial.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, defendants respectfully request that this court issue an order precluding plaintiffs and their
counsel from introducing at trial any evidence or contentions not disclosed by plaintiffs in their responses to discovery
propounded in this action.
DATED: July 12, 2006
NEMECEK & COLE
<<signature>>
MICHAEL McCARTHY
MATTHEW J. HAFEY
Attorneys for Defendants
Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation
WILLIAM GWIRE, ESQ., SBN 59451
TIA POLLASTRINI, ESQ., SBN 124873
GWIRE LAW OFFICES
235 Pine Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104
TEL: (415) 296-8880
FAX: (415) 296-8029
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Piotr Kona and Jerzy Szczepaniak as co-executors of the Estate of Bartek Frykowski
RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFF PIOTR KONA TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
[Assigned to the Honorable Gregory Alarcon, Department 36]
PROPOUNDING PARTY: NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN

RESPONDING PARTY: PIOTR KONA, CO-EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF


BARTER FRYKOWSKI

SET NO.: ONE

Plaintiff PIOTR KONA, as Co-Executor of the Estate of the Bartek Frykowski responds to the Request for Admissions
propounded by Defendant NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN as follows:
REQUEST NUMBER 1
1. Assuming that the JUDGMENT (as used herein, the term JUDGMENT shall mean and refer to the Judgment first
entered on August 3, 1971 in favor of Bartek Frykowski, a Minor, by and through Hanna Prominska, his Guardian
Ad Litem, in Frykowski v. Charles Manson et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 70-1664-JWC) were enforceable, Charles
Manson has no ASSETS (as used herein, the term ASSET shall mean and include real property, personal property,
cash, stocks, shares in corporation, bonds, limited partnership interests, partnership interests, ownership interests in
real property, ownership interests in personal property, securities, commodities, precious metals, jewelry, intellectual
property, insurance policies, club memberships, art, automobiles, furnishings, collectibles, choses in action, intellectual
property or any other tangible or intangible asset worth more than $100) which could be attached or levied upon to
satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 1
Denied.
REQUEST NUMBER 2
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles Manson or to satisfy or
partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Admitted.
REQUEST NUMBER 3
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles Tex Watson has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied
upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT,
Plaintiffs can neither admit nor deny this Request at this time. They have no information that would support an
admission or a denial, and they have not yet initiated discovery.
REQUEST NUMBER 4

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles Tex Watson has no INCOME which could be attached or
levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
REQUEST NUMBER 5
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles Tex Watson or to satisfy
or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Admitted
REQUEST NUMBER 6
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon
to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Denied.
REQUEST NUMBER 7
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon
REQUEST NUMBER 8
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Susan Atkins or to satisfy or partially
satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Admitted.

REQUEST NUMBER 9
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied
upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
REQUEST NUMBER 10
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no INCOME which could be attached or levied
REQUEST NUMBER 11
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Patricia Krenwinkle or to satisfy or
Admitted.
REQUEST NUMBER 12
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Linda Kasabian has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon
REQUEST NUMBER 13
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Linda Kasabian has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon

REQUEST NUMBER 14
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Linda Kasabian or to satisfy or partially
satisfy the JUDGMENT,
Admitted.
Dated: January 3, 2006
GWIRE LAW OFFICES
<<signature>>
William Gwire, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WILLIAM GWIRE, ESQ., SBN 59451
TIA POLLASTRINI, ESQ., SBN 124873
LARA SHAPRIO, ESQ. SBN 227194
GWIRE LAW OFFICES
235 Pine Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104
TEL: (415) 296-8880
FAX: (415) 296-8029
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Piotr Kona and Jerzy Szczepaniak as co-executors of the Estate of Bartek Frykowski
RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFF PIOTR KONA TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
[Assigned to the Honorable Gregory Alarcon, Department 36]



BARTEK FRYKOWSKI

SET NO.: ONE (SIC)

Plaintiff PIOTR KONA, as Co-Executor of the Estate of the Bartek Frykowski responds to the Request for Admissions
erroneously propounded as Set One by Defendant NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN as follows:
REQUEST NUMBER 1
1. Assuming that the JUDGMENT (as used herein, the term JUDGMENT shall mean and refer to the Judgment first
entered on August 3, 1971 in favor of Bartek Frykowski, a Minor, by and through Hanna Prominska, his Guardian
Ad Litem, in Frykowski v. Charles Manson et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 70-1664-JWC) were enforceable, Charles
Manson has no ASSETS (as used herein, the term ASSET shall mean and include real property, personal property,
cash, stocks, shares in corporation, bonds, limited partnership interests, partnership interests, ownership interests in
real property, ownership interests in personal property, securities, commodities, precious metals, jewelry, intellectual
property, insurance policies, club memberships, art, automobiles, furnishings, collectibles, choses in action, intellectual
property or any other tangible or intangible asset worth more than $100) which could be attached or levied upon to
satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403,1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions,
Set One, No. 1, No. 1, dated November 14, 2005.
REQUEST NUMBER 2
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles Manson has no INCOME (as used herein, the term INCOME
shall mean and refer to money or other real or personal property earned as wages, royalties, residuals, interest, or capital
gains of any kind) which could be attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Plaintiff has not yet concluded his investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny
this Request.
REQUEST NUMBER 3
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles Manson or to satisfy or
Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions,
Set One, No. 2, dated November 14, 2005.

REQUEST NUMBER 4
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles Tex Watson has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied
Set One, No. 3, dated November 14, 2005, Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his
investigation and does not have enough information to conclusively admit or deny this Request.
REQUEST NUMBER 5
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Charles Tex Watson has no INCOME which could be attached or
levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Set One, No. 4, dated November 14, 2005. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not yet concluded his
REQUEST NUMBER 6
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Charles Tex Watson or to satisfy
or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
REQUEST NUMBER 7
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon
Set One, No, 6, dated November 14, 2005.
REQUEST NUMBER 8

Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Susan Atkins has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon
REQUEST NUMBER 9
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Susan Atkins or to satisfy or partially
REQUEST NUMBER 10
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied
REQUEST NUMBER 11
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Patricia Krenwinkle has no INCOME which could be attached or levied
REQUEST NUMBER 12
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Patricia Krenwinkle or to satisfy or

Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v. Sup.Ct (1997) 58 CA4th 1403,1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions,
REQUEST NUMBER 13
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Linda Kasabian has no ASSETS which could be attached or levied upon
Objection, repetitive, (see Sexton v, Sup.Ct. (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409) asked and answered in Request for Admissions,
REQUEST NUMBER 14
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, Linda Kasabian has no INCOME which could be attached or levied upon
REQUEST NUMBER 15
Assuming the JUDGMENT were enforceable, no insurer has a duty to indemnify Linda Kasabian or to satisfy or partially
Dated: July 3, 2006
GWIRE LAW OFFICES
<<signature>>
Lara Shapiro, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFF PIOTR KONA TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE


BARTEK FRYKOWSKI

SET NO.: ONE

Plaintiff PIOTR KONA, as Co-Executor of the Estate of the Bartek Frykowski, responds to the Special Interrogatories
propounded by Defendant NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN as follows:
GENERAL RESPONSE
Discovery and investigation in this litigation are continuing. All answers contained herein are based only upon such
information and documents as are presently available. Plaintiff is pursuing his investigation and analysis of the facts
and law relating to this case and has not yet initiated, let alone completed discovery in preparation for trial. Further
independent discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis may supply additional facts and/or add
meaning to the known facts. These responses are therefore given without prejudice to Plaintiff's rights to produce evidence
of any subsequently discovered facts or to add, modify or otherwise change or amend the responses set forth below.
These responses are made in a good faith effort to respond to the extent of the factual information presently known
to Plaintiff but in no way should be considered to prejudice Plaintiff relation to further discovery of facts, research or
analysis. The information hereafter set forth is true and correct to the best knowledge of Plaintiff as of this date and
is based on information presently available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to present additional facts
that may come to his attention as this litigation proceeds. Reference in a response to a preceding or subsequent response
incorporates the information and objections set forth in the referenced response.
Objection is made to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information within the attorney/client and work-
product privileges.
Without waiving these general or specific objections, each of which is expressly incorporated into each answer below,
Plaintiff answers as follows:
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Set forth the home address and home telephone number of Piotr Kona.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Piotr Kona
91-493 d#'
Koronna 4

Tel: +48 42 7179443
Set forth the home address and home telephone number of Jerzy Szczepaniak.
Jerzy Szczepaniak
Kolonia Bruzyca 21a
95-070 Aleksandrow d#ki
Tel. 0048 42 2760740
Set forth the home address and home telephone number of Hanna Prominska.
I do not know Hanna Prominska.
Set forth the amount and date of each and every disbursement of money sent to the Estate of Bartek Frykowski by
Nathaniel J. Friedman, A Professional Corporation.
December 1999 $ 3,610.45

April 2000 $ 452.80

July 2000 $ 607.53

September 2000 $ 636.67

October 2000 $ 1,303.34

November 2002 $ 34,799.32

The $34,799.32 disbursement made to the Estate of Bartek Frykowski by Nathaniel J. Friedman in November 2002
represented a portion of a disbursement made in error by the United States Marshall to Nathaniel J. Friedman. When the
Estate accepted the disbusement in November 2002, it had no knowledge that the judgment had lapsed or that the monies
had been paid out by the U.S. Marshall in error. Thereafter, Nathaniel Friedman and the Estate of Bartek Frykowski

were named as defendants in an action by the United States of America to recapture the monies. The Estate was never
served in that action, nor advised by Mr. Friedman that the action was pending. The Estate learned of the matter in or
about the Fall of 2004 and has offered to repay to the United States Marshall the monies it received in error.
IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Charles Manson which YOU contend could have been
attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Plaintiffs construe this interrogatory as referring to assets which could have been attached or levied upon, meaning in
the past, and not assets which, in the future, could have been available for attachment (or levying) but for Defendant's
negligence. Discovery has not yet been initiated by Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs are informed and believe that assets which
might have been attached include income generated from the licensing or other use of Manson's likeness, story, music
or other intellectual property or property rights owned by Manson. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the income and
royalty rights to Manson's book, Manson: In His Own Words could have been attached.
IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Charles Tex Watson which YOU contend could
have been attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
might have been attached include income generated from the licensing or other use of Watson's likeness, story or other
intellectual property or property rights owned by Watson. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the income and royalty
rights to Watson book, Will You Die For Me? could have been attached.
IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Susan Atkins which YOU contend could have been
might have been attached include income generated from the licensing or other use of Atkins's likeness, story or other
intellectual property or property rights owned by Atkins. Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the income and royalty rights
to Atkins book, Child of Satan, Child of God, could have been attached.

IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Patricia Krenwinkle which YOU contend could have
been attached or levied upon to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
might have been attached include income generated from the licensing or other use of Krenwinkle's likeness, story or
other intellectual property or property rights owned by Krenwinkle.
IDENTIFY each and every ASSET belonging to or controlled by Linda Kasabian which YOU contend could have been
might have been attached include income generated from the licensing or other use of Kasabian's likeness, story or other
intellectual property or property rights owned by Kasabian.
Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Charles Manson.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10.
Responding party is informed and believes that Charles Manson is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison
- Corcoran, B-33920, P. O. Box 3476, Corcoran, CA 93212.
Do YOU contend that Charles Manson is likely to be released from prison prior to his death?
Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. It is unlikely, but Plaintiffs have no idea.

Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Charles Manson should be released from prison prior to his death.
Plaintiffs have no position on this issue.
Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Charles Tex Watson.
Responding Party is informed and believes that Charles Watson is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison;
B-37999, Box 409000, lone, CA 95640-9000.
Do YOU contend that Charles Tex Watson is likely to be released from prison prior to his death?
Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. It is unlikely, but Plaintiffs have no idea.
Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Charles Tex Watson should be released from prison prior to his
death.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 15:
Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Susan Atkins.
Responding Party is informed and believes that Susan Atkins is currently incarcerated at The California Institution for
Women, 08304 MA - 55 - L, 16756 Chino-Corona Road, Corona, CA 92880-9508.
Do YOU contend that Susan Atkins is likely to be released from prison prior to her death?

Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. This issue is not within Plaintiffs knowledge.
Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Susan Atkins should be released from prison prior to her death.
Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Patricia Krenwinkle.
Responding Party is informed and believes that Patricia Krenwinkle is currently incarcerated at The California
Institution for Women, 16756 Chino-Corona Road, Corona, CA 92880-9508.
Do YOU contend that Patricia Krenwinkle is likely to be released from prison prior to her death?
Plaintiffs make no contention in this regard. This issue is not within Plaintiffs knowledge.
Set forth each and every reason why YOU believe Patricia Krenwinkle should be released from prison prior to her death.
Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Linda Kasabian.

Responding Party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to this interrogatory and has made a
reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons and by inquiries on the internet.
Do YOU contend that Linda Kasabian has the financial means to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT?
Discovery has not yet been initiated; Plaintiffs have no information on this issue.
If YOUR response to the previous interrogatory is in the affirmative, set forth each and every reason why YOU believe
Linda Kasabian would have the financial means to satisfy or partially satisfy the JUDGMENT.
Not applicable.
Set forth the current WHEREABOUTS of Christian Schrobsdorff.
Plaintiffs do not know the current whereabouts of Christian Schrobsdorff, but are informed that he maintains his
business at: Blvd. Vitosha No. 36, Et 4, Sofia 1000, Bulgaria.
Dated: January 3, 2006
GWIRE LAW OFFICES
<<signature>>
William Gwire, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Appendix not available.
Footnotes
1 Inconsistent with their Response to Request for Admission No. 4, Plaintiffs assert that royalty income from a book about
Tex Watson entitled Will You Die for Me? should be available to satisfy the judgment. See Piotr Kona's Response to Special
Interrogatory No. 6 (attached to Hafey Decl. as Exh. C). However, the amount of such royalties is not disclosed, and
documents produced by Plaintiffs conclusively show that all royalties went to Chaplain Ray, the author and copyright
holder of the book, not Tex Watson. See May 16, 2006 letter from Baker Publishing Group to Plaintiff's counsel Laura Van

Hoff (On the contract it was stated that the royalties be paid to Chaplain Ray Hoekstra for his International Prison Ministry.
No money for this book was paid to Tex Watson); Hafey Decl. 6 and Exh. D.
2 Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to update their answers to Form and Special Interrogatories when defendant
Friedman, APC served Form Interrogatories, Set One on June 2, 2006 and defendant Friedman served a Supplemental
Interrogatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.070. Hafey Decl. 16 and Exh. H. No new information
was provided in response to these interrogatories. Hafey Decl. 15.
End of Document 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak As Co-Executors of The Estate of Bartek Frykowsk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak As Co-Executors of The Estate of Bartek Frykowsk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piotr KONA and Jerzy Sczepaniak, as co-executors of the..., 2006 WL 2542148...

2006 WL 2542148 (Cal.Superior) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)

Motion in Limine # 3 to Preclude Admission of Evidence of Damages Not

Honorable Gregory Alarcon.

Complaint Filed: September 15, 2005

[DECLARATION OF MATTHEW HAFEY RE MEET AND

Date: August 3, 2006

Time: 8:30 a.m.

TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

DATED: July 12, 2006

NEMECEK & COLE

Attorneys for Defendants

Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2. THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE DISCOVERY ACT IS TO AVOID TRIAL BY SURPRISE

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010 provides that:

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

DATED: July 12, 2006

NEMECEK & COLE

Attorneys for Defendants

Nathaniel J. Friedman, an individual; Nathaniel J. Friedman, a Professional Law Corporation

WILLIAM GWIRE, ESQ., SBN 59451

TIA POLLASTRINI, ESQ., SBN 124873

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

235 Pine Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, California 94104

TEL: (415) 296-8880

FAX: (415) 296-8029

Complaint Filed: September 15, 2005

[Assigned to the Honorable Gregory Alarcon, Department 36]

PROPOUNDING PARTY: NATHANIEL J. FRIEDMAN

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 1

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 2

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 3

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 4

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 5

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 6

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 7

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 8

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 9

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 10

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 11

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 12

2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 13

ANSWER TO REQUEST NUMBER 14

Dated: January 3, 2006

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

William Gwire, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WILLIAM GWIRE, ESQ., SBN 59451

TIA POLLASTRINI, ESQ., SBN 124873

LARA SHAPRIO, ESQ. SBN 227194

GWIRE LAW OFFICES

235 Pine Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, California 94104

TEL: (415) 296-8880

FAX: (415) 296-8029