Preview
1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092
2 jkeker@keker.com
DAN JACKSON - # 216091 ELECTRONICALLY
3 djackson@keker.com
WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 FILED
4 wbraunig@keker.com Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614
5 ngoldberg@keker.com 05/12/2021
633 Battery Street Clerk of the Court
BY: BOWMAN LIU
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Deputy Clerk
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
7 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
8 MARK J. HATTAM - # 173667
mhattam@sdcwa.org
9 General Counsel
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
10 4677 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123-1233
11 Telephone: (858) 522-6791
Facsimile: (858) 522-6566
12
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004
AUTHORITY,
18 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Petitioner and Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAN
19 DIEGO COUNTY WATER
v. AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE
20 APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING
21 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE QUASH
22 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED
BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER Date: May 13, 2021
23 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Time: 11:00 a.m.
ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE Dept.: 304
24 JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1, Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
2016; and DOES 1-10,
25 Date Filed: May 30, 2014
Respondents and Defendants.
26 Trial Date: Not Yet Set
27
28
MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1680034
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) hereby applies ex parte for an order
3 shortening the time for briefing and hearing any motion by Metropolitan Water District of
4 Southern California (Metropolitan) to quash the deposition subpoena served on former
5 Metropolitan executive Linda Waade or for a protective order. Ms. Waade’s deposition is
6 scheduled to take place on May 18, 2021. Ms. Waade has not objected to the subpoena and is
7 prepared to testify and produce documents. The parties are scheduled to appear for an informal
8 discovery conference with the Court on May 13, 2021 at 12:15 p.m. to address Metropolitan’s
9 objections to the subpoena.1 Metropolitan has made clear, however, that if it is not satisfied with
10 the outcome of that conference, it will file a motion to quash or for a protective order at the last
11 possible moment to delay Ms. Waade’s deposition. As explained in the Water Authority’s letter
12 submitted in advance of the informal discovery conference, the Water Authority must take Ms.
13 Waade’s deposition as soon as possible to address potentially severe and ongoing harm caused by
14 potential efforts by Metropolitan management to invade the Water Authority’s attorney-client
15 privilege, obtain the Water Authority’s confidential deliberative materials, and illegally perform
16 opposition research on San Diego officials, in order to damage the Water Authority’s litigation
17 position in these rate cases. The Water Authority has a right to know immediately if this conduct
18 is occurring so it can protect the public it ultimately serves. Thus, any motion that Metropolitan
19 files should be heard by May 17, so that the deposition of Ms. Waade may proceed as scheduled
20 on May 18 if the Court denies the motion.
21 II. ARGUMENT
22 The Court may for good cause “prescribe shorter times” for noticed motions. (See Cal.
23 Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(b).) Here, good cause exists to shorten the time for briefing and
24 hearing Metropolitan’s anticipated motion to quash or for a protective order.
25
1
26 The Water Authority noticed this ex parte hearing for May 13 at 11:00 a.m. based on the
available times provided by the Department’s clerk. Given that this ex parte is intertwined with
27 the issues in the informal discovery conference, the Water Authority respectfully suggests that
this ex parte be heard at the same time as the informal discovery conference, either at 11:00 a.m.
28 or 12:15 p.m.
2
MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1680034
1 The Water Authority must take discovery from Ms. Waade as soon as possible to prevent
2 potentially ongoing and irreparable harm to the Water Authority from Metropolitan
3 management’s potential efforts to systematically obtain and use the Water Authority’s privileged
4 or confidential material in this litigation. As discussed in the Water Authority’s letter to the
5 Court, the Water Authority expects that Ms. Waade will testify that many if not all of the
6 individuals who engaged in the alleged improper behavior remain employed by Metropolitan in
7 senior capacities. (See Declaration of Nicholas S. Goldberg (Goldberg Decl.), Ex. A.) As a
8 result, Metropolitan management’s alleged improper conduct may have continued well after Ms.
9 Waade’s departure from Metropolitan in 2013 and may still be ongoing today. If Metropolitan
10 management, in-house counsel, or outside counsel is currently invading, in possession of or using
11 the Water Authority’s privileged or confidential information, such conduct would cause
12 “unmitigable damage” to the Water Authority and must be addressed immediately. (See Rico v.
13 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, 819; see also McDermott Will & Emery LLP v.
14 Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1107; Clark v. Superior Court (2011) 196
15 Cal.App.4th 37, 54–55; Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 4.4.) It is therefore critical that the
16 Water Authority take Ms. Waade’s deposition as soon as possible so that it can discover the
17 relevant facts and promptly seek to remedy the alleged misconduct.
18 Moreover, Metropolitan’s apparent purpose in filing its motion to quash or for a protective
19 order is to delay and obstruct the Water Authority’s efforts to discover the relevant facts.
20 Metropolitan’s outside counsel has informed the Water Authority that if its “objections [to the
21 subpoena] are not resolved at the” informal discovery conference, “Metropolitan will file a
22 motion to quash the subpoenas and, alternatively, a motion for a protective order….” (See
23 Goldberg Decl., Ex. B.) Metropolitan’s counsel should not be rewarded for waiting until the last
24 possible day to schedule an informal discovery conference, then threatening to file a motion to
25 delay Ms. Waade’s deposition if it does not like the outcome. The informal discovery conference
26 is intended as a mechanism to be used in good faith to facilitate the resolution of discovery
27 disputes. It is not a tool to be manipulated by Metropolitan’s counsel to engineer delay.
28
3
MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1680034
1 Ms. Waade plainly has relevant information and testimony, she has not objected to the
2 Water Authority’s subpoena, and Metropolitan has no legitimate basis to prevent her from
3 providing discovery. Because Metropolitan’s delay tactics are meritless, the Water Authority
4 expects to prevail in the hearing on Metropolitan’s motion. But if Metropolitan’s anticipated
5 motion is heard on regular notice, as Metropolitan’s counsel wishes, it will not be resolved for
6 several weeks. In the meantime, Metropolitan’s management will block the Water Authority
7 from learning the scope of its apparent misconduct, while continuing to potentially have access to
8 and the benefit of the Water Authority’s privileged and confidential information and litigation
9 material. Such a delay in obtaining this discovery will seriously prejudice the Water Authority.
10 By contrast, Metropolitan will not be prejudiced at all by a shortened schedule that allows
11 for its motion to be heard and resolved before Ms. Waade’s deposition on May 18. The Water
12 Authority already agreed to postpone Ms. Waade’s deposition once—from May 14 to May 18—
13 to accommodate the schedule of Metropolitan’s lead counsel. Metropolitan received notice of the
14 Water Authority’s subpoena more than two weeks ago, it has had ample time to prepare its
15 motion papers, and its filing deadline would not change. The only party squeezed by this request
16 for shortened time would be the Water Authority. Given the exigent circumstances and the
17 immediate need for discovery from Ms. Waade, the Water Authority is prepared to file its
18 opposition the day after Metropolitan’s motion is filed. Assuming Metropolitan files its motion
19 on May 13, 2021 (the last possible day for a formal motion), the Water Authority would file its
20 opposition on May 14, 2021, and the Court could hold a hearing to decide the motion at 9:15 a.m.
21 on May 17, 2021, when the parties are already scheduled to appear for a Case Management
22 Conference.
23 III. CONCLUSION
24 For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for the Court to prescribe a shorter time for
25 briefing and hearing Metropolitan’s anticipated motion to quash or for a protective order. (Cal.
26 Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(b).) The Water Authority respectfully requests that the Court grant
27 this ex parte application and order that any motion that Metropolitan files be heard by May 17, so
28 that the deposition of Ms. Waade may proceed as scheduled on May 18.
4
MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1680034
1 Dated: May 12, 2021 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
2
By:
3
Nicholas S. Goldberg
4
Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff
5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1680034
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 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092 2 jkeker@keker.com DAN JACKSON - # 216091 ELECTRONICALLY 3 djackson@keker.com WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 FILED 4 wbraunig@keker.com Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614 5 ngoldberg@keker.com 05/12/2021 633 Battery Street Clerk of the Court BY: BOWMAN LIU 6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Deputy Clerk Telephone: (415) 391-5400 7 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 8 MARK J. HATTAM - # 173667 mhattam@sdcwa.org 9 General Counsel SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 10 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123-1233 11 Telephone: (858) 522-6791 Facsimile: (858) 522-6566 12 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103] 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004 AUTHORITY, 18 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Petitioner and Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAN 19 DIEGO COUNTY WATER v. AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE 20 APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING 21 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE QUASH 22 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER Date: May 13, 2021 23 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Time: 11:00 a.m. ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE Dept.: 304 24 JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1, Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo 2016; and DOES 1-10, 25 Date Filed: May 30, 2014 Respondents and Defendants. 26 Trial Date: Not Yet Set 27 28 MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH Case No. CPF-14-514004 1680034 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) hereby applies ex parte for an order 3 shortening the time for briefing and hearing any motion by Metropolitan Water District of 4 Southern California (Metropolitan) to quash the deposition subpoena served on former 5 Metropolitan executive Linda Waade or for a protective order. Ms. Waade’s deposition is 6 scheduled to take place on May 18, 2021. Ms. Waade has not objected to the subpoena and is 7 prepared to testify and produce documents. The parties are scheduled to appear for an informal 8 discovery conference with the Court on May 13, 2021 at 12:15 p.m. to address Metropolitan’s 9 objections to the subpoena.1 Metropolitan has made clear, however, that if it is not satisfied with 10 the outcome of that conference, it will file a motion to quash or for a protective order at the last 11 possible moment to delay Ms. Waade’s deposition. As explained in the Water Authority’s letter 12 submitted in advance of the informal discovery conference, the Water Authority must take Ms. 13 Waade’s deposition as soon as possible to address potentially severe and ongoing harm caused by 14 potential efforts by Metropolitan management to invade the Water Authority’s attorney-client 15 privilege, obtain the Water Authority’s confidential deliberative materials, and illegally perform 16 opposition research on San Diego officials, in order to damage the Water Authority’s litigation 17 position in these rate cases. The Water Authority has a right to know immediately if this conduct 18 is occurring so it can protect the public it ultimately serves. Thus, any motion that Metropolitan 19 files should be heard by May 17, so that the deposition of Ms. Waade may proceed as scheduled 20 on May 18 if the Court denies the motion. 21 II. ARGUMENT 22 The Court may for good cause “prescribe shorter times” for noticed motions. (See Cal. 23 Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(b).) Here, good cause exists to shorten the time for briefing and 24 hearing Metropolitan’s anticipated motion to quash or for a protective order. 25 1 26 The Water Authority noticed this ex parte hearing for May 13 at 11:00 a.m. based on the available times provided by the Department’s clerk. Given that this ex parte is intertwined with 27 the issues in the informal discovery conference, the Water Authority respectfully suggests that this ex parte be heard at the same time as the informal discovery conference, either at 11:00 a.m. 28 or 12:15 p.m. 2 MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH Case No. CPF-14-514004 1680034 1 The Water Authority must take discovery from Ms. Waade as soon as possible to prevent 2 potentially ongoing and irreparable harm to the Water Authority from Metropolitan 3 management’s potential efforts to systematically obtain and use the Water Authority’s privileged 4 or confidential material in this litigation. As discussed in the Water Authority’s letter to the 5 Court, the Water Authority expects that Ms. Waade will testify that many if not all of the 6 individuals who engaged in the alleged improper behavior remain employed by Metropolitan in 7 senior capacities. (See Declaration of Nicholas S. Goldberg (Goldberg Decl.), Ex. A.) As a 8 result, Metropolitan management’s alleged improper conduct may have continued well after Ms. 9 Waade’s departure from Metropolitan in 2013 and may still be ongoing today. If Metropolitan 10 management, in-house counsel, or outside counsel is currently invading, in possession of or using 11 the Water Authority’s privileged or confidential information, such conduct would cause 12 “unmitigable damage” to the Water Authority and must be addressed immediately. (See Rico v. 13 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, 819; see also McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. 14 Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1107; Clark v. Superior Court (2011) 196 15 Cal.App.4th 37, 54–55; Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 4.4.) It is therefore critical that the 16 Water Authority take Ms. Waade’s deposition as soon as possible so that it can discover the 17 relevant facts and promptly seek to remedy the alleged misconduct. 18 Moreover, Metropolitan’s apparent purpose in filing its motion to quash or for a protective 19 order is to delay and obstruct the Water Authority’s efforts to discover the relevant facts. 20 Metropolitan’s outside counsel has informed the Water Authority that if its “objections [to the 21 subpoena] are not resolved at the” informal discovery conference, “Metropolitan will file a 22 motion to quash the subpoenas and, alternatively, a motion for a protective order….” (See 23 Goldberg Decl., Ex. B.) Metropolitan’s counsel should not be rewarded for waiting until the last 24 possible day to schedule an informal discovery conference, then threatening to file a motion to 25 delay Ms. Waade’s deposition if it does not like the outcome. The informal discovery conference 26 is intended as a mechanism to be used in good faith to facilitate the resolution of discovery 27 disputes. It is not a tool to be manipulated by Metropolitan’s counsel to engineer delay. 28 3 MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH Case No. CPF-14-514004 1680034 1 Ms. Waade plainly has relevant information and testimony, she has not objected to the 2 Water Authority’s subpoena, and Metropolitan has no legitimate basis to prevent her from 3 providing discovery. Because Metropolitan’s delay tactics are meritless, the Water Authority 4 expects to prevail in the hearing on Metropolitan’s motion. But if Metropolitan’s anticipated 5 motion is heard on regular notice, as Metropolitan’s counsel wishes, it will not be resolved for 6 several weeks. In the meantime, Metropolitan’s management will block the Water Authority 7 from learning the scope of its apparent misconduct, while continuing to potentially have access to 8 and the benefit of the Water Authority’s privileged and confidential information and litigation 9 material. Such a delay in obtaining this discovery will seriously prejudice the Water Authority. 10 By contrast, Metropolitan will not be prejudiced at all by a shortened schedule that allows 11 for its motion to be heard and resolved before Ms. Waade’s deposition on May 18. The Water 12 Authority already agreed to postpone Ms. Waade’s deposition once—from May 14 to May 18— 13 to accommodate the schedule of Metropolitan’s lead counsel. Metropolitan received notice of the 14 Water Authority’s subpoena more than two weeks ago, it has had ample time to prepare its 15 motion papers, and its filing deadline would not change. The only party squeezed by this request 16 for shortened time would be the Water Authority. Given the exigent circumstances and the 17 immediate need for discovery from Ms. Waade, the Water Authority is prepared to file its 18 opposition the day after Metropolitan’s motion is filed. Assuming Metropolitan files its motion 19 on May 13, 2021 (the last possible day for a formal motion), the Water Authority would file its 20 opposition on May 14, 2021, and the Court could hold a hearing to decide the motion at 9:15 a.m. 21 on May 17, 2021, when the parties are already scheduled to appear for a Case Management 22 Conference. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for the Court to prescribe a shorter time for 25 briefing and hearing Metropolitan’s anticipated motion to quash or for a protective order. (Cal. 26 Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(b).) The Water Authority respectfully requests that the Court grant 27 this ex parte application and order that any motion that Metropolitan files be heard by May 17, so 28 that the deposition of Ms. Waade may proceed as scheduled on May 18. 4 MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH Case No. CPF-14-514004 1680034 1 Dated: May 12, 2021 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 2 By: 3 Nicholas S. Goldberg 4 Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 MPA ISO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING METROPOLITAN’S MOTION TO QUASH Case No. CPF-14-514004 1680034