On July 10, 2017 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
City And County Of San Francisco,
City And County Of San Francisco (Consolidated,
Ghlotti Bros., Inc., A California Corporation,
Synergy Project Management, Inc.,
and
Breed, London,
City And County Of San Francisco,
Does 1-100,
Does 2-100, Et Al.,
Ghilotti Bros., Inc.,
Nuru, Mohammed,
San Francisco Department Of Public Works,
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency,
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS (Intentional interference with contractual relations)
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542
City Attorney
2 YVONNE R. MERÉ, SBN 173594 ELECTRONICALLY
Chief Deputy City Attorney F I L E D
3 ELAINE M. O’NEIL, SBN142234 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, SBN 270784
4 ARI A. BARUTH, SBN 258418 01/27/2022
Deputy City Attorneys Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
5 Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor Deputy Clerk
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
6 Telephone: (415) 554-3897
Facsimile: (415) 437-4644
7 Email: ari.baruth@sfcityatty.org
8 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CGC-17-560034
13 (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488)
Plaintiff,
14 DECLARATION OF JAIME M. HULING
v. DELAYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
15 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
16 ITS OBJECTION TO TRIAL SETTING
Defendant. ORDER AND MOTION TO CONTINUE
17 TRIAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, FOR SEPARATE TRIALS
18
Plaintiff,
19 Hearing Date: February 3, 2022
v. Hearing Judge: Hon. Samuel K. Feng
20 Time: 9:30 a.m.
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Place: Dept. 206
21 California Corporation, and DOES 1-30,
Date Action Filed: July 10, 2017
22 Defendants. Trial Date: March 7, 2022
23 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a
California Corporation,
24
Cross-Complainant,
25
v.
26
GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California Corporation,
27 and ROES 1-20,
28 Cross-Defendants.
1
Huling Delaye Dec ISO CCSF Reply, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01578964.docx
1 I, Jaime M. Huling Delaye, declare and state as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and am a Deputy
3 City Attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, counsel of record for Defendant City &
4 County of San Francisco in the above-captioned matter. The facts stated herein are true and correct
5 based upon my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness to testify, I could and would
6 competently testify thereto.
7 2. I did not receive any communication from Synergy’s counsel, Randy Daar, on January
8 21, 2022, or any other date, regarding Synergy’s desire to reopen discovery, let alone attempting to
9 informally resolve the issue.
10 3. I do not know what paragraph 5 of Mr. Rosenfeld’s declaration is referring to.
11 4. Discovery was open in the Northern District of California for over fifteen months.
12 Discovery was open in this case against the City Defendants for over fifteen months, closing on July 1,
13 2019. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26(d)(1), discovery opened after the Rule
14 26(f) conference occurred on March 7, 2018. During that time, Synergy did not take a single
15 deposition.
16 5. While fact discovery was open in the Northern District of California, Synergy served
17 two sets of Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), one set of Requests for Production of Documents
18 (“RFPs”), and one set of interrogatories on Mayor Breed. Synergy also served single sets of RFAs,
19 RFPs and interrogatories on Mohammed Nuru and on the City, respectively. In total, City Defendants
20 produced over 153,000 pages to Synergy in response to discovery requests.
21 6. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 37-3, Synergy had until
22 seven days after the close of fact discovery, or July 8, 2019—well before the court ruled on the City’s
23 motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in November of 2019—to bring any motions to
24 compel. But it did not file any.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
Huling Delaye Dec ISO CCSF Reply, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01578964.docx
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
2 true and correct.
3 Executed on the 27th day of January, 2022, in San Francisco, California.
4
5
JAIME M. HULING DELAYE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Huling Delaye Dec ISO CCSF Reply, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01578964.docx
Preview
1 DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542 City Attorney 2 YVONNE R. MERÉ, SBN 173594 ELECTRONICALLY Chief Deputy City Attorney F I L E D 3 ELAINE M. O’NEIL, SBN142234 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco JAIME M. HULING DELAYE, SBN 270784 4 ARI A. BARUTH, SBN 258418 01/27/2022 Deputy City Attorneys Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO 5 Fox Plaza, 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor Deputy Clerk San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 6 Telephone: (415) 554-3897 Facsimile: (415) 437-4644 7 Email: ari.baruth@sfcityatty.org 8 Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 12 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. CGC-17-560034 13 (Consolidated with Case No. CGC-19-576488) Plaintiff, 14 DECLARATION OF JAIME M. HULING v. DELAYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 15 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 16 ITS OBJECTION TO TRIAL SETTING Defendant. ORDER AND MOTION TO CONTINUE 17 TRIAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GHILOTTI BROS., INC., a California Corporation, FOR SEPARATE TRIALS 18 Plaintiff, 19 Hearing Date: February 3, 2022 v. Hearing Judge: Hon. Samuel K. Feng 20 Time: 9:30 a.m. SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Place: Dept. 206 21 California Corporation, and DOES 1-30, Date Action Filed: July 10, 2017 22 Defendants. Trial Date: March 7, 2022 23 SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a California Corporation, 24 Cross-Complainant, 25 v. 26 GHILOTTI BROS, INC., a California Corporation, 27 and ROES 1-20, 28 Cross-Defendants. 1 Huling Delaye Dec ISO CCSF Reply, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01578964.docx 1 I, Jaime M. Huling Delaye, declare and state as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and am a Deputy 3 City Attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, counsel of record for Defendant City & 4 County of San Francisco in the above-captioned matter. The facts stated herein are true and correct 5 based upon my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness to testify, I could and would 6 competently testify thereto. 7 2. I did not receive any communication from Synergy’s counsel, Randy Daar, on January 8 21, 2022, or any other date, regarding Synergy’s desire to reopen discovery, let alone attempting to 9 informally resolve the issue. 10 3. I do not know what paragraph 5 of Mr. Rosenfeld’s declaration is referring to. 11 4. Discovery was open in the Northern District of California for over fifteen months. 12 Discovery was open in this case against the City Defendants for over fifteen months, closing on July 1, 13 2019. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26(d)(1), discovery opened after the Rule 14 26(f) conference occurred on March 7, 2018. During that time, Synergy did not take a single 15 deposition. 16 5. While fact discovery was open in the Northern District of California, Synergy served 17 two sets of Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), one set of Requests for Production of Documents 18 (“RFPs”), and one set of interrogatories on Mayor Breed. Synergy also served single sets of RFAs, 19 RFPs and interrogatories on Mohammed Nuru and on the City, respectively. In total, City Defendants 20 produced over 153,000 pages to Synergy in response to discovery requests. 21 6. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 37-3, Synergy had until 22 seven days after the close of fact discovery, or July 8, 2019—well before the court ruled on the City’s 23 motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in November of 2019—to bring any motions to 24 compel. But it did not file any. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Huling Delaye Dec ISO CCSF Reply, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01578964.docx 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 2 true and correct. 3 Executed on the 27th day of January, 2022, in San Francisco, California. 4 5 JAIME M. HULING DELAYE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Huling Delaye Dec ISO CCSF Reply, Case No. CGC-17-560034 n:\constr\li2021\180435\01578964.docx