On January 31, 2014 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nibbi Bros. Associates, Inc A California,
Progress Glass Company Inc.,
Winco Window Company Inc., A Corporation,
and
Does 1 To 100, Inclusive,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. A Surety Company,
Nibbi Bros. Associates, Inc A California,
Nibbi Bros, Inc. A California Corporation,
Progress Glass Co. Inc., A California Corporation,
Progress Glass Company Inc.,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
Brandt L. Wolkin, Esq., SBN 112220
David F. Myers, Esq., SBN 185102
WOLKIN « CURRAN, LLP.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, California 94111 FILE
Telephone: (415) 982-9390 Superior Court of 12,
Facsimile: (415) 982-4328 County of San
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant 92/19/2903 S
WINCO WINDOW COMPANY, INC. BY:RONNIE OTER’
®
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
WINCO WINDOW COMPANY, INC., Case No. CGC-14-537120
Plaintiff,
vs. OPPOSITION OF WINCO WINDOW
COMPANY, INC. TO PROGRESS
PROGRESS GLASS CoO., INC., NIBBI GLASS COMPANY, INC.’S
BROS. INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL DESIGNATION OF JOHN
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 CAMPBELL DEPOSITION
through 100, inclusive, TESTIMONY
Defendants.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
On February 16, 2016, defendant Progress Glass Company, Inc. (“Progress”),
submitted a Designation of John Campbell Deposition Testimony to the Court, and to
counsel for Winco Window Company, Inc. (“Winco”), for the first time. Winco hereby
objects to, and opposes, this attempt to designate deposition testimony on the grounds set
forth below.
Mt
Mh
1,
WINCO OPPOSITION TO ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OF J. CAMPBELL CASE NO. CGC-14-537120ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION IS UNTIMELY
The Designation is expressly submitted pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court,
Local Rule 6.2 which provides:
Preparation of Deposition Extracts. Parties must meet and confer
in advance of trial on the designation of depositions to be used at
trial, other than those used for impeachment. Af least ten (10) days
prior to trial, or later as soon as the trial judge is known, the
parties must lodge with the trial judge the designations and
counter-designations of such testimony together with brief
notations of all objections and responses thereto sufficient to allow
the trial judge to rule on those objections.
(Emphasis added.)
The designation of deposition excerpts is a pre-trial procedure. There is no provision
for any such designation of deposition excerpts after trial has begun. Any attempt to
designate deposition testimony after trial has begun deprives adverse parties of any
opportunity to counter-designate deposition testimony. Further, the attempt to designate
deposition testimony was made by Progress without any compliance, or even attempt at
compliance, with the mandatory meet and confer requirement stated in the Local Rules of
Court. Moreover, the attempted designation is dated February 11, 2016. The attempted
designation was not presented to the Court or, equally importantly, to counsel for Winco
until February 16, 2016. Progress has no explanation or excuse for not having even
provided a courtesy copy of the attempted designation for the five day period following its
completion. Although February 15, 2016 was a holiday, February 11 — 12, 2016 were
regular work days during which Progress had ample opportunity to provide notice, albeit
untimely notice, to Winco. In fact, counsel for Progress did send an email to Winco’s
counsel on February 12, 2016 regarding additional exhibits for which Progress wished to
seek admission. Therefore, it is clear that Progress could have provided notice of this tardy
attempt to designate deposition testimony. Instead, Progress opted to maintain complete
silence regarding the attempted designation until the morning of the last day of trial on
February 16, 2016.
Ml
2.
WINCO OPPOSITION TO ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OF J. CAMPBELL CASE NO. CGC-14-537120oO Oe ND
In light of the manifest failure of Progress to comply with the very Local Rule under
which it expressly attempts to bring this untimely designation, Progress should not be
permitted to maintain this attempted designation and the Court should disregard it in its
entirety. The complete omission of any attempt to notify Winco’s counsel of Progress’
determination to submit this tardy designation until the last day of trial should, additionally,
strongly mitigate against any consideration of this filing by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 18, 2016 WOLKIN « CURRAN, LLP
By:
David F. Myers
Attorneys for Plaintiff, WINCO WINDOW
COMPANY, INC.
3.
WINCO OPPOSITION TO ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OF J. CAMPBELL, CASE NO. CGC-14-537120
Preview
Brandt L. Wolkin, Esq., SBN 112220 David F. Myers, Esq., SBN 185102 WOLKIN « CURRAN, LLP. 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, California 94111 FILE Telephone: (415) 982-9390 Superior Court of 12, Facsimile: (415) 982-4328 County of San Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant 92/19/2903 S WINCO WINDOW COMPANY, INC. BY:RONNIE OTER’ ® SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION WINCO WINDOW COMPANY, INC., Case No. CGC-14-537120 Plaintiff, vs. OPPOSITION OF WINCO WINDOW COMPANY, INC. TO PROGRESS PROGRESS GLASS CoO., INC., NIBBI GLASS COMPANY, INC.’S BROS. INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL DESIGNATION OF JOHN INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 CAMPBELL DEPOSITION through 100, inclusive, TESTIMONY Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. On February 16, 2016, defendant Progress Glass Company, Inc. (“Progress”), submitted a Designation of John Campbell Deposition Testimony to the Court, and to counsel for Winco Window Company, Inc. (“Winco”), for the first time. Winco hereby objects to, and opposes, this attempt to designate deposition testimony on the grounds set forth below. Mt Mh 1, WINCO OPPOSITION TO ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OF J. CAMPBELL CASE NO. CGC-14-537120ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION IS UNTIMELY The Designation is expressly submitted pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court, Local Rule 6.2 which provides: Preparation of Deposition Extracts. Parties must meet and confer in advance of trial on the designation of depositions to be used at trial, other than those used for impeachment. Af least ten (10) days prior to trial, or later as soon as the trial judge is known, the parties must lodge with the trial judge the designations and counter-designations of such testimony together with brief notations of all objections and responses thereto sufficient to allow the trial judge to rule on those objections. (Emphasis added.) The designation of deposition excerpts is a pre-trial procedure. There is no provision for any such designation of deposition excerpts after trial has begun. Any attempt to designate deposition testimony after trial has begun deprives adverse parties of any opportunity to counter-designate deposition testimony. Further, the attempt to designate deposition testimony was made by Progress without any compliance, or even attempt at compliance, with the mandatory meet and confer requirement stated in the Local Rules of Court. Moreover, the attempted designation is dated February 11, 2016. The attempted designation was not presented to the Court or, equally importantly, to counsel for Winco until February 16, 2016. Progress has no explanation or excuse for not having even provided a courtesy copy of the attempted designation for the five day period following its completion. Although February 15, 2016 was a holiday, February 11 — 12, 2016 were regular work days during which Progress had ample opportunity to provide notice, albeit untimely notice, to Winco. In fact, counsel for Progress did send an email to Winco’s counsel on February 12, 2016 regarding additional exhibits for which Progress wished to seek admission. Therefore, it is clear that Progress could have provided notice of this tardy attempt to designate deposition testimony. Instead, Progress opted to maintain complete silence regarding the attempted designation until the morning of the last day of trial on February 16, 2016. Ml 2. WINCO OPPOSITION TO ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OF J. CAMPBELL CASE NO. CGC-14-537120oO Oe ND In light of the manifest failure of Progress to comply with the very Local Rule under which it expressly attempts to bring this untimely designation, Progress should not be permitted to maintain this attempted designation and the Court should disregard it in its entirety. The complete omission of any attempt to notify Winco’s counsel of Progress’ determination to submit this tardy designation until the last day of trial should, additionally, strongly mitigate against any consideration of this filing by the Court. Respectfully submitted, Dated: February 18, 2016 WOLKIN « CURRAN, LLP By: David F. Myers Attorneys for Plaintiff, WINCO WINDOW COMPANY, INC. 3. WINCO OPPOSITION TO ATTEMPTED DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OF J. CAMPBELL, CASE NO. CGC-14-537120