arrow left
arrow right
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. VS. METRO SERVICES GROUP ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
						
                                

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