Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to
Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) Government Code § 6103
2 Justin Jones Rodriguez (SBN 279080)
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor ELECTRONICALLY
3 San Francisco, California 94111 F I L E D
Telephone: (415) 291-7450 Superior Court of California,
4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco
Email: bwlee@manatt.com 05/11/2022
5 Email: jjrodriguez@manatt.com Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
6 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Deputy Clerk
Marcia Scully (SBN 80648)
7 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907)
Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745)
8 700 North Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
9 Telephone: (213) 217-6834
Facsimile: (213) 217-6890
10 Email: hbeatty@mwdh2o.com
11 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
12
Additional counsel listed on following page
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
15
16 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004; consolidated with
AUTHORITY, Case Nos. CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-
17 516389
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
18 Assigned for all purposes to the
v. Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo, Dept. 306
19
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
20 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR
21 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY TRIAL
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
22 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, Trial Date: May 16-27, 2022
2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015
23 AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10,
24 Respondents and Defendants.
25
26
27
28
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
2
Respondent, Defendant and Cross-
3 Complainant,
4 vs.
5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY,
6
Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross-
7 Defendant.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 MILLER BARONDESS LLP
Mira Hashmall (SBN 216842)
2 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
3 Telephone: 310-552-4400
Facsimile: 310-552-8400
4 Email: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com
5 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Colin C. West (SBN 184095)
6 One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1596
7 Telephone: (415) 422-1000
Facsimile: (415) 422-1101
8 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com
9 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of Southern
2 California (“Metropolitan”) provides the following deposition designations for trial. These
3 designations also include columns for Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant San Diego
4 County Water Authority’s (“San Diego”) objections, San Diego’s counter-designations, and
5 Metropolitan’s responses to San Diego’s objections and counter-designations. Due to the number
6 of depositions that occurred during the last three weeks, Metropolitan anticipates filing
7 supplemental deposition designations before or during trial. Metropolitan also reserves the right
8 to supplement its designations, make additional designations and counter-designations, and
9 further object to San Diego’s designations and counter-designations, including at trial.
10 Attached as Exhibit A are Metropolitan’s designations from the September 6, 2013,
11 deposition of Scott Slater, testifying as San Diego County Water Authority’s person most
12 knowledgeable.
13 Attached as Exhibit B are Metropolitan’s designations from the February 3, 2015,
14 deposition of Scott Slater, testifying as San Diego County Water Authority’s person most
15 knowledgeable.
16 Attached as Exhibit C are Metropolitan’s designations from the September 11, 2013,
17 deposition of Dennis Cushman, testifying as San Diego County Water Authority’s person most
18 knowledgeable.
19 The parties’ designations, and objections to designations and counter-designations, are
20 identified in the Exhibits as follows:
21 Metropolitan’s designations are in red boxes.
22 San Diego’s proposed counter-designations are in green boxes.
23
24
25
26
27
28
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 DEPONENT: Scott Slater Person Most Qualified Deposition, September 6, 2013 (Vol. 1)
MWD’s Proposed Counter- MWD’s
2
Designations Designations Responses to
3 SDCWA’s
Objections and Court’s
SDCWA’s Response
4 Objections to Ruling
Start End Start End SDCWA’s
5 Page: Page: Page: Page: Counter-
Line Line Line Line Designations
6
7:22 9:9
7
9:17 10:20
8
11:1 14:21
9
17:17 21:17 Lacks foundation; 16:9 17:11 Response:
10 assumes facts not in Foundation at
evidence; 19:14-16
11 incomplete Witness did not
Calls for a legal offer legal
12 conclusion; vague conclusions, but
(17:17-18:11)
13 was asked to
Calls for a legal
conclusion (18:15- describe his
14 21) understanding of
Calls for a legal “wheeling” in
15 conclusion (18:24- context of prior
19:12) representation
16
Calls for a legal involving similar
17 conclusion (19:24- issue.
21:17)
18 22:16 22:21 Incomplete 22:22 23:11
19 25:5 28:25
20 29:10 37:11 Incomplete 37:12 38:2
21 39:9 39:16
22 42:18 42:22
23 43:2 43:13
48:23 50:25
24
51:13 55:25 Incomplete (55:11- 56:1 56:9
25 55:25)
26 56:10 58:3
58:11 59:10
27 59:18 61:4 Incomplete 59:11 59:17
28
-5-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 61:20 63:7 Incomplete 61:5 61:19 The counter-
designations
2 concern a
3 different topic
and therefore are
4 not for
completeness.
5 65:9 68:20 Lacks 68:21 71:5 Witness stated
foundation only that he did
6
(66:20-67:7) not recall
7 Incomplete something in
response to a
8 question about his
recollection. San
9 Diego’s
foundation
10
objection is
11 nonsensical.
12 The counter-
designation
13 concern a
14 different topic
and therefore are
15 not for
completeness.
16 71:6 73:7 Incomplete 73:8 73:11 The counter-
74:20 76:5 designations
17 79:3 79:6 concern a
18 79:18 81:14 different topic
and therefore are
19 not for
completeness.
20 The testimony
concerns San
21 Diego’s internal
22 understanding of
MWD’s rates and
23 whether they
were in violation
24 of law. The
counter-
25
designations
26 relate litigation
strategy (73:8-
27 11); background
of internal politics
28
-6-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 during the time
and their effect on
2 ongoing
3 negotiations
(74:20-76:5,
4 79:18-81:14).
101:15 103:21
5
107:17 108:5
6
108:16 109:5 Incomplete 109:6 110:24 The counter-
7 designations
concern a
8 different topic
and therefore are
9 not for
10 completeness.
123:14 123:17
11 136:24 137:20
12 137:22 142:25 Incomplete (137:22-
13 24)
149:22 151:18 Irrelevant; lacks 151:19 151:22 The testimony is
14 foundation relevant to
performance of
15 the Exchange
Agreement. The
16 witness also
17 testified that he
had seen letters
18 like the one that
was the subject of
19 his testimony.
(150:8-11.)
20
160:13 165:18
21 165:23 169:25 Incomplete (169:25- 170:3 171:25 The counter-
170:1) designations
22 (which last for
almost two full
23 pages) concern a
different topic
24
and therefore are
25 not for
completeness.
26 172:1 181:13 Irrelevant; calls for a The section is
legal conclusion; and complete and
27 incomplete highly relevant to
28
-7-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 this matter. The
witness discussed
2 at length his
3 memories and
understanding of
4 the 1998 and
2003 Exchange
5 Agreements.
184:1 184:20 Incomplete 182:18 183:25 The counter-
6
185:3 186:8 designations
7 concern a
different topic
8 and therefore are
not for
9 completeness.
10
11 DEPONENT: Scott Slater Person Most Qualified Deposition, February 3, 2015 (Vol. 2)
MWD’s Proposed Counter- MWD’s
12
Designations Designations Responses to
13 SDCWA’s
Objections and Court’s
14 SDCWA’s Response
Objections to Ruling
Start End Start End SDCWA’s
15 Page: Page: Page: Page: Counter-
16 Line Line Line Line Designations
197:19 197:22
17
198:12 198:14
18
198:17 199:5 Incomplete 199:6 199:19 The counter-
19 designation
20 concern a
different topic
21 and therefore are
not for
22 completeness.
23 199:20 200:6 Incomplete 200:7 200:17 The counter-
designation
24 concern a
different topic
25 and therefore are
26 not for
completeness.
27
28
-8-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1
200:18 206:25 Hearsay (204:7-19) 210:15 211:4 Testimony is not
2 Hearsay (205:10-12) 223:14 223:19 for the truth of the
Calls for underlying
3 223:22 224:12 statements, but
speculation;
mischaracterizes only that they
4 were made and
testimony (205:23-
5 passed along.
206:6)
The counter-
6 designation
7 concern a
different topic
8 and therefore are
not for
9 completeness.
Counter-
10 designation at
11 223:22-224:12
regards case law
12 and litigation
history.
13 214:9 214:11
14 226:19 230:3 Incomplete 225:3 226:5
15 240:15 241:16 Mischaracterizes At 221:10-15,
prior testimony witness stated that
16 (240:22-25) he, and San
17 Diego, “did not
think it was legal”
18 at the time.
19 242:2 242:7 Incomplete 242:8 243:2 The counter-
designation
20 concern a
different topic
21 and therefore are
not for
22 completeness.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 DEPONENT: Dennis Cushman, September 11, 2013 (Vol. 3)
2 MWD’s Proposed Counter- MWD’s
Designations Designations Responses to
3 SDCWA’s
4 Objections and Court’s
SDCWA’s Response
Objections to Ruling
5 Start End Start End SDCWA’s
Page: Page: Page: Page: Counter-
6 Line Line Line Line Designations
7 332:2 332:12
8 332:22 333:20
9 336:19 337:6
10 339:1 343:4 Calls for a legal Witness testified
conclusion; to his
11 incomplete “understanding”
(339:1- of the basis of the
12 343:4) breach, which
Irrelevant (340:1- goes to the
13 knowledge of the
343:4) parties, not a
14
Vague, finding of law.
15 overbroad, calls The testimony is
for legal relevant to the
16 intent of San
conclusion
(340:20- Diego and its
17 understanding of
22) the contract.
18
352:9 352:14 Calls for a legal 355:4 355:8 Witness testified
19 conclusion; to his
355:16 355:23
20 incomplete; irrelevant “understanding”
of the basis of the
21 breach, which
goes to the
22 knowledge of the
parties, not a
23
finding of law.
24 The testimony is
relevant to the
25 intent of San
Diego and its
26 understanding of
the contract.
27
28
- 10 -
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1
402:5 409:1 Exceeds scope San Diego has
2 of PMQ objected to the
designation; scope of the
3 lacks personal witness’s
knowledge; designation
4 lacks without
5 foundation; explaining the
vague and scope or how the
6 ambiguous testimony was
(402:5-409:1) outside the scope.
7 In any event, the
witness can and
8 did testify based
9 on his own
knowledge. The
10 testimony
concerns San
11 Diego’s and the
witness’s
12
understanding of
13 wheeling rates. In
addition, San
14 Diego’s blanket
objection to
15 multiple pages of
testimony without
16
explanation is
17 improper.
411:21 419:5 Exceeds scope of 421:2 421:14 Counter-
18 PMQ designation;
422:2 422:10 designation calls
lacks foundation for speculation,
19
(411:21-419:5) poses an
20 Calls for a legal incomplete
conclusion (418:11- hypothetical, and
21 is not intended to
419:5)
complete the
22
original
23 designation.
The testimony has
24
foundation. The
25 witness
authenticated the
26 document that
was the subject
27 matter of the
28
- 11 -
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
(CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 testimony.
(412:4-13.)
2
The testimony
3 objected to does
not call for a legal
4 conclusion. The
5 question was
“how was San
6 Diego harmed.”
That is a fact
7 question. (418:11-
12.)
8
425:7 426:23 Calls for a legal The question was
9 conclusion; calls for “Do you believe
speculation; lacks this accurately
10 foundation; irrelevant describes the
11 (426:2-23) harms San Diego
suffered …” That
12 is a fact question,
not a legal
13 conclusion.
430:10 444:8
14 Lacks foundation; The witness
calls for a legal
Related Content
in San Francisco County
Ruling
PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING, A DELAWARE VS. ASURE PAYROLL TAX MANAGEMENT LLC, A DELAWARE LLC ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC24615613
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING's Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 1:30 p.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
A & A GENERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INC., A VS. ARLENE S. TASIM ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC23609755
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT ARLENE TASIM AND ALI TASIM'S Motion For Sanctions Against A A General Building Construction Inc. Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1281.99. Defendants and Cross-Complainants' unopposed Motion for Sanctions in the amount of $8350.00 is granted (CCP section 1281.99), payment to be made within 30 days of the filing of this order. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
YOLANDA JONES ET AL VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC23609805
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 10. 2 - DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC's MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Off calendar. The Quezada declaration fails to show that the parties met and conferred "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" in compliance with CCP 435.5. The parties are ordered to comply with the code. The response to the complaint is now due August 7, 2024. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
EDWARD WESTERMAN VS. FTI CONSULTING, INC. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC24615152
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 12. PLAINTIFF EDWARD WESTERMAN's Motion To Seal. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
CLEAR HOMES LLC, A NEW MEXICO LIMITED LIABILITY VS. BRENDAN MICHAEL WEE ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC23607972
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 11, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT BRENDAN WEE, ERIKA HILTON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is Off Calendar - Per request of moving party. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
ELIANE DOS SANTOS VITAL, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC22601133
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Jul-12-2024, Line 2, PLAINTIFFS ELIANE DOS SANTOS VITAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, and WIDES VITAL DA SILVA'S, AN INDIVIDUAL, Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two. Pro Tem Judge William Lynn, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Parties to appear if the motion remains unresolved. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to williamclynn@gmail.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)
Ruling
Y.P. VS. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC24613065
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT EARL IGNACIO AND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'s Motion To Compel Arbitration. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Earl Ignacio's motion to compel arbitration and stay is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS VS. SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP P.C. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC22600572
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 4. PLAINTIFF MARY LEMASTERS' MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Hearing required. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
JOHN P BERNARD VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC23608339
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 8. PLAINTIFF JOHN BERNARD's Motion For Award Of Attorneys Fees, Costs, And Expenses. Off calendar for noncompliance with Local Rule 2.7(B) (courtesy copies). The motion may be re-set for a Mon.-Thurs. after July 24, with papers to bear new hearing date. In meantime, counsel shall meet and confer to resolve their differences. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) Government Code § 6103 2 Justin Jones Rodriguez (SBN 279080) One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, California 94111 F I L E D Telephone: (415) 291-7450 Superior Court of California, 4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco Email: bwlee@manatt.com 05/11/2022 5 Email: jjrodriguez@manatt.com Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO 6 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Deputy Clerk Marcia Scully (SBN 80648) 7 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907) Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745) 8 700 North Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944 9 Telephone: (213) 217-6834 Facsimile: (213) 217-6890 10 Email: hbeatty@mwdh2o.com 11 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 12 Additional counsel listed on following page 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 16 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004; consolidated with AUTHORITY, Case Nos. CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18- 17 516389 Petitioner and Plaintiff, 18 Assigned for all purposes to the v. Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo, Dept. 306 19 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 20 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR 21 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY TRIAL THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 22 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, Trial Date: May 16-27, 2022 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015 23 AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10, 24 Respondents and Defendants. 25 26 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 2 Respondent, Defendant and Cross- 3 Complainant, 4 vs. 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, 6 Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross- 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 MILLER BARONDESS LLP Mira Hashmall (SBN 216842) 2 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 3 Telephone: 310-552-4400 Facsimile: 310-552-8400 4 Email: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com 5 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Colin C. West (SBN 184095) 6 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 7 Telephone: (415) 422-1000 Facsimile: (415) 422-1101 8 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com 9 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of Southern 2 California (“Metropolitan”) provides the following deposition designations for trial. These 3 designations also include columns for Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant San Diego 4 County Water Authority’s (“San Diego”) objections, San Diego’s counter-designations, and 5 Metropolitan’s responses to San Diego’s objections and counter-designations. Due to the number 6 of depositions that occurred during the last three weeks, Metropolitan anticipates filing 7 supplemental deposition designations before or during trial. Metropolitan also reserves the right 8 to supplement its designations, make additional designations and counter-designations, and 9 further object to San Diego’s designations and counter-designations, including at trial. 10 Attached as Exhibit A are Metropolitan’s designations from the September 6, 2013, 11 deposition of Scott Slater, testifying as San Diego County Water Authority’s person most 12 knowledgeable. 13 Attached as Exhibit B are Metropolitan’s designations from the February 3, 2015, 14 deposition of Scott Slater, testifying as San Diego County Water Authority’s person most 15 knowledgeable. 16 Attached as Exhibit C are Metropolitan’s designations from the September 11, 2013, 17 deposition of Dennis Cushman, testifying as San Diego County Water Authority’s person most 18 knowledgeable. 19 The parties’ designations, and objections to designations and counter-designations, are 20 identified in the Exhibits as follows: 21 Metropolitan’s designations are in red boxes. 22 San Diego’s proposed counter-designations are in green boxes. 23 24 25 26 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 DEPONENT: Scott Slater Person Most Qualified Deposition, September 6, 2013 (Vol. 1) MWD’s Proposed Counter- MWD’s 2 Designations Designations Responses to 3 SDCWA’s Objections and Court’s SDCWA’s Response 4 Objections to Ruling Start End Start End SDCWA’s 5 Page: Page: Page: Page: Counter- Line Line Line Line Designations 6 7:22 9:9 7 9:17 10:20 8 11:1 14:21 9 17:17 21:17 Lacks foundation; 16:9 17:11 Response: 10 assumes facts not in Foundation at evidence; 19:14-16 11 incomplete Witness did not Calls for a legal offer legal 12 conclusion; vague conclusions, but (17:17-18:11) 13 was asked to Calls for a legal conclusion (18:15- describe his 14 21) understanding of Calls for a legal “wheeling” in 15 conclusion (18:24- context of prior 19:12) representation 16 Calls for a legal involving similar 17 conclusion (19:24- issue. 21:17) 18 22:16 22:21 Incomplete 22:22 23:11 19 25:5 28:25 20 29:10 37:11 Incomplete 37:12 38:2 21 39:9 39:16 22 42:18 42:22 23 43:2 43:13 48:23 50:25 24 51:13 55:25 Incomplete (55:11- 56:1 56:9 25 55:25) 26 56:10 58:3 58:11 59:10 27 59:18 61:4 Incomplete 59:11 59:17 28 -5- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 61:20 63:7 Incomplete 61:5 61:19 The counter- designations 2 concern a 3 different topic and therefore are 4 not for completeness. 5 65:9 68:20 Lacks 68:21 71:5 Witness stated foundation only that he did 6 (66:20-67:7) not recall 7 Incomplete something in response to a 8 question about his recollection. San 9 Diego’s foundation 10 objection is 11 nonsensical. 12 The counter- designation 13 concern a 14 different topic and therefore are 15 not for completeness. 16 71:6 73:7 Incomplete 73:8 73:11 The counter- 74:20 76:5 designations 17 79:3 79:6 concern a 18 79:18 81:14 different topic and therefore are 19 not for completeness. 20 The testimony concerns San 21 Diego’s internal 22 understanding of MWD’s rates and 23 whether they were in violation 24 of law. The counter- 25 designations 26 relate litigation strategy (73:8- 27 11); background of internal politics 28 -6- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 during the time and their effect on 2 ongoing 3 negotiations (74:20-76:5, 4 79:18-81:14). 101:15 103:21 5 107:17 108:5 6 108:16 109:5 Incomplete 109:6 110:24 The counter- 7 designations concern a 8 different topic and therefore are 9 not for 10 completeness. 123:14 123:17 11 136:24 137:20 12 137:22 142:25 Incomplete (137:22- 13 24) 149:22 151:18 Irrelevant; lacks 151:19 151:22 The testimony is 14 foundation relevant to performance of 15 the Exchange Agreement. The 16 witness also 17 testified that he had seen letters 18 like the one that was the subject of 19 his testimony. (150:8-11.) 20 160:13 165:18 21 165:23 169:25 Incomplete (169:25- 170:3 171:25 The counter- 170:1) designations 22 (which last for almost two full 23 pages) concern a different topic 24 and therefore are 25 not for completeness. 26 172:1 181:13 Irrelevant; calls for a The section is legal conclusion; and complete and 27 incomplete highly relevant to 28 -7- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 this matter. The witness discussed 2 at length his 3 memories and understanding of 4 the 1998 and 2003 Exchange 5 Agreements. 184:1 184:20 Incomplete 182:18 183:25 The counter- 6 185:3 186:8 designations 7 concern a different topic 8 and therefore are not for 9 completeness. 10 11 DEPONENT: Scott Slater Person Most Qualified Deposition, February 3, 2015 (Vol. 2) MWD’s Proposed Counter- MWD’s 12 Designations Designations Responses to 13 SDCWA’s Objections and Court’s 14 SDCWA’s Response Objections to Ruling Start End Start End SDCWA’s 15 Page: Page: Page: Page: Counter- 16 Line Line Line Line Designations 197:19 197:22 17 198:12 198:14 18 198:17 199:5 Incomplete 199:6 199:19 The counter- 19 designation 20 concern a different topic 21 and therefore are not for 22 completeness. 23 199:20 200:6 Incomplete 200:7 200:17 The counter- designation 24 concern a different topic 25 and therefore are 26 not for completeness. 27 28 -8- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 200:18 206:25 Hearsay (204:7-19) 210:15 211:4 Testimony is not 2 Hearsay (205:10-12) 223:14 223:19 for the truth of the Calls for underlying 3 223:22 224:12 statements, but speculation; mischaracterizes only that they 4 were made and testimony (205:23- 5 passed along. 206:6) The counter- 6 designation 7 concern a different topic 8 and therefore are not for 9 completeness. Counter- 10 designation at 11 223:22-224:12 regards case law 12 and litigation history. 13 214:9 214:11 14 226:19 230:3 Incomplete 225:3 226:5 15 240:15 241:16 Mischaracterizes At 221:10-15, prior testimony witness stated that 16 (240:22-25) he, and San 17 Diego, “did not think it was legal” 18 at the time. 19 242:2 242:7 Incomplete 242:8 243:2 The counter- designation 20 concern a different topic 21 and therefore are not for 22 completeness. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 DEPONENT: Dennis Cushman, September 11, 2013 (Vol. 3) 2 MWD’s Proposed Counter- MWD’s Designations Designations Responses to 3 SDCWA’s 4 Objections and Court’s SDCWA’s Response Objections to Ruling 5 Start End Start End SDCWA’s Page: Page: Page: Page: Counter- 6 Line Line Line Line Designations 7 332:2 332:12 8 332:22 333:20 9 336:19 337:6 10 339:1 343:4 Calls for a legal Witness testified conclusion; to his 11 incomplete “understanding” (339:1- of the basis of the 12 343:4) breach, which Irrelevant (340:1- goes to the 13 knowledge of the 343:4) parties, not a 14 Vague, finding of law. 15 overbroad, calls The testimony is for legal relevant to the 16 intent of San conclusion (340:20- Diego and its 17 understanding of 22) the contract. 18 352:9 352:14 Calls for a legal 355:4 355:8 Witness testified 19 conclusion; to his 355:16 355:23 20 incomplete; irrelevant “understanding” of the basis of the 21 breach, which goes to the 22 knowledge of the parties, not a 23 finding of law. 24 The testimony is relevant to the 25 intent of San Diego and its 26 understanding of the contract. 27 28 - 10 - MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 402:5 409:1 Exceeds scope San Diego has 2 of PMQ objected to the designation; scope of the 3 lacks personal witness’s knowledge; designation 4 lacks without 5 foundation; explaining the vague and scope or how the 6 ambiguous testimony was (402:5-409:1) outside the scope. 7 In any event, the witness can and 8 did testify based 9 on his own knowledge. The 10 testimony concerns San 11 Diego’s and the witness’s 12 understanding of 13 wheeling rates. In addition, San 14 Diego’s blanket objection to 15 multiple pages of testimony without 16 explanation is 17 improper. 411:21 419:5 Exceeds scope of 421:2 421:14 Counter- 18 PMQ designation; 422:2 422:10 designation calls lacks foundation for speculation, 19 (411:21-419:5) poses an 20 Calls for a legal incomplete conclusion (418:11- hypothetical, and 21 is not intended to 419:5) complete the 22 original 23 designation. The testimony has 24 foundation. The 25 witness authenticated the 26 document that was the subject 27 matter of the 28 - 11 - MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP METROPOLITAN’S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS FOR TRIAL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 testimony. (412:4-13.) 2 The testimony 3 objected to does not call for a legal 4 conclusion. The 5 question was “how was San 6 Diego harmed.” That is a fact 7 question. (418:11- 12.) 8 425:7 426:23 Calls for a legal The question was 9 conclusion; calls for “Do you believe speculation; lacks this accurately 10 foundation; irrelevant describes the 11 (426:2-23) harms San Diego suffered …” That 12 is a fact question, not a legal 13 conclusion. 430:10 444:8 14 Lacks foundation; The witness calls for a legal