Preview
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027
WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
2 P.O. BOX 1050
Windsor, CA 95492-1050
3 Telephone: (707) 236-2176
Email: bill@wladamspc.com
4
Attorneys for Defendant
5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF SONOMA
9
FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated
10 ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
11 Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER
12 v. FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
13 FOR FURTHER RESPONSES TO
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
14 DEPARTMENT, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
NO. ONE, CATEGORIES 7 AND 8
15 Defendant.
16 Ex Parte Date: October 3, 2022
Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m.
17 Department: 19
AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS.
18 Trial Call: November 4, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 Department: 19
20
I. INTRODUCTION
21
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1200 et seq., Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER
22
FIRE DEPARTMENT (Two Rock Fire) presents this Response to Plaintiffs’ now-moot ex parte
23
application concerning Two Rock Fire’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of
24
Documents, Set No. One, Categories 7 and 8. Two Rock Fire has a provided Plaintiffs with a
25
Stipulation that includes the exact language in the proposed Order submitted by Plaintiffs.
26
Accordingly, the Court should DENY this ex parte request as moot and instruct Plaintiffs to execute
27
the Stipulation to resolve this minor dispute concerning additional document production.
28
1
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 As of 9:00 pm on Sunday, October 2, 2022, when Two Rock Fire’s Opposition and this
2 declaration are being completed (13 hours before Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is to be submitted),
3 Two Rock Fire had neither received Plaintiffs’ ex parte application nor any supporting pleadings
4 or documents in support thereof. (Cf. CRC 3.1206 requiring the ex parte application to be served
5 “at the first reasonable opportunity. Absent exceptional circumstances, not hearing may be
6 conducted unless such service has been made.” (emphasis added).) There are no exceptional, let
7 alone good faith, circumstances for Plaintiffs blatant sandbagging of Defendants Two Rock Fire
8 and County of Sonoma. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, Two Rock Fire is forced to
9 present its Opposition without seeing the relief requested by Plaintiffs.
10 When Two Rock Fire’s counsel arrived at the office at 7:30 a.m. on Monday October 3,
11 2022, there was still no ex parte application from Plaintiffs. At 7:56 a.m. on Monday, October 3,
12 2022, barely two hours the applications and any response by Defendants must be submitted,
13 Plaintiffs sent their ex parte documents - clearly intended to provide the minimum possible notice
14 to Defendants Two Rock Fire and County of Sonoma. There is no claim or rationale for this
15 purposeful delay, other than to prejudice Defendants’ ability to respond.
16 Be that as it may, Two Rock Fire agrees to a stipulation to make the further document
17 production for categories 7 and 8, and therefore Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is moot.
18 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19 On August 29, 2022, Plaintiffs served Two Rock Fire by electronic service with written
20 discovery, including Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of
21 Documents. The due date for responses to this written discovery was September 30, 2022 (5 days
22 before the close of discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.020(a).)
23 On September 27, 2022 (three days before the statutory due date), Two Rock Fire timely
24 served comprehensive responses to Plaintiffs written discovery, including 20-pages of responses to
25 Form Interrogatories (Exhibit 1 attached hereto); 8-pages of responses to Requests for Admissions
26 (Exhibit 2 attached hereto); and 12 pages of responses to Request for Production of Documents
27 (Exhibit 3 attached hereto), together with nearly 200 pages of documents in initial and
28 supplemental production of documents.
2
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 When Plaintiffs’ ex parte application was received at 7:56 am on October 3, 2022, Two
2 Rock Fire learned for the first time that it concerned only further responses to Categories 7 and 8
3 of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents. Two Rock Fire immediately agreed and drafted
4 a Stipulation for the parties which includes the exact language in the proposed Order submitted by
5 Plaintiffs.
6 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is my email of 9:29 a.m. and the draft stipulation.
7 III. ARGUMENT
8 A. An Ex Parte Hearing should not be conducted because Plaintiffs have not served
9 their Ex Parte application at “the first reasonable opportunity”
10 Plaintiffs’ dilatory tactics and the purposeful last-minute service of the ex parte documents
11 are sufficient grounds for the Court to deny this ex parte based on the express requirements of CRC
12 3.1206.
13 B. The Ex Parte application is moot because Two Rock Fire has agreed to provide the
14 further document responses to Categories 7 and 8 sought by Plaintiffs
15 Plaintiffs’ dilatory tactics and the purposeful last-minute service of the ex parte documents
16 are sufficient grounds for the Court to deny this ex parte based on the express requirements of CRC
17 3.1206.
18 As soon as the Court provided the parties with information that this discovery motion was set
19 for February 1, 2023 (three months after the date trial is to begin in this consolidated case), Plaintiffs
20 were notified of the ex parte application on Friday, September 16, 2022; and served with the ex parte
21 application documents prior to 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 23, 2022 – one Court day prior and
22 72 hours prior to the ex parte application being submitted to the Court for consideration. Defendant
23 Two Rock Fire has demonstrated due diligence and good faith in satisfying all of the requirements
24 for an ex parte hearing in Department 19 at 10:30 a.m. on Monday September 26, 2022.
25 IV. CONCLUSION
26 Plaintiffs seek further document responses to Categories 7 and 8 of their Request for
27 Production of Documents, and Two Rock Fire has agreed to provide these further document
28 responses.
3
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 Accordingly, this ex parte application should be denied as moot and the parties instructed to
2 execute the Stipulation that includes the exact language in the proposed Order submitted by Plaintiffs.
3
4 Dated: October 3, 2022 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
5
6 By:
William L. Adams
7 Attorneys for Defendant
Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES
EXHIBIT 1
1 William L. Adams, Esq. (SBN 166027
WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
2 P.O. Box 1050
Windsor, California 95492-1050
3 Phone (707) 236-2176
E-mail: bill@wladamspc.com
4
Counsel for Defendant
5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case NO. SCV-266225 and consolidated
ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
11
Plaintiffs,
12 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER
vs. FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO
13 PLAINTIFFS’ FORM
INTERROGATORIES SET ONE (1)
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT,
15 Trial Date: November 4, 2022
Defendant. Dept: 19
16 Judge: TBD
17 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ASTRID SCHMID
20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TW O ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
21 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
22 Defendant provides these Form Interrogatory responses pursuant to the requirements of
23 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq., rather than any arbitrary criteria or procedures
24 Plaintiffs may assert.
25 Pursuant to the Court’s Order After Hearing issued July 29, 2022, the INCIDENT
26 addressed in these Form Interrogatory responses concerns only the new issues, claims, and
27 defenses arising in the Complaint filed on March 7, 2022 in consolidated case number SCV-
28 270339, and the two causes of action therein alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation in
-1-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 Plaintiffs providing the November 25, 2018 written setback waiver and claims for diminution in
2 value and damages to Plaintiffs’ property. As further set forth Court’s Order After Hearing issued
3 July 29, 2022, discovery has closed for all issues, claims and defenses enumerated in or related to
4 consolidated case numbers SCV-266225 and SCV-266731.
5 Defendant’s investigation, discovery, and analysis are ongoing. Defendant’s Responses are
6 based on information presently available after a reasonable investigation and are provided without
7 prejudice to Defendant’s right to revise and/or supplement these Responses. Accordingly, these
8 Responses do not constitute admissions or representations that any investigation or analysis is
9 complete. Defendant reserves the right to seek a protective order on any grounds set forth in these
10 Responses or on any other basis. Defendant also reserves all rights to revise, amend, supplement,
11 correct, clarify, or add to these Responses. Defendant further reserves the right to use or rely on, at
12 any time, subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these Responses as a
13 result of mistake, error, oversight, or inadvertence. In addition, Defendant reserves all objections that
14 may be available to it at any deposition, hearing or trial or on any motion concerning the use or
15 admissibility of any information and/or documents provided, as well as the right to object to further
16 discovery relating to the subject matter of any information and/or documents provided, in response
17 to these Requests.
18 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
19 Defendant objects to definitions of words and phrases used throughout these Interrogatories
20 to the extent they are overbroad, vague, and inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such
21 words and phrases rendered, when applied to an inquiry of this Defendant. To the extent a response
22 is provided to an inquiry, such response is based upon this Defendant’s interpretation only, in a
23 manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used. Defendant especially objects
24 to the use of the term INCIDENT as defined. There is no single incident alleged in the pleadings and
25 use of the term for these Form Interrogatories is vague, ambiguous, burdensome and oppressive.
26 Defendant further objects to the extent that these discovery requests are overly broad, vague,
27 global, and ambiguous, a response to which would, therefore, be unduly burdensome and expensive
28 for Defendant. Defendant also objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that these Interrogatories
-2-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 seek information that is not relevant to any issue in these cases, is not reasonably calculated to lead
2 to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information which is equally available to
3 Defendants.
4 Defendant also further objects to the extent that these Interrogatories seek information subject
5 to the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine and is violative of Defendant’s rights to
6 privacy.
7 The foregoing General Objections are incorporated below for each numbered response.
8 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant provides the following responses:
9 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
11 These are the responses of Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT,
12 offered with the assistance of its counsel, William L. Adams, PC, P.O. Box 1050, Windsor, CA 9542-
13 1050, Phone 707-236-2176.
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
16 (a) Two Rock Fire Department
17 (b) Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Company. The
18 Court and parties in this consolidated case have repeatedly referred to Defendant as both Two Rock
19 Fire Department and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department.
20 (c) January 29, 1959; Petaluma, CA
21 (d) 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA
22 (e) Yes
23 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6:
24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
25 (a) Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Company
26 (b) For more than 10 years
27 (c) 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA
28 ///
-3-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7:
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
3 NO.
4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
6 (a) Property; portable equipment; auto; general liability; management liability; and excess
7 liability
8 (b) VFIS, 183 Leader Heights Road, York PA 17402
9 (c) VFIS-TR-2055500-12/000
10 (d) Replacement cost; $3,000,000.00; $1,000,000.00; $3,000,000.00; $3,000,000.00;
11 $20,000,000.00
12 (e) Yes
13 (f) Ernie Nunes, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, (707) 789-0302
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
16 NO.
17 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
19 NO.
20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
22 NO.
23 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4:
24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
25 Numerous (50-100 estimated) photographs, as well as numerous films or videotapes taken
26 since 2018 to present, depicting the subject property and Plaintiffs adjacent property, are in the
27 custody and control of Plaintiffs, County of Sonoma staff, and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department
28 staff.
-4-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 Information concerning photographs, films or videotapes taken by or related to the parties’
2 disclosed expert witnesses can be sought through discovery pursuant to the procedures required in
3 Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq.
4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5:
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
6 No; subject to exception for such items developed by the parties’ expert witnesses covered by
7 Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.01 et seq.
8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.7:
9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
10 Yes. Inspections have been done on Plaintiffs property by Plaintiffs and are scheduled to be
11 conducted by Defendant on Plaintiffs property on October 4, 2022.
12 Inspections of the subject property have been conducted on numerous occasions from 2016
13 to the present by Defendants staff, County staff, and professionals hired by Defendants. These
14 include, but are not limited to, Plaintiffs (prior to the civil harassment restraining order issued by the
15 Sonoma County Superior Court in case number SCV-266198 on June 23, 2020); Ernie Nunes, Paul
16 Martin, Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, 7618 Valley
17 Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg
18 Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and Tennis Wick of County of
19 Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA
20 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 30901 State Route 1, Valley
21 Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
22 This response is subject to the exception for and does not include any inspections by the
23 parties’ expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.01 et seq.
24 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.1:
25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
26 NO.
27 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.2:
28 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
-5-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 NO.
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1:
3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
4 Plaintiffs have waived and released any and all claims for diminution of value and damages
5 to their property arising from the location of the fire station improvements on the subject property
6 due to Plaintiffs’ voluntary written express waiver of setback dated November 25, 2018. Setback
7 plans publicly available in October 2018 put Plaintiffs on notice of Defendant’s plans to commence
8 the statute of limitations and are consistent with the conversation between Plaintiff Astrid Schmid
9 and Paul Martin on November 25, 2018. Defendant reserves the equitable and statutory defenses
10 subject to proof at trial.
11 Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, and
12 professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul Martin,
13 other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
14 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
15 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
16 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
17 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
18 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
19 See the documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs Request
20 for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses; as well
21 as all documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
22 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
23 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
24 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property. All prior
25 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
26 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
27 ///
28 ///
-6-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.7:
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
3 Yes. Plaintiffs’ claims for diminution of value and damages to their property due to their
4 voluntary written waiver of setback dated November 25, 2018, as first asserted in the Complaint filed
5 on March 7, 2018 in consolidated case number SCV-270339. Project setback plans were publicly
6 available in October 2018 and put Plaintiffs on notice. The placement of the fire department structure
7 is actually further away from the property line on the subject parcel than the predecessor buildings
8 which were removed, that were located directly on the property line. The location of the County-
9 approved fire department improvements on the subject property do not restrict or limit Plaintiffs use,
10 utility or enjoyment of their property.
11 Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, and
12 professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul Martin,
13 other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
14 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
15 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
16 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
17 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
18 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
19 See the documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs Request
20 for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses; as well
21 as all documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
22 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
23 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
24 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior
25 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
26 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
27 ///
28 ///
-7-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1:
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege:
3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1
4 (b) Plaintiffs were requested to and did approve a written setback waiver which was relied
5 upon for County approval of the fire station project improvements on the subject property.
6 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff,
7 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul
8 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
9 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
10 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
11 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
12 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
13 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
14 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs
15 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses.
16 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
17 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
18 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
19 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior
20 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
21 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
22
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2
24 (b) Plaintiffs were requested to and did approve a written setback waiver which was relied
25 upon for County approval of the fire station project improvements on the subject property.
26 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff,
27 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul
28 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
-8-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
2 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
3 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
4 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
5 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
6 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs
7 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses.
8 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
9 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
10 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
11 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior
12 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
13 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
14
15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3
16 (b) Plaintiffs were requested to and did approve a written setback waiver which was relied
17 upon for County approval of the fire station project improvements on the subject property:
18 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff,
19 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul
20 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
21 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
22 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
23 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
24 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
25 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
26 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs
27 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses.
28 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
-9-
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
2 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
3 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior
4 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
5 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
6
7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4
8 (b) Plaintiffs were provided notice of and access to the County-approved plans for the
9 construction and use of the fire station improvements on the subject property.
10 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff,
11 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul
12 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
13 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
14 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
15 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
16 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
17 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
18 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs
19 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses.
20 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
21 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
22 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
23 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior
24 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
25 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
- 10 -
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1)
1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5
2 (b) Plaintiffs were provided notice of and access to the County-approved plans for the
3 construction and use of the fire station improvements on the subject property.
4 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff,
5 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul
6 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
7 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
8 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
9 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura
10 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors,
11 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498.
12 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs
13 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses.
14 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers
15 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the
16 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction
17 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior
18 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own
19 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response.
20
21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6
22 (b) Plaintiffs were provided notice of and access to the County-approved plans for the
23 construction and use of the fire station improvements on the subject property.
24 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff,
25 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul
26 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire
27 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris
28 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and
- 11 -
DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
Preview
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 2 P.O. BOX 1050 Windsor, CA 95492-1050 3 Telephone: (707) 236-2176 Email: bill@wladamspc.com 4 Attorneys for Defendant 5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SONOMA 9 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated 10 ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 11 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER 12 v. FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION 13 FOR FURTHER RESPONSES TO TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR 14 DEPARTMENT, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE, CATEGORIES 7 AND 8 15 Defendant. 16 Ex Parte Date: October 3, 2022 Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m. 17 Department: 19 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. 18 Trial Call: November 4, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Department: 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1200 et seq., Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER 22 FIRE DEPARTMENT (Two Rock Fire) presents this Response to Plaintiffs’ now-moot ex parte 23 application concerning Two Rock Fire’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of 24 Documents, Set No. One, Categories 7 and 8. Two Rock Fire has a provided Plaintiffs with a 25 Stipulation that includes the exact language in the proposed Order submitted by Plaintiffs. 26 Accordingly, the Court should DENY this ex parte request as moot and instruct Plaintiffs to execute 27 the Stipulation to resolve this minor dispute concerning additional document production. 28 1 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 As of 9:00 pm on Sunday, October 2, 2022, when Two Rock Fire’s Opposition and this 2 declaration are being completed (13 hours before Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is to be submitted), 3 Two Rock Fire had neither received Plaintiffs’ ex parte application nor any supporting pleadings 4 or documents in support thereof. (Cf. CRC 3.1206 requiring the ex parte application to be served 5 “at the first reasonable opportunity. Absent exceptional circumstances, not hearing may be 6 conducted unless such service has been made.” (emphasis added).) There are no exceptional, let 7 alone good faith, circumstances for Plaintiffs blatant sandbagging of Defendants Two Rock Fire 8 and County of Sonoma. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, Two Rock Fire is forced to 9 present its Opposition without seeing the relief requested by Plaintiffs. 10 When Two Rock Fire’s counsel arrived at the office at 7:30 a.m. on Monday October 3, 11 2022, there was still no ex parte application from Plaintiffs. At 7:56 a.m. on Monday, October 3, 12 2022, barely two hours the applications and any response by Defendants must be submitted, 13 Plaintiffs sent their ex parte documents - clearly intended to provide the minimum possible notice 14 to Defendants Two Rock Fire and County of Sonoma. There is no claim or rationale for this 15 purposeful delay, other than to prejudice Defendants’ ability to respond. 16 Be that as it may, Two Rock Fire agrees to a stipulation to make the further document 17 production for categories 7 and 8, and therefore Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is moot. 18 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 On August 29, 2022, Plaintiffs served Two Rock Fire by electronic service with written 20 discovery, including Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of 21 Documents. The due date for responses to this written discovery was September 30, 2022 (5 days 22 before the close of discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.020(a).) 23 On September 27, 2022 (three days before the statutory due date), Two Rock Fire timely 24 served comprehensive responses to Plaintiffs written discovery, including 20-pages of responses to 25 Form Interrogatories (Exhibit 1 attached hereto); 8-pages of responses to Requests for Admissions 26 (Exhibit 2 attached hereto); and 12 pages of responses to Request for Production of Documents 27 (Exhibit 3 attached hereto), together with nearly 200 pages of documents in initial and 28 supplemental production of documents. 2 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 When Plaintiffs’ ex parte application was received at 7:56 am on October 3, 2022, Two 2 Rock Fire learned for the first time that it concerned only further responses to Categories 7 and 8 3 of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents. Two Rock Fire immediately agreed and drafted 4 a Stipulation for the parties which includes the exact language in the proposed Order submitted by 5 Plaintiffs. 6 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is my email of 9:29 a.m. and the draft stipulation. 7 III. ARGUMENT 8 A. An Ex Parte Hearing should not be conducted because Plaintiffs have not served 9 their Ex Parte application at “the first reasonable opportunity” 10 Plaintiffs’ dilatory tactics and the purposeful last-minute service of the ex parte documents 11 are sufficient grounds for the Court to deny this ex parte based on the express requirements of CRC 12 3.1206. 13 B. The Ex Parte application is moot because Two Rock Fire has agreed to provide the 14 further document responses to Categories 7 and 8 sought by Plaintiffs 15 Plaintiffs’ dilatory tactics and the purposeful last-minute service of the ex parte documents 16 are sufficient grounds for the Court to deny this ex parte based on the express requirements of CRC 17 3.1206. 18 As soon as the Court provided the parties with information that this discovery motion was set 19 for February 1, 2023 (three months after the date trial is to begin in this consolidated case), Plaintiffs 20 were notified of the ex parte application on Friday, September 16, 2022; and served with the ex parte 21 application documents prior to 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 23, 2022 – one Court day prior and 22 72 hours prior to the ex parte application being submitted to the Court for consideration. Defendant 23 Two Rock Fire has demonstrated due diligence and good faith in satisfying all of the requirements 24 for an ex parte hearing in Department 19 at 10:30 a.m. on Monday September 26, 2022. 25 IV. CONCLUSION 26 Plaintiffs seek further document responses to Categories 7 and 8 of their Request for 27 Production of Documents, and Two Rock Fire has agreed to provide these further document 28 responses. 3 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 Accordingly, this ex parte application should be denied as moot and the parties instructed to 2 execute the Stipulation that includes the exact language in the proposed Order submitted by Plaintiffs. 3 4 Dated: October 3, 2022 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 5 6 By: William L. Adams 7 Attorneys for Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES EXHIBIT 1 1 William L. Adams, Esq. (SBN 166027 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 2 P.O. Box 1050 Windsor, California 95492-1050 3 Phone (707) 236-2176 E-mail: bill@wladamspc.com 4 Counsel for Defendant 5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case NO. SCV-266225 and consolidated ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 11 Plaintiffs, 12 DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER vs. FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO 13 PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE (1) 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, 15 Trial Date: November 4, 2022 Defendant. Dept: 19 16 Judge: TBD 17 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ASTRID SCHMID 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TW O ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 21 SET NUMBER: ONE (1) 22 Defendant provides these Form Interrogatory responses pursuant to the requirements of 23 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq., rather than any arbitrary criteria or procedures 24 Plaintiffs may assert. 25 Pursuant to the Court’s Order After Hearing issued July 29, 2022, the INCIDENT 26 addressed in these Form Interrogatory responses concerns only the new issues, claims, and 27 defenses arising in the Complaint filed on March 7, 2022 in consolidated case number SCV- 28 270339, and the two causes of action therein alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation in -1- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 Plaintiffs providing the November 25, 2018 written setback waiver and claims for diminution in 2 value and damages to Plaintiffs’ property. As further set forth Court’s Order After Hearing issued 3 July 29, 2022, discovery has closed for all issues, claims and defenses enumerated in or related to 4 consolidated case numbers SCV-266225 and SCV-266731. 5 Defendant’s investigation, discovery, and analysis are ongoing. Defendant’s Responses are 6 based on information presently available after a reasonable investigation and are provided without 7 prejudice to Defendant’s right to revise and/or supplement these Responses. Accordingly, these 8 Responses do not constitute admissions or representations that any investigation or analysis is 9 complete. Defendant reserves the right to seek a protective order on any grounds set forth in these 10 Responses or on any other basis. Defendant also reserves all rights to revise, amend, supplement, 11 correct, clarify, or add to these Responses. Defendant further reserves the right to use or rely on, at 12 any time, subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these Responses as a 13 result of mistake, error, oversight, or inadvertence. In addition, Defendant reserves all objections that 14 may be available to it at any deposition, hearing or trial or on any motion concerning the use or 15 admissibility of any information and/or documents provided, as well as the right to object to further 16 discovery relating to the subject matter of any information and/or documents provided, in response 17 to these Requests. 18 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 19 Defendant objects to definitions of words and phrases used throughout these Interrogatories 20 to the extent they are overbroad, vague, and inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such 21 words and phrases rendered, when applied to an inquiry of this Defendant. To the extent a response 22 is provided to an inquiry, such response is based upon this Defendant’s interpretation only, in a 23 manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used. Defendant especially objects 24 to the use of the term INCIDENT as defined. There is no single incident alleged in the pleadings and 25 use of the term for these Form Interrogatories is vague, ambiguous, burdensome and oppressive. 26 Defendant further objects to the extent that these discovery requests are overly broad, vague, 27 global, and ambiguous, a response to which would, therefore, be unduly burdensome and expensive 28 for Defendant. Defendant also objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that these Interrogatories -2- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 seek information that is not relevant to any issue in these cases, is not reasonably calculated to lead 2 to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information which is equally available to 3 Defendants. 4 Defendant also further objects to the extent that these Interrogatories seek information subject 5 to the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine and is violative of Defendant’s rights to 6 privacy. 7 The foregoing General Objections are incorporated below for each numbered response. 8 Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant provides the following responses: 9 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: 11 These are the responses of Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, 12 offered with the assistance of its counsel, William L. Adams, PC, P.O. Box 1050, Windsor, CA 9542- 13 1050, Phone 707-236-2176. 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 16 (a) Two Rock Fire Department 17 (b) Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Company. The 18 Court and parties in this consolidated case have repeatedly referred to Defendant as both Two Rock 19 Fire Department and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department. 20 (c) January 29, 1959; Petaluma, CA 21 (d) 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA 22 (e) Yes 23 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: 24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 25 (a) Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Company 26 (b) For more than 10 years 27 (c) 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA 28 /// -3- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7: 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 3 NO. 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 6 (a) Property; portable equipment; auto; general liability; management liability; and excess 7 liability 8 (b) VFIS, 183 Leader Heights Road, York PA 17402 9 (c) VFIS-TR-2055500-12/000 10 (d) Replacement cost; $3,000,000.00; $1,000,000.00; $3,000,000.00; $3,000,000.00; 11 $20,000,000.00 12 (e) Yes 13 (f) Ernie Nunes, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, (707) 789-0302 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 16 NO. 17 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 19 NO. 20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 22 NO. 23 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4: 24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 25 Numerous (50-100 estimated) photographs, as well as numerous films or videotapes taken 26 since 2018 to present, depicting the subject property and Plaintiffs adjacent property, are in the 27 custody and control of Plaintiffs, County of Sonoma staff, and Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department 28 staff. -4- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 Information concerning photographs, films or videotapes taken by or related to the parties’ 2 disclosed expert witnesses can be sought through discovery pursuant to the procedures required in 3 Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq. 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5: 5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 6 No; subject to exception for such items developed by the parties’ expert witnesses covered by 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.01 et seq. 8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.7: 9 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 10 Yes. Inspections have been done on Plaintiffs property by Plaintiffs and are scheduled to be 11 conducted by Defendant on Plaintiffs property on October 4, 2022. 12 Inspections of the subject property have been conducted on numerous occasions from 2016 13 to the present by Defendants staff, County staff, and professionals hired by Defendants. These 14 include, but are not limited to, Plaintiffs (prior to the civil harassment restraining order issued by the 15 Sonoma County Superior Court in case number SCV-266198 on June 23, 2020); Ernie Nunes, Paul 16 Martin, Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, 7618 Valley 17 Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg 18 Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and Tennis Wick of County of 19 Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 20 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 30901 State Route 1, Valley 21 Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 22 This response is subject to the exception for and does not include any inspections by the 23 parties’ expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.01 et seq. 24 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.1: 25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 26 NO. 27 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.2: 28 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: -5- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 NO. 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: 3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 4 Plaintiffs have waived and released any and all claims for diminution of value and damages 5 to their property arising from the location of the fire station improvements on the subject property 6 due to Plaintiffs’ voluntary written express waiver of setback dated November 25, 2018. Setback 7 plans publicly available in October 2018 put Plaintiffs on notice of Defendant’s plans to commence 8 the statute of limitations and are consistent with the conversation between Plaintiff Astrid Schmid 9 and Paul Martin on November 25, 2018. Defendant reserves the equitable and statutory defenses 10 subject to proof at trial. 11 Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, and 12 professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul Martin, 13 other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 14 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 15 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 16 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 17 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 18 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 19 See the documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs Request 20 for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses; as well 21 as all documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers 22 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 23 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 24 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property. All prior 25 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 26 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 27 /// 28 /// -6- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.7: 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 3 Yes. Plaintiffs’ claims for diminution of value and damages to their property due to their 4 voluntary written waiver of setback dated November 25, 2018, as first asserted in the Complaint filed 5 on March 7, 2018 in consolidated case number SCV-270339. Project setback plans were publicly 6 available in October 2018 and put Plaintiffs on notice. The placement of the fire department structure 7 is actually further away from the property line on the subject parcel than the predecessor buildings 8 which were removed, that were located directly on the property line. The location of the County- 9 approved fire department improvements on the subject property do not restrict or limit Plaintiffs use, 10 utility or enjoyment of their property. 11 Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, and 12 professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul Martin, 13 other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 14 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 15 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 16 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 17 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 18 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 19 See the documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs Request 20 for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses; as well 21 as all documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers 22 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 23 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 24 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior 25 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 26 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 27 /// 28 /// -7- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections and assertions of privilege: 3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 4 (b) Plaintiffs were requested to and did approve a written setback waiver which was relied 5 upon for County approval of the fire station project improvements on the subject property. 6 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, 7 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul 8 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 9 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 10 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 11 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 12 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 13 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 14 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs 15 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses. 16 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers 17 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 18 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 19 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior 20 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 21 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 24 (b) Plaintiffs were requested to and did approve a written setback waiver which was relied 25 upon for County approval of the fire station project improvements on the subject property. 26 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, 27 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul 28 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire -8- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 2 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 3 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 4 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 5 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 6 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs 7 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses. 8 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers 9 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 10 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 11 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior 12 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 13 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 14 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 16 (b) Plaintiffs were requested to and did approve a written setback waiver which was relied 17 upon for County approval of the fire station project improvements on the subject property: 18 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, 19 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul 20 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 21 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 22 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 23 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 24 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 25 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 26 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs 27 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses. 28 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers -9- DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 2 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 3 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior 4 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 5 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 6 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 8 (b) Plaintiffs were provided notice of and access to the County-approved plans for the 9 construction and use of the fire station improvements on the subject property. 10 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, 11 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul 12 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 13 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 14 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 15 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 16 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 17 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 18 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs 19 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses. 20 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers 21 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 22 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 23 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior 24 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 25 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// - 10 - DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (1) 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 2 (b) Plaintiffs were provided notice of and access to the County-approved plans for the 3 construction and use of the fire station improvements on the subject property. 4 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, 5 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul 6 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 7 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 8 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and 9 Tennis Wick of County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department, 2550 Ventura 10 Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-1900; and Lee Erickson and various subcontractors, 11 30901 State Route 1, Valley Ford, CA 94972, (707) 795-2498. 12 (d) The documents produced by Defendant the accompanying response to Plaintiffs 13 Request for Production of Documents served contemporaneously with these interrogatory responses. 14 All documents produced between the parties and at depositions in now-consolidated case numbers 15 SCV-266225 and SCV-266731; records produced in response to Plaintiffs’ requests under the 16 California Public Record Act; and the records of the County of Sonoma regarding the construction 17 and use of the County-approved fire stations improvements on the subject property, All prior 18 document production by the parties, the records of the County of Sonoma, and the Court’s own 19 records and files in this consolidated case are incorporated by reference into this response. 20 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 22 (b) Plaintiffs were provided notice of and access to the County-approved plans for the 23 construction and use of the fire station improvements on the subject property. 24 (c) Persons with knowledge of these facts are Plaintiffs, Defendants staff, County staff, 25 and professionals hired by Defendants. These include, but are not limited to, Ernie Nunes, Paul 26 Martin, other Board members, Chief Lori Anello and Lou Stoerzinger from Two Rock Volunteer Fire 27 Department, 7618 Valley Ford Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, (707) 789-0302; Crystal Aker, Aris 28 Knoles, Audrey Cooper, Reg Cullen, Bryan Waters, Scott Orr, Brian Keefer, Nathan Quarles and - 11 - DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S