Motion-Secondary: SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1     RANDOLPH E. DAAR (SBN 88195)
                  BEN ROSENFELD (SBN 203845)
            2     ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                                                                                 ELECTRONICALLY
            3     3330 Geary Blvd., 3rd Floor East
                  San Francisco, CA 94118                                                                           F  I  L   E  D
                                                                                                                 Superior Court of California,
            4     Tel:     (415) 986-5591                                                                         County of San Francisco
                  Fax:     (415) 421-1331
                                                                                                                     06/14/2022
            5     randolphdaar@yahoo.com                                                                         Clerk of the Court
                  ben.rosenfeld@comcast.net                                                                        BY: ANGELICA SUNGA
            6                                                                                                                 Deputy Clerk


            7     Attorneys for Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc.

            8
            9
                                        SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
            10
            11                                          COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

            12
                  SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,                                 Case Nos. CGC-17-560034
            13    INC., Plaintiff,                                            and CGC-19-576488, consolidated
            14                                v.                              DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
            15                                                                COUNSEL BEN ROSENFELD IN
                  CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,                           SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SYNERGY’S
            16    et al., Defendants.                                         OPPOSITION TO CITY DEFENDANTS’
                  ______________________________________                      MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
            17                                                                FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
                  GHILOTTI BROS., INC., Plaintiff,
            18
                                                                              Date:    June 27, 2022
            19                                v.                              Time:    9:30 am.
                                                                              Dept.:   302 (Hon. Richard Ulmer)
            20    SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
                  INC., a California Corporation, DOES 1-30,                  Action Filed:     July 10, 2017
            21    Defendants.                                                 Trial Date:       February 6, 2023
                  ______________________________________
            22
            23    SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
                  Cross-Complainant,
            24
                                              v.
            25
            26    GHILOTTI BROS, INC., ROES 1-20,
                  Cross-Defendants.
            27
            28
                                                                            1
                  D ECL . B EN R OSENFELD ISO P LTFF ’ S O PPOSITION TO C ITY D EFS ’ D EMURRER            C ASE No. CGC-17-560034
            1              I, Ben Rosenfeld, declare as follows:
            2              1.   I am over the age of 18. I am an attorney licensed to practice law throughout the State
            3     of California and in this Court. I am co-counsel for Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc.
            4     with Attorney Randolph E. Daar.
            5              2.   Mr. Daar and I substituted in as counsel for Synergy on December 28, 2021. We have
            6     worked diligently since that time to get up to speed in this case, familiarize ourselves with the
            7     detailed facts and complex procedural history of this case, meet and confer with defense counsel
            8     about how best to put the case on track for trial, prepare Synergy’s Proposed Fourth Amended
            9     Complaint, and its still-pending       Motion to Reopen Discovery, and respond to defendants’
            10    filings.
            11             3.   Synergy’s allegations in its Fourth Amended Complaint that Mayor London Breed,
            12    former SFDPW Director Mohammed Nuru, and other City officials destroyed or otherwise failed
            13    to preserve communications of their agreement to scapegoat Synergy in order to aid Breed’s
            14    political ambitions and the City Family’s unlawful activities (¶103) are based in part on
            15    irrefutable proof of such behavior by Mayor Breed and other City officials in the case of
            16    Shiferaw v. CCSF, et al., No. 3:18-cv-06830-RS (now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Appeal No.
            17    22-15599), in which I represent plaintiff. In that case, I obtained from a friend of Mayor (then-
            18    Supervisor) Breed, emails between the friend, Breed, and other City officials discussing
            19    awarding operation of the Fillmore Heritage Center (a major City asset and subject of a cancelled
            20    public Request for Proposals) to Breed’s friend. Breed conducted this City business in part over
            21    her private gmail account. But Breed never produced the emails I obtained from her friend in the
            22    litigation, stating in her deposition that she deleted them to free up space, and “everything that’s
            23    old gets deleted on a regular basis.” Only after I obtained the emails Breed deleted from her
            24    friend via subpoena did the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office (viz., defense counsel) produce
            25    related emails, responsive to prior discovery requests, which it had hitherto withheld. However,
            26    the City Attorney’s Office never produced the emails I obtained from Breed’s friend, and has
            27    never offered an explanation why, even though Breed’s friend CCd Breed at her official email
            28    address too.
                                                                            2
                  D ECL . B EN R OSENFELD ISO P LTFF ’ S O PPOSITION TO C ITY D EFS ’ D EMURRER            C ASE No. CGC-17-560034
            1              4.   I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
            2     foregoing is true and correct, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as
            3     to those matters, I believe them to be true.
            4              Sworn and subscribed to at San Francisco, California on June 14, 2022.
            5                                                           Respectfully Submitted,
            6
            7

            8
                                                                        Ben Rosenfeld
            9                                                           Attorney for Plaintiff Synergy

            10
            11
            12
            13
            14
            15
            16
            17
            18
            19

            20
            21
            22
            23
            24
            25
            26
            27
            28
                                                                            3
                  D ECL . B EN R OSENFELD ISO P LTFF ’ S O PPOSITION TO C ITY D EFS ’ D EMURRER            C ASE No. CGC-17-560034