Preview
WO oo ~j oo
Stephen M. Fishback (State Bar No. 191646)
Daniel L. Keller (State Bar No. 191738)
KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: §18.879.8033
Facsimile: 818.292.8891
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
MAY 08 2007
GORDON PARK-LI, Cler
BY: LUCIA RAMOS
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
{UNLIMTTED JURISDICTION)
NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as
Successor-in-Intercst to DENZIL SCOTT,
Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH;
MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT
DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT;
MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE
through TENTH DOE, inclusive,
Plain ffs,
V8.
AC AND S, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 443236
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO
COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT
OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND
FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF
DANIEL KELLER
Date: May 21, 2007
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept.: 610
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPGSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL. FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER
Page |MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN! ITHORITIES
i INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Nancy Marie Scott, Joanne Maris Wolfarth, Michael Gerald Scott, Roberts David
Scott, Thomas Cary Scott, and Mary Denise Sobliky oppose defendant CBS Corporation’s
(“defendant”) motion to compel further discovery responses. Plaintiffs have served verified
supplemental responses to defendant’s discovery. Therefore, defendant’s motion to compel is
moot.
Furthermore, defendant’s request for sanctions is unjustified. Plaintiff's counsel met and
conferred with defendant. Plaintiffs’ agreed to provide supplemental responscs. That agreement
was made between plaintiffs’ counsel, Scott Hames, and defense counsel. Mr. Hames left the firm
before defendant’s discovery was supplemented. As a result, there was a delay in providing
supplemental responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel advised defense counsel on April 19, 2007, among,
other things, that supplemental discovery responses would be provided and the reason for the
dclay. ‘Those responses were provided on April 24, 2007. At no time during the parties’ meet and
confer efforts did defendant request an extension to file its motion to compel. Accordingly, the
Court should deny defendant’s motion to compel and request for sanctions.
Tl. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A. Plaintiffs Met and Conferred in Good Faith By Providing Supplemental
Responses
Plaintiffs have made a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the
issues raised by defendant as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. After
meeting and conferring with defendant’s counsel, plaintif¥ provided supplemental responses.
(Declaration of Daniel Keller, ] 2 (“Keller Deel.”).)
Plaintiffs" initial responses to defendant's discovery requests were timely served on
defendant on March 2, 2007. This is not in dispute. In response to plaintiffs’ initial discovery
responses, defendant’s met and conferred seeking supplemental discovery. (Keller Decl. $6.) In
response to defendant’s initial mect and confer efforts, plaintiffs agreed to supplement plaintiffs”
discovery responses. (Id.) This initial agrecment was entered between defense counsel and Scott
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER,
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER, Page 2Hames of plaintiff’ counscl’s offices. (Id.) ‘Thereafter, Mr. Hames left the firm and on the eve of
defendant’s motion to compel deadline, on April 19, 2007, defense counsel met and conferred with
plaintifis* counsel. (Id.) Plaintiffs” counsel advised that (1) due to staffing changes, plaintifi"
supplemental responses were delayed; (2) that plaintiffs would re-examine defendant’s liability in
this case; and (3) if merited, plaintiffs would serve defendant with the supplemental responses.
(Keller Dec., 416.) At no time during the meet and confer process did defense counsel request an
extension to file its motion to compel. (Id.) Having determined that defendant is indeed liable in
this case, plaintiffs served supplemental discovery responses on defendant on April 24, 2007.
(Keller Dec., 42.)
On May 8, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel spoke with defense counsel, Ms. Park, about
defendant's motion. (Keller Decl. 47.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defendant withdraw its
motion to compel given plaintiffs” supplemental discovery responses. (Id,) Plaintiffs’ counsel
advised, once again, that the delay in serving said responses was due to staffing changes at the
firm. (1d.) Ms. Park conceded that she had received plaintiff’ supplemental responses, but
refused to withdraw the motion. (Jd.) Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that defendant’s motion sought
supplemental responses, that such responses had been provided, and that defendant’s motion was
therefore moot, (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel further advised that if defense counsel seeks additional
information not provided in plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery responses, plainti(Is’ counsel
invites further meet and confer efforts about what additional material is sought. (Id.) Despite
plaintiffs’ best efforts to resolve this motion without court intervention, Ms. Park refused to
withdraw her motion to compel. (Id.)
B, Plaintiffs Served Supplemental Responses to Defendant's Special
Interrogatories
Plaintiffs scrved supplemental responses to defendant's special interrogatories Nos. 1-33
on April 24, 2007. (Keller Decl. #[2-3.) In those responses, plaintiff provided (1) a description of
the background and investigation central to plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses (D's Spec. Rogs
Nos. 1-2); (2) the facts, witnesses and documents that support plaintiffs’ contentions with regard to
defendant's liability in this case (D’s Spec. Rogs Nos. 3-30); and (3) the facts, witnesses, and
DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT ORJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page3documents that support defendant's liability in this case (D’s Spec. Rogs Nos. 31-33). (Id.}
Plaintiffs? responses are verified by plaintiffs. (Id.)
C, Plaintiffs’ Served Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Request for
Production of Documents
Plaintiffs scrved supplemental responses to defendant’s request for production of
documents on April 24, 2007. (Keller Decl. 2, 4.) In responses to defendants’ request, plaintiffs
responded that (1) all responsive documents were in the possession of defendant; (2) all responsive
documents had already been produced, (3) plaintifis were not in possession of any further
responsive documents; and/or (4) defendant's request remained subject to objection. (Id.}
Plaintiffs’ responses are verified by plaintiffs. ([d.)
D. _ Plaintiffs’ Provided Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories
Plaintiff’ served responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatories on March 2, 2007. (Ds
Motion to Compel, Exhibit S; Keller Decl. ]2, 5.) Defendant's form interrogatories numbered
2.4, 2.8, 8.1-8.8, 9.1-9.210,1-10.3, 12.1-12.7, 14.1-14.2 and 17.1 seek the exact same information
sought in defendants’ special interrogatorics. (Id.) Plaintiffs incorporated their responses to
defendant's special interrogatories seeking the exact same information into their responses to
defendant’s form interrogatories. (Id.) By and through plaintiffs supplemental responses to
defendant’s special interrogatories, which are incorporated into plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’
form interrogatories, plaintiff’ supplemented their responses to said form interrogatories. (Id.)
‘Thus, plaintiffs served supplemental responses to defendant’s form interrogatorics on April 24,
2007. dd.)
E. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Responses Were Filed On Behalf Of All Plaintiffs
Defendant secks discovery responses without objection from Nancy Scott and its requests
for admission to be deemed admitted as to Ms. Scott, arguing that plaintiffs” initial responses to
defendant’s discovery omitted her name. While Nancy Scott’s name is not listed in the list of five
of the six responding plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ discovery responses are clearly made on behalf of all
plaintiffs. (D’s Motion to Compcl, Exhibit P-S.) The word “plaintiffs,” which includes all
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page4Roa
Cera anaen
s
plaintiffs, is used throughout plaintifis’ discovery responses. The word “plaintiffs” is never
defined to exclude Nancy Scott. And plaintiffs’ supplemental responses expressly include Nancy
Scott. (Keller Decl. 4|2.) Furthermore, defendant expressly agreed in its March 15, 2007 letter to
accept unified supplemental discovery responses from all plaintiffs. (D’ Motion to Compel,
Exhibit U.) Accordingly, plaintiffs" discovery responses are made on behalf of all plaintiffs,
including Nancy Scott.
I. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs Have Provided Complete Responses to Defendant’s Special
Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Form Interrogatories
Defendant argues that plaintiffs simply served objections to its discovery. Subsequent to
the parties’ meet and confer efforts, however, plaintiff served supplemental discovery responses
on April 24, 2007. (Keller Decl. § 2-5.) Those supplemental discovery responses included
responses to defendant’s special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and form
interrogatories with detailed facts, witnesses and descriptions of responsive documents. (Id.)
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel is moot.
B. _ Discovery Response Were Served On Behalf of All Plaintiffs
Seeking responses without objections from Nancy Scott and for its request for admissions
served on ber deemed admitted, defendant argues, incorrectly, that plaintiffs’ initial discovery
responses excluded responses on behalf of Nancy Scott. Defendant's argument is specious at best.
Defendant expressly agreed in its March 15, 2007 correspondence to accept one unified
supplemental response from all plaintiffs, (D’s Motion to Compel, Exhibit U.} Although Nancy
Scott's name is not listed in the list of five of the six responding plaintiff, plaintifis’ discovery
responses are expressly made on bebaif of all plaintiffs. (D’s Motion to Copel, Exhibit P-S.)
‘Throughout plaintif®s" initial discovery responses, the word “plaintiffs,” which includes Nancy
Scott, is used to describe the partis on whose behalf the responses are served. The word
“plaintiffs” is never defined to exclude Nancy Scott, Furthermore, plaintiff" supplemental
responses expressly include Nancy Scott, (Keller Decl. §2.) Thus, plaintiffs” discovery responses
are made on behalf of all plaintiffs, including: Nancy Scott, and defendant’s request for responses
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page Swithout objections from Ms. Scott and for her requests to be deemed admitted must be denied.
C. No Responses To Defendant's Separate Statement Is Required
Defendant filed and served a separate statement pursuant to Rule of Court, Rule 3.1020.
‘That statement is filed in support of defendant’s motion to compel discovery and directed entirely
at plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses. Since plaintiff have served supplemental discovery
responses on defendant, its motion to compel is moot, and no response to defendant’s separate
statement is necessary.
D. Defendant Is Not Entitled To Sanctions
Sanctions are not merited. The parties de not dispute that plaintitts’ initial responses to
defendant’ s discovery requests were timely served on defendant on March 2, 2007. In response to
plaintiffs’ discovery responses, defendant's met and conferred seeking supplemental discovery.
(Keller Decl. 4]6.) In response to defendant’ s initial meet and confer efforts, plaintiffs agreed to
supplement plaintiffs’ discovery responses. (Id.) This initial agreement was entered between
defense counsel and Scott Hames of our offices. (Id.) Thereafter, Mr. Hames left the firm and on
the eve of defendant's motion to compel deadline, defense counsel met and conferred with
plaintiffs’ counsel, Daniel Keller, on April 19, 2007. (d.) Mr. Keller advised that Mr. Hames was
no longer with the firm, but that he would personally reexamine defendant’s liability and if
warranted, serve supplemental discovery. (Id.) At no time did defendant request an extension to
file its motion to compel. {Id.) As promised, on April 24, 2007, plaintiffs” served supplemental
discover responses. (Id.)
‘On May 7, 2007, before plaintiffs’ opposition to this motion was due, plaintiff counsel
attempted to reach defense counsel about the pending motion, but was advised that the only
attomey handling this case was unavailable. (Id.) On May 8, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel spoke with
defense counsel, Anne Park about defendant’s motion. (Id.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defendant withdraw its motion to compel given plaintiffs”
supplemental responses. {Id.) Plaintifis’ counscl advised, once again, that the delay in serving
said responses was duc to staffing changes. (Id.) Ms. Park conceded that she had received
plaintiffs’ supplemental responses. (Id.) Plaintiffs" counsel explained that defendant’s motion
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL. RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEI. KELLER Page 6sought supplemental responses to plaintifis’ initial discovery responses, that such responses had
been provided, and that defendant's motion was therefore moot. (Id.) Plaintiffs” counsel advised
that if defense counsel seeks additional information not provided in plaintiffs’ supplemental
discovery responses, plaintiffs’ counsel invites further meet and confer efforts about what
additional material is sought. (d.) Nonetheless, Ms. Park refused to withdraw her motion to
compel. (Id.}
Under Code of Civil Procedure §2023.030(a), a court cannot impose sanctions against a
responding party if that party acted with substantial justification. Here, plaintiffs acted with
substantial justification by supplementing their discovery responses. Plaintiffs advised defense
counsel that any delay in serving such supplemental responses was caused by staffing changes at
the firm. At no time did defense counsel request an extension (o file a motion to compel.
Plaintiff further offered to meet and confer regarding plaintiffs’ supplemental responses, which
are not at issue in this motion. Nonetheless, defense counsel refused to withdraw its motion.
Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing arguments, plaintiffs request that the Court deny defendant's
motion to compel and request for sanctions.
Dated: May 8, 2007 KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
Daniel Keller
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page 7Cea ane en =
S
DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER
I, Daniel Keller, declare:
1. Taman attorney duly admitted to practice before all the courts in the State of
California and am a partner of KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP. The information stated
in this declaration is based on my personal knowledge. If called upon as a witness to testify, I
could and would testify to the following facts.
2. Plaintiff scrved supplemental responses to defendant’ special interrogatories,
form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on April 24, 2007. ‘These
supplemental responses were made on behalf of all plaintiffs, including Nancy Scott. Verifications
for all of plaintiffs’ discovery responses were provided to defense counsel on or before May 8,
2007.
3. In plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to defendant’s special interrogatories,
plaintiffs provided (1) a description of the background and investigation central to plaintiff”
interrogatory responses (D’s Spec. Rogs Nos. 1-2); (2) the facts, witnesses and documents that
support plaintiffs’ contentions with regard to defendant’s liability in this case (D's Spec. Rogs
Nos. 3-30); and (3) the facts, witnesses, and documents that support defendant's liability in this
casc (D’s Spee. Rogs Nos. 31-33).
4, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to defendant’s request for production of
documents on April 24, 2007. Tn responses to defendants’ request, plaintiffs responded that (1) all
responsive documents were in the possession of defendant; (2) all responsive documents had
already been produced, (3) plaintifis were not in possession of any further responsive documents;
and/or (4) defendant’s request remained subject to objection.
5. Plaintiffs served responses to defendant's Yorm Interrogatories on March 2, 2007.
Defendant's form interrogatories numbered 2.4, 2.8, 8.1-8.8, 9.1-9.210.1-10.3, 12.1-12.7, 14.1-
14.2 and 17.1, sock the exact same information sought in defendants’ special interrogatories,
Plaintiffs incorporated their responses to defendant's special interrogatories secking the exact same
information into their responses to defendant’s form interrogatories. By and through plaintiffs”
supplemental responses to defendant's special interrogatories, which are incorporated into
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page 8plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ form interrogatories, plaintiff’ supplemented their responses to
said form interrogatories on April 24, 2007.
6. Plaintiff&’ initial responses to defendant's discovery requests were timely served on,
defendant on March 2, 2007. In response to plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses, defendant’s met
and conferred seeking supplemental discovery. In response to defendant’s initial meet and confer
efforts, plaintiffs agrced to supplement plaintiffs’ discovery responses. This initial agreement was
entered between defense counsel and Scott Hames of our offices. ‘Ihereafter, Mr. Hames left the
firm and on the eve of defendant’s motion to compel deadline, on April 19, 2007, defense counsel
met and conferred with me. Tadvised that (1) due to staffing changes, plaintiffs’ supplemental
responses were delayed; (2) that plaintiffs would re-examine defendant’s liability in this case; and
(3) if mcrited, plaintiffs would serve defendant with the supplemental responses. At no time
daring the meet and confer process did defense counsel request an extension to file its motion to
compel.
7. OnMay 7, 2007, 1 attempted to reach defense counsel by telephone about this
‘motion, but was advised that the only attorney handling this case, Anne Park, was unavailable. On
May 8, 2007, I spoke with Ms, Park about this motion. I requested that she withdraw the motion
in light of plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery responses. I explained that Scott Hames, who was
handling this case, had left the firm during the period when we had promised to supplement
discovery causing the delay in service. Ms. Park stated that she had received plaintifis’
supplemental discovery responses. I explained that defendant's existing motion to compel seeks
supplemental responses to plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses, which have been provided and
therefore, the motion is moot. | offered to further meet and confer on plaintiff's supplemental
discovery responses if necessary, but that that issue was not before the court on this motion.
Nonetheless, Ms, Park refused to withdraw her motion to compel.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct. Executed on May 8, 2007 in Agoura Hills, California.
Daniel Keller
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
' ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page 9Roo
awh we
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case: Nancy Marie Scott, et al. v. ACandS, Inc... et al.
San Francisco Superior CourtCase No.: 443236
Iam over the age of eighteen years and am employed in the county of Los Angeles, state of
California, Tam employed at KELLER, FISHBACK & IACKSON LLP. a law firm with
principals who are members of the Bar of the state of California, and I made the service referred to]
below at their direction. My business address is 28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201, Agoura Hills,
CA 91301.
On May 8, 2007, I served (a) truc copy(ies) of:
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO.
COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION
OF DANIEL KELLER
l|__ FIRST-CLASS MAIL. _ by depositing the same for collection and mailing at Agoura
Hills, California, on the date set forth in this Proof of Service, in (a) sealed envelope(s) with the
postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed as shown below.
Il EXPRESS SEIPMENT/OVERNIGHT COURIER _ marked for next-day delivery and
by depositing the same for collection and mailing at Agoura Hills, California, on the date set forth
in this Proof of Service, in Ja) sealed envelope(s) with the postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed|
as shown below.
o PERSONAL SERVICE I personally delivered the document(s) listed above to:
I] _VIA FACSIMILE by transmitting the same via facsimile to the party(ies) listed below
using the facsimile number(s) listed beneath each name as shown below. [ caused the machine
to print a transmission report of the transmission(s) confirming that the facsimile(s) was/were
sent and received without error.
[x] VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE. at Lexis Nexis File and Serve pursuant to CCP
§1010.6, CRC 2060, and San Francisco Superior Court Amended Asbestos General Order
Number 158 by transmitting completely and without error the same via electronic mail through
approved vendor to the party(ies) listed below.
SER ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
Lhave prepared the copy(ies) and/or the envelope(s) containing the copy(ies) to be served
in accordance with the manner described above for delivery in accordance with normal practices.
1 further certify that Iam fully familiar with the regular business practices of KELLER,
VISHBACK & JACKSON LLP and I know the firm's procedures to be safe and reliable for
delivery of said document(s) as described above.
1 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the state of California and the United
States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.
} SHOSHANA KLINE
Executed on May 8, 2007 at Agoura Hills, California,‘oll v. ACandS, Inc., etal
SUSC Case No.: 443236
A.W, Chesterton Company
Pringle, Decker & Ainaro
369 Pine Stet, Suite $00
Son Francisco, CA, 94104
Phone: (415) 788-8354
Fax: (415) 786.3625
ABB INC. Which will do business
California as ABB DE INC,
Archer Nomis
£2033 Nan Main Strost, #800
‘Walnut Creek, CA, 94596
Phone: (225) 930-6600
Fax: (925) 930-6620
Allied wh
Hen & Zapala
152 N, 3rd Stree, Suite S00
‘San Joss, CA, 95320
Phone: (408) 2
Fax: (408) 516-9540
Amehem Products, bis
Brydon, Hugo & Parker
135 Main Street, Suite 2000
‘San Francisco, CA, 94105
Phone: (415) 308-0300
Fax: (415) 806-0355
Ashestes Corporation, Li
Wilson, Fser, Moskowitz, BSclnan
& Dicker
525 Market Stes, 17¢h Floor
San Francisco, CA, 94105-2722
Phone: (415) 433.0990
Fax: (415) 454-1370,
BABCOCK BORSIG POWER,
INC..as the parent alter
‘lites formerly known as DE.
RILDY, INC, and/or RILEY.
‘STOKER CORPORATION
Menamara, Dede, Ney, Beaty,
Slattery & Bésloer LLP
1211 Newell Stet, Suite 202
Walnut Creek, CA, 94596
Phone: (925) 939-5330
Trax: (625) 939.0292
Berry & Berry
2930 Lake Shore Avenue
Oukland, CA 94610
Phone: ($10) 250-0200
Fax: ($10) 835-S117
Crane Co,
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston
Gates Ellis LLP
4 Ewharcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA, 94111
Phone: (415) 249-1000
ax: (415) 249-001,
Updated: 4/24/07
Service List
Scott
Foley & Mansfield
1235 N. Colifomia Blvd, Suite 690,
‘Walt Creek, CA 94596
Prone: 925.950.2866
Fee: 925 950,7335
Dee Engineering Company
‘Walsworth, Franklin, Bovine &
Mecall
601 Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor
San Fransisco, CA, 94111
Phone: (415) 781-7072
Fa: (415) 391-6258
Douglass losulation Co,
Selman Bretinan
33 New Montgomery St, 6th Hoar
San Francisco, CA, 96105
Phone: (415) 979-400
Fax: (415) 979-2099,
‘Mamumer, Ins.
Howard, Romi, Marcia & Ridley
1975 Woods Ros, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA, 4061-3436
Phone: (680) 365-7715
Fax: (650) 364-5297
Foster Wheeler L1.C: Survivor to
\raer sith Foster Wheeler
Bassi, Marini, Elin & Blum
351 Califonia Stree, Sue 200
San Francisco, CA, 94108
Phone (415) 397-006
Fax: (415) 397-1339
Foster Wheeler LLG Survivor toa
merger with Foster Wheeler
Corporation
Micliel J. Pietkowski, Esq
Gowtion & Rees
#4 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.986.5900
Fax: 415.986.8054
Geavber Ine,
“Archer Nonis
2033 Nor Main Stret, #800
‘Walnut Crock, CA, 94596
Phone: (325) 830-6600
Fa: (925) 930-6620
Vasquec & Estiada
914 Mission Avenuc, Sscond Floot
San Rafael, CA, 94901
Phone: (415) 453-0555
Fo (415) 453-0549
Hopeman Brothers, Ine
Bassi Martin, Elin Blum
351 Califia Sect, Succ 200
Sen Francisco, CA, 8410¢
Phone: (415) 397-3006
Fax: 15) 397 1339
IMO tedustries, tne. formerly
Known a= IMO DeLaval Turbine,
in
ard, Rome, Martin & Ridley
1778 Woodside Read, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA, 94061-3436
Phone: (650) 365-7715
Fax: (650) 364-5297
Ingersol-Rand Company
Gordon & Rees
25 Batery St, 20th FI.
San rancsen, CA, 98117
Phane: (415) 586-5900
Fax: (415) 986-8054
AThorpe & Son Ins,
‘Bassi, Manin, Fin & Blue
4351 California Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Prone: (415) 397-9006
Fax: (415) 397-1339
Lucent Technotosies Ine
Indiv Ss
Interest to Western Electric
‘Company
Perkins, Coie, LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400,
San Francisca, CA, 94111
Phone: (415) 344-7000
Fax: (415) 344-7050
M,Slaven & Associates. as,
Bosheeer, Kanner & Schartaer
2200 Powell Street, Suite 205,
Emeryville, CA, 94608,
(Metalclad Insulation Corporation
Mekcana, Long & Aldvidge, LLP
LOI California Stcet, 41s Floor
San Francisco, C4, 96111
howe: (415) 267-4000
Fax (415)267-4138
wi
‘aka 3M Company
Sidley Austin LLP
555 West Fiflh Sweet,
Los Angeles, CA, 90013
Phone: (213) 896-6000
Page 1Scott v. ACandS, Tne., et al
SFSC Case No.: 443236
New IEM LLC, Tio, us Successor-
in-luterest(o Industrial Blecirig
MBz.Ce,
Agent
215 W. Franklin Seat
Momerey, CA, 93840,
‘Qutugss Industries, ne,
Walssoth Franklin, Bovins &
Mecall
{601 Monigomery Ste, Ninth Flor
Sap Francis, CA. 9411
Phone: (418) RI-7092
Fax (415) 391-625
‘Cercy Manufactu
‘Corp. Ravid American Carp. 33
‘Susvessor-in-Interest to Philip
‘Carey Corp,
‘Thelen, Reid & Priest LLP
TOI Second Stee, Suite 1820
San Francisco, CA, 94105-1211
Phone: (415) 371-1200
Fan: (415) 644-6519
Jc rly know
as Selby, Batersby & Company
‘Walswort, Franklin, Bevins &
Mecalt
‘601 Montgomery Sicet, Ninth Floor
San Francisco, C4, 94111,
Phone: (415) 781-7072
Fax: (415) 391-6258,
‘Soco-Lanch Corporations
ccessor-in-interest o Western
‘Chemical und Manefacturing
Comvany
Sedsprick, Dee, Moran & Aros
1 Market Para, cua Tr, 80 FL,
San Francisco, CA, 94108
Phone: (415) 781-7900
Fax: (415) 781-2655
dpending)
SouareD Compayy
Kivkpabick & Lockhart Preston,
Gales & Blis
55 Socond Sueet Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 82-4200
Tax: (415) 882-4200,
Updated: 4/24/07
Service List
Seo
Menauara, Dodge, Ney, Beatty,
Slattery & Pialzer LLP
[ZL Newell Stree, Suite 202
Welnut Creek, CA, 94596
Phone: (925)939-5330
Fax: (925) 989-0292
Sud Carpenter Marine
Engineering
Pendle, Decker & Amaro
369 Pine Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Phone: (415) 788-8354
Fax: (415) 788-3625
California
‘Selman Breitmaa
33 New Montgomery Street. 6th
oor, San Francisco, CA, 94105.
Phone: (415) 979-0400
Fax: (415) 979-2099
Gary D. Shap, Bs.
Foley & Mansi
Oskland City Center
1101 Brady 10" Floor
Oakland, CA 98007
Phone: 510 590 9500
Prindle, Decker & Amaro
369 Pine Sreet, Sue 800
San Francisca, CA, 94104
Phone: (415) 788-8354
Fax: (415) 788-3625
‘Brydon, Hugo & Parker
135 Main Stet, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA, 94105
Phone: (415) 808-0300,
Fax; (415) 808-0333
‘Law Offices Of Nancy Hudgins
565 Comanercial Steet, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA, 94111
Phone: (415) 979-6100
Fax: (415) 979.0747
‘Miacom Incorporated, 18
Comers ‘Westinghous
Blecteic Corporation
Pom Nosh LLP
350 South Grand Ave , Suite 2850
as Angeles, CA, 90071
Phone: (213) 617-6170
Pax: (213) 623-2594
Page 2
Preview
WO oo ~j oo Stephen M. Fishback (State Bar No. 191646) Daniel L. Keller (State Bar No. 191738) KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP 28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: §18.879.8033 Facsimile: 818.292.8891 Attomeys for Plaintiffs ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco MAY 08 2007 GORDON PARK-LI, Cler BY: LUCIA RAMOS Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO {UNLIMTTED JURISDICTION) NANCY MARIE SCOTT, Individually and as Successor-in-Intercst to DENZIL SCOTT, Decedent; JOANNE MARIE WOLFARTH; MICHAEL GERALD SCOTT; ROBERT DAVID SCOTT; THOMAS CARY SCOTT; MARY DENISE SOBOLIK; and FIRST DOE through TENTH DOE, inclusive, Plain ffs, V8. AC AND S, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 443236 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Date: May 21, 2007 Time: 10:30 a.m. Dept.: 610 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPGSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL. FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page |MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN! ITHORITIES i INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Nancy Marie Scott, Joanne Maris Wolfarth, Michael Gerald Scott, Roberts David Scott, Thomas Cary Scott, and Mary Denise Sobliky oppose defendant CBS Corporation’s (“defendant”) motion to compel further discovery responses. Plaintiffs have served verified supplemental responses to defendant’s discovery. Therefore, defendant’s motion to compel is moot. Furthermore, defendant’s request for sanctions is unjustified. Plaintiff's counsel met and conferred with defendant. Plaintiffs’ agreed to provide supplemental responscs. That agreement was made between plaintiffs’ counsel, Scott Hames, and defense counsel. Mr. Hames left the firm before defendant’s discovery was supplemented. As a result, there was a delay in providing supplemental responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel advised defense counsel on April 19, 2007, among, other things, that supplemental discovery responses would be provided and the reason for the dclay. ‘Those responses were provided on April 24, 2007. At no time during the parties’ meet and confer efforts did defendant request an extension to file its motion to compel. Accordingly, the Court should deny defendant’s motion to compel and request for sanctions. Tl. STATEMENT OF FACTS: A. Plaintiffs Met and Conferred in Good Faith By Providing Supplemental Responses Plaintiffs have made a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the issues raised by defendant as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. After meeting and conferring with defendant’s counsel, plaintif¥ provided supplemental responses. (Declaration of Daniel Keller, ] 2 (“Keller Deel.”).) Plaintiffs" initial responses to defendant's discovery requests were timely served on defendant on March 2, 2007. This is not in dispute. In response to plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses, defendant’s met and conferred seeking supplemental discovery. (Keller Decl. $6.) In response to defendant’s initial mect and confer efforts, plaintiffs agreed to supplement plaintiffs” discovery responses. (Id.) This initial agrecment was entered between defense counsel and Scott PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER, RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER, Page 2Hames of plaintiff’ counscl’s offices. (Id.) ‘Thereafter, Mr. Hames left the firm and on the eve of defendant’s motion to compel deadline, on April 19, 2007, defense counsel met and conferred with plaintifis* counsel. (Id.) Plaintiffs” counsel advised that (1) due to staffing changes, plaintifi" supplemental responses were delayed; (2) that plaintiffs would re-examine defendant’s liability in this case; and (3) if merited, plaintiffs would serve defendant with the supplemental responses. (Keller Dec., 416.) At no time during the meet and confer process did defense counsel request an extension to file its motion to compel. (Id.) Having determined that defendant is indeed liable in this case, plaintiffs served supplemental discovery responses on defendant on April 24, 2007. (Keller Dec., 42.) On May 8, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel spoke with defense counsel, Ms. Park, about defendant's motion. (Keller Decl. 47.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defendant withdraw its motion to compel given plaintiffs” supplemental discovery responses. (Id,) Plaintiffs’ counsel advised, once again, that the delay in serving said responses was due to staffing changes at the firm. (1d.) Ms. Park conceded that she had received plaintiff’ supplemental responses, but refused to withdraw the motion. (Jd.) Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that defendant’s motion sought supplemental responses, that such responses had been provided, and that defendant’s motion was therefore moot, (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel further advised that if defense counsel seeks additional information not provided in plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery responses, plainti(Is’ counsel invites further meet and confer efforts about what additional material is sought. (Id.) Despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to resolve this motion without court intervention, Ms. Park refused to withdraw her motion to compel. (Id.) B, Plaintiffs Served Supplemental Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories Plaintiffs scrved supplemental responses to defendant's special interrogatories Nos. 1-33 on April 24, 2007. (Keller Decl. #[2-3.) In those responses, plaintiff provided (1) a description of the background and investigation central to plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses (D's Spec. Rogs Nos. 1-2); (2) the facts, witnesses and documents that support plaintiffs’ contentions with regard to defendant's liability in this case (D’s Spec. Rogs Nos. 3-30); and (3) the facts, witnesses, and DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT ORJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page3documents that support defendant's liability in this case (D’s Spec. Rogs Nos. 31-33). (Id.} Plaintiffs? responses are verified by plaintiffs. (Id.) C, Plaintiffs’ Served Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents Plaintiffs scrved supplemental responses to defendant’s request for production of documents on April 24, 2007. (Keller Decl. 2, 4.) In responses to defendants’ request, plaintiffs responded that (1) all responsive documents were in the possession of defendant; (2) all responsive documents had already been produced, (3) plaintifis were not in possession of any further responsive documents; and/or (4) defendant's request remained subject to objection. (Id.} Plaintiffs’ responses are verified by plaintiffs. ([d.) D. _ Plaintiffs’ Provided Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories Plaintiff’ served responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatories on March 2, 2007. (Ds Motion to Compel, Exhibit S; Keller Decl. ]2, 5.) Defendant's form interrogatories numbered 2.4, 2.8, 8.1-8.8, 9.1-9.210,1-10.3, 12.1-12.7, 14.1-14.2 and 17.1 seek the exact same information sought in defendants’ special interrogatorics. (Id.) Plaintiffs incorporated their responses to defendant's special interrogatories seeking the exact same information into their responses to defendant’s form interrogatories. (Id.) By and through plaintiffs supplemental responses to defendant’s special interrogatories, which are incorporated into plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ form interrogatories, plaintiff’ supplemented their responses to said form interrogatories. (Id.) ‘Thus, plaintiffs served supplemental responses to defendant’s form interrogatorics on April 24, 2007. dd.) E. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Responses Were Filed On Behalf Of All Plaintiffs Defendant secks discovery responses without objection from Nancy Scott and its requests for admission to be deemed admitted as to Ms. Scott, arguing that plaintiffs” initial responses to defendant’s discovery omitted her name. While Nancy Scott’s name is not listed in the list of five of the six responding plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ discovery responses are clearly made on behalf of all plaintiffs. (D’s Motion to Compcl, Exhibit P-S.) The word “plaintiffs,” which includes all PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CRS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page4Roa Cera anaen s plaintiffs, is used throughout plaintifis’ discovery responses. The word “plaintiffs” is never defined to exclude Nancy Scott. And plaintiffs’ supplemental responses expressly include Nancy Scott. (Keller Decl. 4|2.) Furthermore, defendant expressly agreed in its March 15, 2007 letter to accept unified supplemental discovery responses from all plaintiffs. (D’ Motion to Compel, Exhibit U.) Accordingly, plaintiffs" discovery responses are made on behalf of all plaintiffs, including Nancy Scott. I. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs Have Provided Complete Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Form Interrogatories Defendant argues that plaintiffs simply served objections to its discovery. Subsequent to the parties’ meet and confer efforts, however, plaintiff served supplemental discovery responses on April 24, 2007. (Keller Decl. § 2-5.) Those supplemental discovery responses included responses to defendant’s special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and form interrogatories with detailed facts, witnesses and descriptions of responsive documents. (Id.) Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel is moot. B. _ Discovery Response Were Served On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Seeking responses without objections from Nancy Scott and for its request for admissions served on ber deemed admitted, defendant argues, incorrectly, that plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses excluded responses on behalf of Nancy Scott. Defendant's argument is specious at best. Defendant expressly agreed in its March 15, 2007 correspondence to accept one unified supplemental response from all plaintiffs, (D’s Motion to Compel, Exhibit U.} Although Nancy Scott's name is not listed in the list of five of the six responding plaintiff, plaintifis’ discovery responses are expressly made on bebaif of all plaintiffs. (D’s Motion to Copel, Exhibit P-S.) ‘Throughout plaintif®s" initial discovery responses, the word “plaintiffs,” which includes Nancy Scott, is used to describe the partis on whose behalf the responses are served. The word “plaintiffs” is never defined to exclude Nancy Scott, Furthermore, plaintiff" supplemental responses expressly include Nancy Scott, (Keller Decl. §2.) Thus, plaintiffs” discovery responses are made on behalf of all plaintiffs, including: Nancy Scott, and defendant’s request for responses PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page Swithout objections from Ms. Scott and for her requests to be deemed admitted must be denied. C. No Responses To Defendant's Separate Statement Is Required Defendant filed and served a separate statement pursuant to Rule of Court, Rule 3.1020. ‘That statement is filed in support of defendant’s motion to compel discovery and directed entirely at plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses. Since plaintiff have served supplemental discovery responses on defendant, its motion to compel is moot, and no response to defendant’s separate statement is necessary. D. Defendant Is Not Entitled To Sanctions Sanctions are not merited. The parties de not dispute that plaintitts’ initial responses to defendant’ s discovery requests were timely served on defendant on March 2, 2007. In response to plaintiffs’ discovery responses, defendant's met and conferred seeking supplemental discovery. (Keller Decl. 4]6.) In response to defendant’ s initial meet and confer efforts, plaintiffs agreed to supplement plaintiffs’ discovery responses. (Id.) This initial agreement was entered between defense counsel and Scott Hames of our offices. (Id.) Thereafter, Mr. Hames left the firm and on the eve of defendant's motion to compel deadline, defense counsel met and conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel, Daniel Keller, on April 19, 2007. (d.) Mr. Keller advised that Mr. Hames was no longer with the firm, but that he would personally reexamine defendant’s liability and if warranted, serve supplemental discovery. (Id.) At no time did defendant request an extension to file its motion to compel. {Id.) As promised, on April 24, 2007, plaintiffs” served supplemental discover responses. (Id.) ‘On May 7, 2007, before plaintiffs’ opposition to this motion was due, plaintiff counsel attempted to reach defense counsel about the pending motion, but was advised that the only attomey handling this case was unavailable. (Id.) On May 8, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel spoke with defense counsel, Anne Park about defendant’s motion. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defendant withdraw its motion to compel given plaintiffs” supplemental responses. {Id.) Plaintifis’ counscl advised, once again, that the delay in serving said responses was duc to staffing changes. (Id.) Ms. Park conceded that she had received plaintiffs’ supplemental responses. (Id.) Plaintiffs" counsel explained that defendant’s motion PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL. RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEI. KELLER Page 6sought supplemental responses to plaintifis’ initial discovery responses, that such responses had been provided, and that defendant's motion was therefore moot. (Id.) Plaintiffs” counsel advised that if defense counsel seeks additional information not provided in plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery responses, plaintiffs’ counsel invites further meet and confer efforts about what additional material is sought. (d.) Nonetheless, Ms. Park refused to withdraw her motion to compel. (Id.} Under Code of Civil Procedure §2023.030(a), a court cannot impose sanctions against a responding party if that party acted with substantial justification. Here, plaintiffs acted with substantial justification by supplementing their discovery responses. Plaintiffs advised defense counsel that any delay in serving such supplemental responses was caused by staffing changes at the firm. At no time did defense counsel request an extension (o file a motion to compel. Plaintiff further offered to meet and confer regarding plaintiffs’ supplemental responses, which are not at issue in this motion. Nonetheless, defense counsel refused to withdraw its motion. Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted in this case. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing arguments, plaintiffs request that the Court deny defendant's motion to compel and request for sanctions. Dated: May 8, 2007 KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP Daniel Keller Attorney for Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page 7Cea ane en = S DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER I, Daniel Keller, declare: 1. Taman attorney duly admitted to practice before all the courts in the State of California and am a partner of KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP. The information stated in this declaration is based on my personal knowledge. If called upon as a witness to testify, I could and would testify to the following facts. 2. Plaintiff scrved supplemental responses to defendant’ special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on April 24, 2007. ‘These supplemental responses were made on behalf of all plaintiffs, including Nancy Scott. Verifications for all of plaintiffs’ discovery responses were provided to defense counsel on or before May 8, 2007. 3. In plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to defendant’s special interrogatories, plaintiffs provided (1) a description of the background and investigation central to plaintiff” interrogatory responses (D’s Spec. Rogs Nos. 1-2); (2) the facts, witnesses and documents that support plaintiffs’ contentions with regard to defendant’s liability in this case (D's Spec. Rogs Nos. 3-30); and (3) the facts, witnesses, and documents that support defendant's liability in this casc (D’s Spee. Rogs Nos. 31-33). 4, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to defendant’s request for production of documents on April 24, 2007. Tn responses to defendants’ request, plaintiffs responded that (1) all responsive documents were in the possession of defendant; (2) all responsive documents had already been produced, (3) plaintifis were not in possession of any further responsive documents; and/or (4) defendant’s request remained subject to objection. 5. Plaintiffs served responses to defendant's Yorm Interrogatories on March 2, 2007. Defendant's form interrogatories numbered 2.4, 2.8, 8.1-8.8, 9.1-9.210.1-10.3, 12.1-12.7, 14.1- 14.2 and 17.1, sock the exact same information sought in defendants’ special interrogatories, Plaintiffs incorporated their responses to defendant's special interrogatories secking the exact same information into their responses to defendant’s form interrogatories. By and through plaintiffs” supplemental responses to defendant's special interrogatories, which are incorporated into PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page 8plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ form interrogatories, plaintiff’ supplemented their responses to said form interrogatories on April 24, 2007. 6. Plaintiff&’ initial responses to defendant's discovery requests were timely served on, defendant on March 2, 2007. In response to plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses, defendant’s met and conferred seeking supplemental discovery. In response to defendant’s initial meet and confer efforts, plaintiffs agrced to supplement plaintiffs’ discovery responses. This initial agreement was entered between defense counsel and Scott Hames of our offices. ‘Ihereafter, Mr. Hames left the firm and on the eve of defendant’s motion to compel deadline, on April 19, 2007, defense counsel met and conferred with me. Tadvised that (1) due to staffing changes, plaintiffs’ supplemental responses were delayed; (2) that plaintiffs would re-examine defendant’s liability in this case; and (3) if mcrited, plaintiffs would serve defendant with the supplemental responses. At no time daring the meet and confer process did defense counsel request an extension to file its motion to compel. 7. OnMay 7, 2007, 1 attempted to reach defense counsel by telephone about this ‘motion, but was advised that the only attorney handling this case, Anne Park, was unavailable. On May 8, 2007, I spoke with Ms, Park about this motion. I requested that she withdraw the motion in light of plaintiffs’ supplemental discovery responses. I explained that Scott Hames, who was handling this case, had left the firm during the period when we had promised to supplement discovery causing the delay in service. Ms. Park stated that she had received plaintifis’ supplemental discovery responses. I explained that defendant's existing motion to compel seeks supplemental responses to plaintiffs’ initial discovery responses, which have been provided and therefore, the motion is moot. | offered to further meet and confer on plaintiff's supplemental discovery responses if necessary, but that that issue was not before the court on this motion. Nonetheless, Ms, Park refused to withdraw her motion to compel. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 8, 2007 in Agoura Hills, California. Daniel Keller PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ' ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER Page 9Roo awh we PROOF OF SERVICE Case: Nancy Marie Scott, et al. v. ACandS, Inc... et al. San Francisco Superior CourtCase No.: 443236 Iam over the age of eighteen years and am employed in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, Tam employed at KELLER, FISHBACK & IACKSON LLP. a law firm with principals who are members of the Bar of the state of California, and I made the service referred to] below at their direction. My business address is 28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201, Agoura Hills, CA 91301. On May 8, 2007, I served (a) truc copy(ies) of: PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, TO. COMPEL RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO HAVE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEEMED ADMITTED, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DANIEL KELLER l|__ FIRST-CLASS MAIL. _ by depositing the same for collection and mailing at Agoura Hills, California, on the date set forth in this Proof of Service, in (a) sealed envelope(s) with the postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed as shown below. Il EXPRESS SEIPMENT/OVERNIGHT COURIER _ marked for next-day delivery and by depositing the same for collection and mailing at Agoura Hills, California, on the date set forth in this Proof of Service, in Ja) sealed envelope(s) with the postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed| as shown below. o PERSONAL SERVICE I personally delivered the document(s) listed above to: I] _VIA FACSIMILE by transmitting the same via facsimile to the party(ies) listed below using the facsimile number(s) listed beneath each name as shown below. [ caused the machine to print a transmission report of the transmission(s) confirming that the facsimile(s) was/were sent and received without error. [x] VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE. at Lexis Nexis File and Serve pursuant to CCP §1010.6, CRC 2060, and San Francisco Superior Court Amended Asbestos General Order Number 158 by transmitting completely and without error the same via electronic mail through approved vendor to the party(ies) listed below. SER ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Lhave prepared the copy(ies) and/or the envelope(s) containing the copy(ies) to be served in accordance with the manner described above for delivery in accordance with normal practices. 1 further certify that Iam fully familiar with the regular business practices of KELLER, VISHBACK & JACKSON LLP and I know the firm's procedures to be safe and reliable for delivery of said document(s) as described above. 1 certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the state of California and the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. } SHOSHANA KLINE Executed on May 8, 2007 at Agoura Hills, California,‘oll v. ACandS, Inc., etal SUSC Case No.: 443236 A.W, Chesterton Company Pringle, Decker & Ainaro 369 Pine Stet, Suite $00 Son Francisco, CA, 94104 Phone: (415) 788-8354 Fax: (415) 786.3625 ABB INC. Which will do business California as ABB DE INC, Archer Nomis £2033 Nan Main Strost, #800 ‘Walnut Creek, CA, 94596 Phone: (225) 930-6600 Fax: (925) 930-6620 Allied wh Hen & Zapala 152 N, 3rd Stree, Suite S00 ‘San Joss, CA, 95320 Phone: (408) 2 Fax: (408) 516-9540 Amehem Products, bis Brydon, Hugo & Parker 135 Main Street, Suite 2000 ‘San Francisco, CA, 94105 Phone: (415) 308-0300 Fax: (415) 806-0355 Ashestes Corporation, Li Wilson, Fser, Moskowitz, BSclnan & Dicker 525 Market Stes, 17¢h Floor San Francisco, CA, 94105-2722 Phone: (415) 433.0990 Fax: (415) 454-1370, BABCOCK BORSIG POWER, INC..as the parent alter ‘lites formerly known as DE. RILDY, INC, and/or RILEY. ‘STOKER CORPORATION Menamara, Dede, Ney, Beaty, Slattery & Bésloer LLP 1211 Newell Stet, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, CA, 94596 Phone: (925) 939-5330 Trax: (625) 939.0292 Berry & Berry 2930 Lake Shore Avenue Oukland, CA 94610 Phone: ($10) 250-0200 Fax: ($10) 835-S117 Crane Co, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 4 Ewharcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA, 94111 Phone: (415) 249-1000 ax: (415) 249-001, Updated: 4/24/07 Service List Scott Foley & Mansfield 1235 N. Colifomia Blvd, Suite 690, ‘Walt Creek, CA 94596 Prone: 925.950.2866 Fee: 925 950,7335 Dee Engineering Company ‘Walsworth, Franklin, Bovine & Mecall 601 Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor San Fransisco, CA, 94111 Phone: (415) 781-7072 Fa: (415) 391-6258 Douglass losulation Co, Selman Bretinan 33 New Montgomery St, 6th Hoar San Francisco, CA, 96105 Phone: (415) 979-400 Fax: (415) 979-2099, ‘Mamumer, Ins. Howard, Romi, Marcia & Ridley 1975 Woods Ros, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA, 4061-3436 Phone: (680) 365-7715 Fax: (650) 364-5297 Foster Wheeler L1.C: Survivor to \raer sith Foster Wheeler Bassi, Marini, Elin & Blum 351 Califonia Stree, Sue 200 San Francisco, CA, 94108 Phone (415) 397-006 Fax: (415) 397-1339 Foster Wheeler LLG Survivor toa merger with Foster Wheeler Corporation Micliel J. Pietkowski, Esq Gowtion & Rees #4 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.986.5900 Fax: 415.986.8054 Geavber Ine, “Archer Nonis 2033 Nor Main Stret, #800 ‘Walnut Crock, CA, 94596 Phone: (325) 830-6600 Fa: (925) 930-6620 Vasquec & Estiada 914 Mission Avenuc, Sscond Floot San Rafael, CA, 94901 Phone: (415) 453-0555 Fo (415) 453-0549 Hopeman Brothers, Ine Bassi Martin, Elin Blum 351 Califia Sect, Succ 200 Sen Francisco, CA, 8410¢ Phone: (415) 397-3006 Fax: 15) 397 1339 IMO tedustries, tne. formerly Known a= IMO DeLaval Turbine, in ard, Rome, Martin & Ridley 1778 Woodside Read, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA, 94061-3436 Phone: (650) 365-7715 Fax: (650) 364-5297 Ingersol-Rand Company Gordon & Rees 25 Batery St, 20th FI. San rancsen, CA, 98117 Phane: (415) 586-5900 Fax: (415) 986-8054 AThorpe & Son Ins, ‘Bassi, Manin, Fin & Blue 4351 California Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA, 94104 Prone: (415) 397-9006 Fax: (415) 397-1339 Lucent Technotosies Ine Indiv Ss Interest to Western Electric ‘Company Perkins, Coie, LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400, San Francisca, CA, 94111 Phone: (415) 344-7000 Fax: (415) 344-7050 M,Slaven & Associates. as, Bosheeer, Kanner & Schartaer 2200 Powell Street, Suite 205, Emeryville, CA, 94608, (Metalclad Insulation Corporation Mekcana, Long & Aldvidge, LLP LOI California Stcet, 41s Floor San Francisco, C4, 96111 howe: (415) 267-4000 Fax (415)267-4138 wi ‘aka 3M Company Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fiflh Sweet, Los Angeles, CA, 90013 Phone: (213) 896-6000 Page 1Scott v. ACandS, Tne., et al SFSC Case No.: 443236 New IEM LLC, Tio, us Successor- in-luterest(o Industrial Blecirig MBz.Ce, Agent 215 W. Franklin Seat Momerey, CA, 93840, ‘Qutugss Industries, ne, Walssoth Franklin, Bovins & Mecall {601 Monigomery Ste, Ninth Flor Sap Francis, CA. 9411 Phone: (418) RI-7092 Fax (415) 391-625 ‘Cercy Manufactu ‘Corp. Ravid American Carp. 33 ‘Susvessor-in-Interest to Philip ‘Carey Corp, ‘Thelen, Reid & Priest LLP TOI Second Stee, Suite 1820 San Francisco, CA, 94105-1211 Phone: (415) 371-1200 Fan: (415) 644-6519 Jc rly know as Selby, Batersby & Company ‘Walswort, Franklin, Bevins & Mecalt ‘601 Montgomery Sicet, Ninth Floor San Francisco, C4, 94111, Phone: (415) 781-7072 Fax: (415) 391-6258, ‘Soco-Lanch Corporations ccessor-in-interest o Western ‘Chemical und Manefacturing Comvany Sedsprick, Dee, Moran & Aros 1 Market Para, cua Tr, 80 FL, San Francisco, CA, 94108 Phone: (415) 781-7900 Fax: (415) 781-2655 dpending) SouareD Compayy Kivkpabick & Lockhart Preston, Gales & Blis 55 Socond Sueet Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 82-4200 Tax: (415) 882-4200, Updated: 4/24/07 Service List Seo Menauara, Dodge, Ney, Beatty, Slattery & Pialzer LLP [ZL Newell Stree, Suite 202 Welnut Creek, CA, 94596 Phone: (925)939-5330 Fax: (925) 989-0292 Sud Carpenter Marine Engineering Pendle, Decker & Amaro 369 Pine Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA, 94104 Phone: (415) 788-8354 Fax: (415) 788-3625 California ‘Selman Breitmaa 33 New Montgomery Street. 6th oor, San Francisco, CA, 94105. Phone: (415) 979-0400 Fax: (415) 979-2099 Gary D. Shap, Bs. Foley & Mansi Oskland City Center 1101 Brady 10" Floor Oakland, CA 98007 Phone: 510 590 9500 Prindle, Decker & Amaro 369 Pine Sreet, Sue 800 San Francisca, CA, 94104 Phone: (415) 788-8354 Fax: (415) 788-3625 ‘Brydon, Hugo & Parker 135 Main Stet, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA, 94105 Phone: (415) 808-0300, Fax; (415) 808-0333 ‘Law Offices Of Nancy Hudgins 565 Comanercial Steet, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA, 94111 Phone: (415) 979-6100 Fax: (415) 979.0747 ‘Miacom Incorporated, 18 Comers ‘Westinghous Blecteic Corporation Pom Nosh LLP 350 South Grand Ave , Suite 2850 as Angeles, CA, 90071 Phone: (213) 617-6170 Pax: (213) 623-2594 Page 2