Request,Application: CHARLES BOUDREAUX et al VS. ADVOCATE MINES, LTD et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Bown

27
28

SFILAN6AZIVI

SEDGWICK, DETERT. MORAN & ARNOLD LLP
CHARLES SHELDON (Bar No. 155598)

MARC BRAINICH (Bar No. 191034)

DEREK S$. JOHNSON (Bar No. 220988)

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

‘Superior Court of California,

One Market Plaza.

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 781-7900
Facsimile: (415) 781-2635

Attomeys for Defendant

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

County of San Francisco

OCT 10 2007
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY; LUCIA RAMOS
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

CHARLES BOUDREAUX, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ys.
ADVOCATE MINES, LTD., et al.,

Defendants

I, Katherine P. Gardiner, declare:

CASE NO. 274029

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE P.
GARDINER IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING
PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO.
GENERAL ELECTRIC'S SPECIAL
DISCOVERY TO PLAINTIFFS OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, SHORTENING
TIME TO FILE AND HAVE HEARD ITS
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF

JUDGE: Honorable Bruce. E Chan
DEPT: 633

DATE: October 10, 2007

TIME: 11:30am,

Complaint Filed: January 12,2007
Discovery Cut-off; Upon Trial Assignment
Trial Date November 13, 2007

Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of

California. 1 am an associate with the law firm of SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN &

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE GARDINER ISO GE'S EX PARTE FOR OST ON MOTION TOCOMPEL28

SFriatsaz2v1

ARNOLD, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (“GE”)
in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, or have gained
such knowledge from my review of the records and documents maintained in our file in the
regular course of business. If called as a witness in this matter, I could and would testify
competently to the matters set forth herein.

1 Plaintiffs Charles and Deborah Boudreaux filed a personal injury and loss of
consortium action against various defendants, including GE, for injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products during Mr. Boudreaux’s life on January 12, 2007, On
July 26, 2007, the Court granted preference in this case, setting the case for trial on November
13, 2007 and shortening the time available for discovery. Pursuant to the Court’s trial setting
order, the last day for GE to file a Motion for Summary Judgment is this Friday, October 12,
2007.

2, Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of GE’s Special
Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set One, served by electronic service on August 15, 2007. Plaintiffs”
responses to these Special Interrogatories were due on or before September 17, 2007,

3. Atached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of GE"s Request for
Production to Plaintiff, served by electronic service on August 15, 2007. Plaintifis’ responses to
these Requests for Production were due on or before September 17, 2007.

4. As plaintiffs failed to provide responses on September 17, on September 25, 2007,
counsel for GE sent a meet and confer letter to counsel for plaintiffs, informing him that
plaintiffs had waived all objections they may have had to GE's discovery, and requesting
plaintiffs serve responses immediately. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of
counsel for GE’s September 25, 2007 letter, Counsel for Plaintiffs did not respond to this letter.

5. On September 28, 2007, GE served notice that it would appear ex parte on
October 2, 2007 for an order compelling plaintiffs to respond to GE’s special discovery.
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of that notice.

6. Counsel for plaintiffs, Ethan Hom, contacted counsel for GE on the afternoon of

‘September 28, 2007 and stated that he would consider dismissing GE from the case, and would

2.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE GARDINER ISO GE'S EX PARTE FOROST ON MOTION 10 CoMPSLsrvlasea22¥4

provide either a dismissal or plaintiffs’ responses to GE's special discovery by October 5, 2007.
However, plaintiffs did not either dismiss GE or respond to GE's discovery by October 5.

7. On October 8, counsel for GE again contacted counsel for plaintiffs, requesting
that plaintiffs either dismiss GE from the action or respond to GE’s special discovery. Attached
hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an email from counsel for GE to counsel for
plaintiffs. In response to that email, counsel for plaintiffs merely stated thet he would “get back
to you shortly.” Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of plainéffs’ counsel's
responsive email.

8 Asof the date of this filing, plaintiffs have neither dismissed GE nor served any
verified responses to GE’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents.

9. On October 9, 2007, GE provided notice to plaintiff that it would appear ex parte
for an order shortening time to bring this motion to compel responses. A true and correct copy of
that notice is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Motion to Compel
GE intends to file.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day of October 2007, at San Francisco,

California.

By OD

Katherine P. Gardiner

Atiomneys for Defendant
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

3

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE GARDINER ISO GE'S EX PARTE FOR OST ON MOTION TO COMPEL