arrow left
arrow right
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                COA A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Feb-24-2011 12:11 pm

Case Number: CGC-08-478453
Fi

iling Date: Feb-24-2011 12:11

Juke Box: 001 Image: 03133457

ORDER

sSEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNIT

Instructions:

Please place this sheet on top of the

Y ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LL

001003133457

document to be scanned.Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.)
Judicial Referee

F

of Califomia
§ perigr spate Francisco

JAMS FEB 24 2011
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111 CLERK, PME COURT
Telephone: (415) 982-5267 By: Dap GaK
Fax: (415) 982-5287
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintift FOURTH CASE
MANAGEMENT AND
vs, SCHEDULING ORDER

CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC, et al.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO. CGC-08-478453

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

By Order filed September 2, 20
State of California, in and for the C

109 of Judge Richard A. Kramer of the Superior Court of the

unty of San Francisco, all proceedings and issues in this

case, whether of fact or law, between Beacon Residential Community Association (hereinafter
the “Beacon” or “Beacon HOA”) and Mission Place LLC, Mission Place Mezz Holdings LLC,

Mission Place Mezzanine LLC, Mi
IV, LLC and Centurion Real Estate

Te Place Partners, LLC, Centurion Real Estate Investors
artners, LLC (hereinafter the “Mission Place”-or “Mission

Place-related Defendants”), were ordered to general judicial reference. Further, by Order filed

October 19, 2009 of Judge Richard
County of San Francisco, Judge Ro
this matter pursuant to CCP § 640.

Kramer of the Superior Court of California, in and for the

\

Id M. Sabraw (Ret.) was appointed as Judicial Referee inFollowing the appointment of Judge Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) as the Judicial Referee in the
Judicial Reference matter, the parties to the Judicial Reference proceedings and the parties to the
related Superior Court Proceedings reached a stipulation wherein Judge Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.)
was also appointed as Special Master for purposes of coordinating the discovery and case
management in and between the Judicial Reference proceeding and the Superior Court action.
Judge Sabraw’s appointment as Special Master became effective by Order of the Superior Court
entered on November 9, 2010.

The Judicial Reference matter pnd the Superior Court matter came on for a regularly

scheduled Case Management Conference on Friday, February 11, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. at the
offices of JAMS, 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94311. Personally
present at the hearing were Mr. Jinumy Sanh L. Ly, Esq. and Mr. Kevin Canty, Esq. on behalf of
Beacon Residential Community A§sociation, Mr. Steven M. Cvitanovic, Esq. on behalf of
Mission Place LLC and affiliated dntities, and Mr. Devon Courteau, Esq. on behalf of the
Catellus entities. (Note: Mr. Courteau later departed the hearing and appeared by phone).
Several lawyers appeared at the CMC via telephone, including Mr. Richard Young, Esq. on
behalf of Skidmore, Owings & Mefrill LLP, Mr. David Webster, Esq. and Mr. Sandy Kaplan,
Esq. on behalf of Webcor, Ms. Cartie Strasser, on behalf of Lexington Insurance Company, Mr.
Stephen Schwartz, Esq. on behalf df HKS, Inc., and Mr. Peter Laufenberg on behalf of the
Mission Place entities.

Having read and considered the letter of Mr. Ly, counsel for Beacon dated February 8, 2011,
the letter from Mr. Wenzel, counsel for Catellus dated February 10, 2011, and the letter from Mr.
Cvitanovic, counsel for Mission Place LLC dated February 10, 2011, and having heard the oral
arguments of various counsel, and bee cause appearing therefore, the Referee/Special Master

hereby issues the following recommended orders:

1. In camera review: During the hearing, the Referee/Special Master concluded the in

camera review of documents withheld by the Mission Place entities. Prior to the

hearing the Referee/Special Master had inspected 5 boxes of documents produced
for in camera review. |The conclusion of the in camera review was conducted in the
presence of Mr. Cvitanovic, counsel for Mission Place. Also present by phone

were Mr. Peter Lauferlberg, Esq. and Mr. Tim Williams, Esq., co-counsel for

2Mission Place. The proceedings in camera were reported by Ms. Ruth Grant, CSR,
in order to maintain a record of the ex parte discussions between the
Referee/Special Master and counsel for Mission Place. The transcript of the
proceedings will be sealed and only provided to the Referee/Special Master and
may be unsealed upon a showing of good cause before the Referee/Special Master,
or upon the order of Judge Richard A. Kramer or any other court of competent
jurisdiction. The ke orders are made concerning the documents reviewed in
camera:
a. The material ordered to be produced following the in camera proceedings
shall be copield and submitted to the document depository on or before
February 25, 2011;

b. The materials|which are produced following the in camera review process
shall be separately marked and identified has having be produced following
in camera review such that all other counsel may conveniently identify
these materials;

c. As noted during the in camera review process, certain materials ordered
produced are heing produced as exemplars. For example, a file containing
rent roll information for April 2004 is one of many monthly files containing
rent roll information. Only the April 2004 file is being produced.
Plaintiff's counsel following review of the produced materials may request
further production of similar files upon a showing of good cause;

2. Redaction issues: Heretofore, counsel for Mission Place entities has redacted
certain personal identification information and financial information (such as social
security numbers and purchase price information) from various documents which
have been or are about}to be produced. With the exception of social security
numbers or other sensitive personal indentifying information, no further redactions
shall be made by the parties in their tender of documents to the depository, without
further leave of the Referee/Special Master.

3. Document production issues re “commercial documents”: As a preliminary
observation the Refere¢/Special Master finds that the overall withholding of

“commercial documents” from production by Mission Place is not well taken. It isthe expectation of the Referee/Special Master that most “commercial documents”

will be produced. Oh or about February 7, 2011, counsel for the Mission Place

entities served on all

counsel an updated privilege log for various withheld

documents, oe ke “commercial documents”. The following protocol will

govern the productio:

of the commercial documents presently withheld:

a. During the hearing, counsel for Beacon HOA reviewed the February 7”

updated Mission Place privilege log and identified certain boxes which Mr.
Canty and Mr, Ly would like to inspect to determine whether they should

be produced.

(Counsel for Mission Place and Beacon HOA have agreed to

meet on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 (and continuing day to day) at the

offices of ee Rosen in Oakland where the commercial document

boxes are stor
documents sh
Ly and Mr. C:

scope of prod

d. Counsel will meet and confer on what commercial
uld be voluntarily produced following the inspection by Mr.
ty. Itis hoped that counsel will voluntarily agree upon the

ction of commercial documents presently withheld;

b. Ifcounsel canhot agree, a further telephonic conference call with the
Referee/Special Master shal] be scheduled forthwith to resolve the

production isstes surrounding commercial documents;

c. In addition to the commercial boxes which Mr. Canty and Mr. Ly wish to

inspect, they shall be entitled to randomly inspect up to 10 other boxes to

satisfy themselves that the boxes identified in the Mission Place privilege

log are accurate in describing the contents of the boxes;

4. Document production

f homeowner files: Mr. Cvitanovic informed everyone that

the homeowner files ate presently being reviewed by his paralegals in the State of

Washington for redaction of Personal social security numbers and other sensitive

information. Production of the homeowner files shall commence forthwith on a

rolling basis with the production being complete on or before F ebruary 25, 2011;

5. E-mail production: It

is hereby ordered that e-mail production will be governed by

Code of Civil Procedute Section 2031.21 0(a)(3), (d) requiring that all parties to this

action produce all e-m:

litigation that is reason|

i. concerning or addressing the subject matter of this
bly accessible. It is further ordered that parties may use

4search words or oth

production of e-maill

come within the aml

computer search technology to narrow the scope of

to matters which relate to, concern or discuss topics that

it of this litigation. Production of e-mails may be in

electronic or hard paper format:

. Deadlines for tender

Case Management

o£ documents to the depository: The Recommended Second
id Scheduling Order required all parties to tender all their

documents in this we to the depository on or before January 31, 2011. Some

parties have compli!
the Referee/Special

in substantial measure, many parties have not. However,

aster is mindful of the significant challenges facing the

parties on document production, including objections to production on relevance,

privilege and other

Therefore, the partie:
to the depository wi
production. As requ|
Scheduling Order, al

ounds. Those objections have largely been addressed.

are ordered to make ongoing rolling production of documents
the deadline being extended to February 25, 2011 for full
ired in the Recommended Second Case Management and

parties shall tender to the depository a verification under

penalty of perjury that all documents in their possession relating to the Beacon

Project have been pr

e-mail production, th

limiting production a

used to limit producti
tendered by February

categories of documer

duced or otherwise identified on a privilege log. Regarding

verification shall specify what protocols were used in
e-mails, if any were used, and specifying any search terms
nn of e-mails. Further, if all documents have not been

25, 2011, the verification shall set forth with specificity what

its remain to be produced and a hard deadline for final

production. Failure t) meet the February 25, 2011 deadline for document

production may result}

in sanctions, but the good faith rolling production will be

viewed favorably by ‘ Referee/Special Master in addressing document

production issues and

. Order of Trial: Missidn
the trial of the Judicial

© appropriateness of sanctions.
Place entities have requested that the Referee reschedule
Reference to follow the trial of the Superior Court action.

The Referee will not db so. Mission Place has expressed concerns of due process

and the likelihood of ee rulings if the Judicial Reference were to proceed

to trial ahead of the Si

rior Court matter. These are difficult issues. The Refereewill of course defer th Judge Kramer on scheduling issues. If Judge Kramer thinks

the Superior Court matter should proceed before the Judicial Reference matter, he

may schedule the Superior Court matter for an earlier date. The Referee remains
available to appear oltore Judge Kramer to address these matters in conjunction
with the Superior Coprt proceedings, should Judge Kramer so desire.

8. This matter is continted for a further Case Management Conference and discovery
hearing on March 1, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. to be held at the offices of JAMS, 2
Embarcadero Center,|Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94611. Counsel are free to
appear telephonically, via the JAMS Conference Call Service, 1(877) 696-5627;

9. Except as otherwise provided herein or otherwise modified by the Court, the prior

orders in these proceadings shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated: Zz Zot} (22 ry n/
‘ braw (Ret.)

Judge Ronald M. Sal
Judicial Referee/Special Master

Dated; @ - 23° (ALS Mean —

Judge Richard A. Kramer