Preview
1 ANDREW D. CASTRICONE (SBN 154607)
acastricone@grsm.com
2 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
ELECTRONICALLY
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
3 San Francisco, CA 94111 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
Telephone: 415-986-9590 County of San Francisco
4 Facsimile: 415-262-3726
06/24/2020
5 Attorneys for Defendants Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
JEFF DACHENHAUS, Deputy Clerk
6 MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) CASE NO. CGC-18-566118
INC., a California Corporation, dba ABLE )
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) DECLARATION OF ANDREW D.
) CASTRICONE IN SUPPORT OF
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
94111
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
14 vs. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER
San Francisco, CA
)
15 METRO SERVICES GROUP, JEFF ) Date: June 24, 2020
DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN and ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
16 DEREK SCHULZE, ) Hon. Kevin J. Murphy, Ret.
)
17 Defendants. ) Complaint filed: April 26, 2018
) Trial Date: August 24, 2020
18 )
)
19 )
20 I, Andrew D. Castricone, declare as follows:
21 1. I am an attorney, admitted to practice in all state and federal courts in California
22 and New York1, all state courts in Massachusetts (inactive), and I am a partner of the law firm of
23 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, counsel of record for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS,
24 MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE (“the Individual Defendants”). I have personal
25 knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if necessary, I would and could competently testify
26 thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
27 2. With respect to the deadline to initiate or complete discovery, our clients’ position
28 1 Excluding Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
-1-
DEC. OF ANDREW D. CASTRICONE IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 was set forth in our Response to Plaintiff’s Crown-Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadlines,
2 heard on March 26, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Response is attached hereto as Exhibit
3 “A.” At the time, given the Court’s March 24, 2020 General Order, it was my impression and
4 understanding that, in addition to the May 4, 2020 trial date, discovery deadlines that had not yet
5 passed, would be vacated. Since the deadline to notice depositions prior to the prior April 6,
6 2020 discovery cutoff had not yet passed at the time the General Order was issued (and
7 subsequent orders, as well as the new trial date, our clients’ positon is that the deadline to notice
8 depositions in this case has never passed.
9 3. On the same date as Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion was heard, March 26, 2020, I sent
10 an email to Jeff Chanin that confirmed the above position. A true and correct copy of my email
11 exchange with Mr. Chanin is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” Though my email reconfirmed my
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 understanding that plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial was not going forward on April 16,
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13 2020, and that I did not agree with, nor was I available for, an August 24, 2020 trial date, Mr.
94111
14 Chanin never responded to this email (on these points).
San Francisco, CA
15 4. During the March 26, 2020 hearing, Mr. Chanin indicated that he did not know
16 when the motion to continue would be heard, or when the new trial date would be, both of which
17 could impact scheduling of discovery. A true and correct copy of entire transcript is attached
18 hereto as Exhibit “C.” Mr. Chanin’s comment appears at p.47:15-22.
19 5. While the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting orders put all parties on notice that
20 the May 4, 2020 trial date would be continued, we did not know for how long. I suggested an
21 October 5 date, but Plaintiff disagreed. When Plaintiff filed its motion to continue, we planned
22 on filing a partial opposition (to the date and to comment on the status of discovery) once we
23 were made aware when the motion would be heard (and when our opposition would be due).
24 Exhibits “B” and “C” demonstrate that there was uncertainty on this issue. Mr. Chanin did not
25 respond to my March 26 email, and Plaintiff did not file any “Reply to Non-Opposition” or
26 “Statement of Non-Opposition” regarding the motion to continue. On April 24, 2020, I was
27 reviewing the Register of Actions in this case for other reasons and first became aware that Judge
28 Wong has already issued an order on the motion. To date, there has been no objection, request
-2-
DEC. OF ANDREW D. CASTRICONE IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 for clarification, or further motion to continue in response to that Order.
2 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
3 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 23, 2020 in Bend, Oregon.
4
5
Andrew D. Castricone
6
7
8
9
10
11
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
14
San Francisco, CA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DEC. OF ANDREW D. CASTRICONE IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 ANDREW D. CASTRICONE (SBN 154607)
acastricone@grsm.com
2 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
3 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-986-95900
4 Facsimile: 415-262-3726
5 Attorneys for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS,
MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE
6
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) CASE NO. CGC-18-566118
INC., a California Corporation, dba ABLE )
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
) PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13 Plaintiff, ) EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY
94111
) DEADLINES
14 vs. )
San Francisco, CA
) Hearing Date: March 26, 2020
15 METRO SERVICES GROUP, JEFF ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN and ) Complaint filed: April 26, 2018
16 DEREK SCHULZE, ) Trial Date: May 4, 20201
)
17 Defendants. )
18 Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE
19 (“Defendants”) respectfully submit the following Response to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for
20 Extension of the Discovery Deadlines.
21 I. INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
22 The instant motion is superseded and essentially moot and should have been withdrawn.
23 As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial of this matter, and all of the deadlines
24 plaintiff seeks to continue, are addressed by Presiding Judge Wong’s March 24, 2020 General
25 Order Re Implementation of Emergency Relief (“Emergency Order”). See Ex. “A.”
26 In the Emergency Order (“EO”), the trial is automatically continued for at least 60 days.
27 1
Subject to continuance in light of the Court’s March 24, 2020 General Order Re Implementation of Emergency
Relief
28
-1-
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTFF’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINES
1 EO, p.2, Sec. B (1). All pending motions (motion for summary judgment, motion to bifurcate,
2 and motion to continue trial date) are taken off calendar. Id., p.3, Sec C (1). The deadlines to
3 complete fact and expert discovery are vacated and will be based on the new trial date. Id.,
4 p.2, Sec B (2). For pending discovery (the parties have recently exchanged written discovery
5 requests, including new and supplemental requests), the deadline to make objections or
6 respond and produce documents is likewise extended, with March 18, 2020 through April 15,
7 2020 being deemed a holiday. Id., p.1, Item 2. As such, the last date to respond to pending
8 discovery, as well as to supplement experts, etc. (in response to already completed initial
9 disclosures) are effectively tolled, with the remaining time to respond to discovery, produce
10 documents, and supplement expert witness disclosures advanced, at least for the time being,
11 until some date after April 16, 2020. Ibid. There is, however, no request in the cross-motion
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12 to re-open discovery to permit the parties to conduct (i.e. initiate) discovery where the deadline
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13 to do so has already passed, nor should that be permitted absent an agreement or separate
94111
14 request for leave of court. See Id., p.2, Sec.B(2).
San Francisco, CA
15 Given the continuance of the trial date and hold on discovery, the instant motion
16 therefore becomes moot.
17 Likewise, the order addressing the vacating of pending motions, especially in light of
18 the extension of the discovery completion dates, and tolling of pending supplemental
19 responses, with parties permitted to also supplement discovery responses and documents up to
20 and including 30 days before trial, requires that further briefing and April 8, 2020 hearing on
21 plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions, also be vacated.
22 At the same time, given the companion motion, there is no reason why the Discovery
23 Referee cannot grant Metro’s Motion to Compel and set a date for completion of the already
24 noticed depositions for a date certain, as set forth in Metro’s reply brief.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-2-
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTFF’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINES
1 II. CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the instant motion be denied
3
as moot, but for a confirming order indicating that deadlines for the initiation of discovery that
4
has already expired will not be reopened absent agreement of the parties or further order
5
granting leave to do so.
6
In addition, given the scope of relief afforded by the Emergency Order and incomplete
7
status of discovery, as well as the continuance of the trial date, it is respectfully requested that
8
the Discovery Referee also vacate the hearing and any further briefing on the pending motion
9
for terminating sanctions.
10
Respectfully submitted.
11
Dated: March 25, 2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
12
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
13
94111
14 By
San Francisco, CA
Andrew D. Castricone
15 Attorneys for Defendants JEFF DACHENHAUS,
MARK NOLAN and DEREK SCHULZE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1157694/50801492v.1
-3-
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTFF’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINES
EXHIBIT “A”
From: Andrew Castricone
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:23 PM
To: 'Jeff Chanin' ; kds@simoncini-law.com
Cc: ebayley@keker.com; gthole@keker.com; jrapaport@keker.com; nroberts@keker.com; mybarra@keker.com;
Andrew Castricone
Subject: RE: Crown Building Maintenance v. Metro Services Group
Jeff:
While the Supreme Court’s order of March 23 was somewhat vague, it seems that the SF Court’s March 24 order is
(somewhat) more precise. A copy of both are attached for your convenient reference.
Given the SF Court’s declaration of March 18, 2020 to April 15, 2020 being deemed a holiday for the purposes of “[t]he
time in which to respond to discovery including file objections to discovery, or file motions for protective orders or to
compel discovery . . . ,” it is my understanding and belief that the deadlines for all pending discovery objections and
responses, as well as the deadline to serve a supplemental disclosure in response to initial expert disclosures, are all
effectively pushed back. At the very least, no responses/supplemental disclosures are due until no earlier than April
16. However, as Kerri and I suggested during this morning’s hearing, the March 24 Order also seems to have or suggest
a tolling effect, such that time remaining for the responses/supplemental disclosures would be added to the expiration
of the “holiday” period. It seems the best approach for all of us would be to agree on a date(s) certain, subject to any
further orders from the court or agreements by the parties. Though not exactly the same, this seems consistent with
your request below.
Similar to the “date certain” comment, that was also what I had referenced in my original March 13 email regarding the
trial date. Your email below indicates a new trial date of July 3 based presumably on the attached orders’ indication that
jury trials will be continued for 60 days. However, July 3 is a Friday, and, moreover, a date on which I previously
indicated I would be unavailable. Absent continuing travel restrictions (which would make much of the above also
subject to change), and as previously indicated, I will be out of state for the essentially the entire month of July, set to
leave California on July 3 and returning in the early morning hours of August 1. In my several emails on this subject, I
had indicated a preferred trial date certain of October 5, with the earliest possibly available date being August 31 (not
August 24 as reflected in your pending motion). When those emails were sent, however, the discovery deadlines were
still based on the May 4 trial date, which has now changed per the March 24 order, but which is still reflected as the trial
date on the Court’s calendar. Given that the hearing on your motion to continue the trial (and all other motions in this
case) is vacated by the March 24 order (p.3, Sec.C(1)) [“The hearing dates for all law and motion and discovery
matters currently calendared in departments 301 and 302 are hereby vacated. When the court resumes
normal operations, the Presiding Judge will announce procedures for setting hearing dates for those cases
which have been fully briefed. For cases in which motions have been filed, but are not yet fully briefed, the
1
new hearing date will establish the briefing schedule”], and with the continued uncertainty as to how a new trial
date will be set or communicated by the Court, I would propose that counsel meet and confer on a proposed date
certain for the trial.
Please advise on your thoughts (and Kerri, your’s too) at your earliest convenience, so we can all operate on the same
calendar.
Thanks,
Andy
ANDREW D. CASTRICONE | Partner
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
YOUR 50 STATE PARTNER®
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
D: 415-875-3183 | P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-262-3726 | F: 415-986-8054 | acastricone@grsm.com
www.grsm.com
vCard | LinkedIn | Twitter
From: Jeff Chanin
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 5:32 PM
To: kds@simoncini-law.com; Andrew Castricone
Cc: ebayley@keker.com; gthole@keker.com; jrapaport@keker.com; nroberts@keker.com; mybarra@keker.com
Subject: RE: Crown Building Maintenance v. Metro Services Group
Importance: High
Kerri and Andy,
I had understood from my discussion yesterday with Kerri that, after Kerri looked at the
parties’ outstanding discovery requests to each other, defendants would get back to me
yesterday afternoon if possible, but by today if not, about the new schedule that Kerri
and I discussed. I’ve not heard anything since then, other than to receive Kerri’s
summary of our discussion.
Yesterday evening, as you know, we all received notice that state court civil trials were
continued by 60 days – which gives us a new trial date of July 3. Able withdrew its ex
parte motion in light of that, but Able’s motion to continue the trial to August 24 is still
2
pending. Kerri and I discussed continuing the trial to August 24, when Andy was first
available, as well as continuing our discovery deadlines without issuing new discovery,
and a reciprocal 30 day extension of each sides’ responses to written discovery.
We just received from Kerri’s office Metro’s joinder in multiple discovery requests
issued by the Individual Defendants, which is technically new discovery.
Though I do not believe it constitutes new discovery requested from the Defendants,
please be advised that Able reserves the right to supplement its expert witness
disclosure in light of Defendants’ expert disclosures.
I would appreciate it if both of you would let me know forthwith if you agree to the
extensions we discussed.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff Chanin
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
415 990 2299 mobile | 415 391 5400 main
jchanin@keker.com | vcard | keker.com
From: Simoncini & Associates
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Jeff Chanin
Cc: Edward A. Bayley ; Gavin M. Thole ; Jay Rapaport
; Niall M. Roberts ; Michelle Ybarra ;
acastricone@grsm.com
Subject: Crown Building Maintenance v. Metro Services Group
[EXTERNAL]
Please see attached correspondence.
Thank you,
Deirdre Dineson
Assistant to Kerri A. Johnson
3
SIMONCINI & ASSOCIATES
1694 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Tel. 408-280-7711
4
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
STATEWIDE ORDER BY HON. TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE,
CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA AND CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
MARCH 23, 2020
The World Health Organization, the United States Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and the State of California have recognized that the world, country,
and state face a life-threatening pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus. As of March
23, 2020, the CDC reported that there are more than 40,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases
in the United States, and more than 500 deaths. In California, the Department of Public
Health reports more than 1,700 confirmed cases and more than 30 deaths. Health
officials expect these figures to rise dramatically unless the population adheres to shelter-
in-place guidelines and appropriate social distancing. As of this date, there is no known
cure or vaccination.
In response to the spread of COVID-19, Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, declared a
state of emergency in California, which was followed on March 13, 2020, by President
Trump declaring a national emergency. Beginning on March 16, 2020, California
counties began issuing shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders. On March 19, 2020,
Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, requiring all Californians to stay
home, subject to certain limited exemptions. Courts are included in this exemption.
Schools have been closed statewide.
The CDC, the California Department of Public Health, and local county health departments
have recommended increasingly stringent social distancing measures of at least six feet
between people, and encouraged vulnerable individuals to avoid public spaces.
Courts cannot comply with these health restrictions and continue to operate as they have
in the past. Court proceedings require gatherings of court staff, litigants, attorneys,
witnesses, and juries, well in excess of the numbers allowed for gathering under current
executive and health orders. Many court facilities in California are ill-equipped to
effectively allow the social distancing and other public health requirements required
to protect people involved in court proceedings and prevent the further spread of
COVID-19. Even if court facilities could allow for sufficient social distancing, the
closure of schools means that many court employees, litigants, witnesses, and potential
jurors cannot leave their homes to attend court proceedings because they must stay home
to supervise their children. These restrictions have also made it nearly impossible for
courts to assemble juries.
Pursuant to my authority under the California Constitution, article VI, section 6 and
Government Code section 68115, and after careful consideration, balancing the
constitutional due process rights of parties in both criminal and civil proceedings with
the health and safety of these parties, the public, court staff, judicial officers, attorneys,
witnesses, jurors, and others present at these proceedings, among other considerations,
I find good cause to order that:
1. All jury trials are suspended and continued for a period of sixty (60) days from the
date of this order. Courts may conduct such a trial at an earlier date, upon a finding of
good cause shown or through the use of remote technology, when appropriate.
2. The time period provided in Penal Code section 1382 for the holding of a criminal
trial is extended for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this order. Courts
may conduct such a trial at an earlier date, upon a finding of good cause shown or
through the use of remote technology, when appropriate.
3. The time period provided in Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.320
for the holding of a civil trial is extended for a period of sixty (60) days from the date
of this order. Courts may conduct such a trial at an earlier date, upon a finding of
good cause shown or through the use of remote technology, when appropriate.
4. All superior courts are authorized under rule 10.613(i) of the California Rules of
Court to adopt any proposed rules or rule amendment that is intended to address the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to take effect immediately, without advance
circulation for 45 days of public comment. A court adopting any such rule change
must provide a copy to Judicial Council staff and post notice of the change
prominently on the court’s website, along with the effective date of the new or
Page 2 of 3
amended rule. Additionally, the court must immediately distribute the new or
amended rule as set forth in rule 10.613(g)(2). No litigant’s substantive rights shall be
prejudiced for failing to comply with the requirements of a new or amended rule until
at least 20 days after the rule change has been distributed.
Courts are urged to timely communicate with attorneys and self-represented litigants
regarding the status of pending proceedings.
I reserve the authority to rescind or modify this order, as appropriate, to address changing
circumstances. This order may be deemed part of the record in affected cases for
purposes of appeal without the need to file the order in each case.
Date: March 23, 2020
____________________________
Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Chief Justice of California and
Chair of the Judicial Council
Page 3 of 3
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 3-26-2020 March 26, 2020
BEFORE ADR SERVICES, INC. 1 (Continued from Page 2)
--o0o--
2
3 The Discovery ADR SERVICES, INC.
CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE,
INC., a California Referee: BY: HON. KEVIN J. MURPHY
corporation d/b/a ABLE
4 ATTORNEY AT LAW
BUILDING MAINTENANCE, (Appearing Telephonically)
CASE NO. CGC-18-566118 5 152 North 3rd Street
Plaintiff, ADRS NO. 19-3525-KJM Suite 603
vs. 6 San Jose, California 95112
METRO SERVICES GROUP, JEFF
(408) 293-1113
DACHENHAUS, MARK NOLAN, and
DEREK SCHULZE,
7 kmurphy@adrservices.com
Defendants.
8 --o0o--
9
______________________________/
10
11
12
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 13
14
15
16
DATE: March 26, 2020
TIME: 8:06 a.m. 17
LOCATION: ADR SERVICES, INC. 18
152 North 3rd Street 19
Suite 603 20
San Jose, California 95112 21
22
23
REPORTED BY: BENJAMIN GERALD
California CSR No. 14203 24
Washington CSR No. 3468 25
1 3
1 APPEARANCES 1 THE DISCOVERY REFEREE: This is the matter of
2 For the Plaintiff:
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS
BY: JEFFREY R. CHANIN
2 Crown Building Maintenance, Incorporated, doing business
3 ATTORNEY AT LAW 3 as Able Building Maintenance; versus Metro Services
(Appearing Telephonically)
4 633 Battery Street 4 Group and the individual defendants, Jeff Dachenhaus,
San Francisco, California 94111
5 (415) 391-5400 5 Mark Nolan, and Derek Schulze. This is Superior Court
jchanin@keker.com
6
6 case number CGC-18-566118.
7 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS 7 I am Judge Kevin Murphy, a retired Superior
BY: MICHELLE YBARRA
8 ATTORNEY AT LAW 8 Court judge that has been appointed as discovery
(Appearing Telephonically)
9 633 Battery Street
9 referee.
San Francisco, California 94111 10 At this time, please, if I could ask counsel to
10 (415) 676-2271
mybarra@keker.com 11 state their appearances for the record, beginning with
11
12 12 the plaintiff.
13 For the Defendant
SIMONCINI & ASSOCIATES
Metro Services
BY: KERRI A. JOHNSON
13 MR. CHANIN: Good morning, everybody.
14 Group: ATTORNEY AT LAW 14 Jeffrey Chanin of Keker, Van Nest & Peters on behalf of
(Appearing Telephonically)
15 1694 The Alameda 15 Crown Building Maintenance doing business as Able.
San Jose, California 95126
16 (408) 280-7711
16 MS. YBARRA: Good morning, Your Honor.
kds@simoncini-law.com
17
17 Michelle Ybarra from Keker, Van Nest & Peters, also on
18 18 behalf of Able.
For the Defendants
GORDON & REES LLP
19 Jeff Dachenhaus,
BY: ANDREW D. CASTRICONE 19 MR. CASTRICONE: Good morning, Your Honor.
Mark Nolan, and
ATTORNEY AT LAW
20 Derek Schulze:
(Appearing Telephonically)
20 Andrew Castricone for defendants Dachenhaus, Schulze,
275 Battery Street 21 and Nolan.
21 Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111 22 MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. Kerri Johnson for
22 (415) 875-3183
acastricone@grsm.com
23 defendant Metro Services Group.
23
24
24 MS. CLIFFORD: Good morning, Your Honor.
(Continued on Page 3) 25 Joyce Clifford on behalf of Metro Services Group.
25 --o0o--
2 4
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
BELL & MYERS COURT REPORTERS AND LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHERS 408-287-7500
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 3-26-2020 March 26, 2020
1 THE DISCOVERY REFEREE: All right. Once again,1 have been presented, since you joined in the motion, at
2 good morning to you all. There are two motions to be
2 the time it was originally filed on March the 17th.
3 addressed. I suggest we begin with the defendant's
3 Not only that, this isn't the first time you've
4 motion to compel depositions. 4 done something similar. If I could refer to the
5 Before I invite counsel to make any 5 Discovery Order Number 4, you'll note a reference to the
6 supplemental arguments they wish to make, I want to
6 fact that you attempted to introduce evidence during the
7 7 motion itself, which was not proper.
assure you all that I've had the opportunity to read all
8 the briefs, including material that came in yesterday,
8 So I'm going to grant the motion by plaintiff
9 so I'm familiar with your respective positions. 9 to strike the declarations. They will not be
10 Again, before I invite counsel to argue on this
10 considered.
11 motion, I have a couple of initial questions. Once
11 That issue aside, I want to ask a question of
12 they're answered, then of course, you can say whatever
12 Metro's counsel, and once I get the answer to the
13 you wish. 13 question, then please, I will invite you to additional
14 The motion to compel was filed, as you know, on
14 argument.
15 March 17th by Metro. It was joined by the individual
15 With reference to the depositions that are the
16 defendants on that date. As part of the initial motion
16 subject of your motion, are you agreeable to all of
17 that was filed on that date, there was a declaration
17 those depositions being taken remotely?
18 that was offered on behalf of Metro. There was no
18 MS. JOHNSON: I would say some of them.
19 evidence presented by individual defendants. 19 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Is this Ms. Johnson?
20 Yesterday, after 5:00 o'clock, I received from
20 MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
21 Mr. Castricone, and I assume other counsel did, four
21 Kerri Johnson for Metro.
22 declarations that were submitted, at least to me, for
22 Ideally we'd like to take them in person, but I
23 the very first time on the eve before our 8:00 o'clock
23 think there probably are some of them that we could take
24 motion. 24 remotely. The ones that we would probably not want to