Preview
OOO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-30-2012 4:00 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-500934
Filing Date: Oct-30-2012 3:57
Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03823298
MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC)
CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND
XIANG ZHANG et al
, 001003823298
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO wm ND HW BF WN
1B
14
Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) PILL dh. D
Tancisco
Scott Nenni (SBN 280990)
CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Ve SCT 30 2012
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 RK
Oakland, CA 94612 By Mao hE Court
Telephone: (510) 832-1686 ba
Fax: (510) 251-1155 Puty Clerk
Attorney for Defendants/Cross
Complainants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 - 500934
Corporation,
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
Plaintiff, LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT
WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT
EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610],
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al.,_ | DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI
Defendants.
DISCOVERY
Date: November 26, 2012
Time: 9:00
Dept.: 302
Complaint filed: June 22, 2010
-l-
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants/Cross-Complainants Raymond Zhang et al.
will move the Court at the above date and time for an order granting leave to submit tardy
expert witness information, and/or to augment a previously submitted expert list. This motion
is made under Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §2034.710 and §2034.610 on the grounds that insufficient
time has passed since the initial deadline for the opposing party to have detrimentally relied on
the absence of a list of expert witnesses; the opposing party will not be prejudiced, as expert
discovery has not yet begun and ample time remains for expert depositions; the Defendants’
tardy submission is excusable conduct.
This motion is based on this notice, the attached supporting memorandum, the attached
declaration of Scott Nenni, the attached demand for exchange of expert witness list and
subsequent party disclosures, all pleadings, records and files in this action and further oral and
| documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing on this motion.
Date: October 30, 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
by 22
Scott Nenni
Attorney for Defendants,
Raymond Zhang, et al.
-1-
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]CS Om ND HW FF YW NY =
27
OAKLAND, Ca 94612
(so) 83-1088
4 PP
Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) ¥ J dase
Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) a
CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. oct 302
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 T
Oakland, CA 94612 RK
Telephone: (510) 832-1686 cLER Ove Deputy Clerk
Fax: (510) 251-1155 BY:
Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 — 500934
Corporation,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY
EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP
Plaintiff, §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP §
2034.610], DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI
v.
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al, | DISCOVERY
Date: November 26, 2012
Time: 9:00
Defendants. Dept.: 302
Complaint filed: June 22, 2010
INTRODUCTION
Defendants should be granted leave to submit tardy expert witness information, and/or to
augment a previously submitted expert list. Either way, the total number of expert witnesses for
Defendants would be three at most, and would not create a large impact on Plaintiff's trial
preparation. Defendants meet all requirements under CCP §2034.720, and effectively though not
technically comply with the requirements under CCP §2034.620: Insufficient time has passed
since the initial deadline for the opposing party to have detrimentally relied on the absence of a
list of expert witnesses; the opposing party will not be prejudiced, as expert discovery has not yet
1
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27
OAKLAND, Ca 94612
(S10) 832-1606
begun and ample time remains for expert depositions; the Defendants’ tardy submission is
excusable for a variety of reasons discussed below, and Defendants have moved to remedy as
promptly as possible given the circumstances.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff served its Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Lists via mail on September
19, 2012, thereby making the date of the exchange October 15, 2012'. Plaintiff served their
expert witness list via mail on October 12, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, §3. After difficulties in finding
an expert willing to be involved in this litigation, counsel for Defendants obtained a cultural
expert on October 18, 2012 and served notice with the required declaration on counsel for
Plaintiff on the same date. Decl. of Nenni, 4. Plaintiff then demanded on October 22, 2012 that
Defendants withdraw their expert witness list, and filed their motion to strike the expert witness
list on October 23, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, §5.
Defendants attempted to meet & confer with Plaintiff to resolve this matter informally,
through a letter sent to Plaintiff on October 24, 2012, via email, fax, and U.S. mail. Decl. of
Nenni, §6. Plaintiff, however, was not amenable to this effort, as stated in their response, sent via
fax on October 25. Decl. of Nenni, §7. Plaintiff did not identify any instance of reliance,
detrimental or otherwise, nor did they identify any prejudicial impact of late expert witness
designation. Decl. of Nenni, {9. In addition, at the requests of counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant’s
counsel in good faith has rescheduled multiple depositions just this week, and also agreed to
Plaintiff's request to conduct non-expert depositions after the regular discovery cut-off. Decl. of
Nenni, 16.
Defendants have already submitted one expert witness list. Decl. of Nenni, §11.
Although submitted late, it was submitted merely three business days after the deadline, and
could not have harmed or prejudiced Plaintiff in any way as expert discovery has not yet begun,
and there is a month remaining to conduct but a few depositions of Defendants’ experts, if
' Plaintiff apparently made a calendaring error, demanding the exchange be made on October 12, 2012 in the body of
their document, not the 15", which is 20 days after service.
2
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710};,
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(ei0) 932-1606
Plaintiff even so desires”. Any delay was caused, as discussed at length below, by the excusable
neglect of the Defendants’ counsel, and by the total unwillingness of Plaintiff to comply with
discovery laws and thus apprise Defendants of their expert witness needs. Decl. of Nenni, { 14,
15. Defendants now seek to augment their previously-submitted expert witness list with an
appraisal expert, and a banking finance expert, bringing the total amount of expert witnesses to
three. Decl. of Nenni, 13. Well over three weeks remain for conducting depositions, a task
which neither party has yet begun. Decl. of Nenni, 417.
ARGUMENT
Defendants intend to call on only three expert witnesses, one of whom has already been
identified. Expert discovery has not yet commenced, and over three weeks remain for Plaintiff to
depose expert witnesses. As such, Plaintiff will be unable to show detrimental reliance on a lack
of expert witness list; and, Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice moving forward, as Plaintiff has
ample time and resources to conduct depositions.
CCP §§ 2034.620 and 2034.720 use the same legal standards in addressing when and
whether courts may grant leave to augment or belatedly submit expert witness lists: “(a) The
court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a
list of expert witnesses; (b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not
be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.” Thus, the first two
subsections can be summarized as (a) reliance, and (b) prejudice. Next, courts assess whether
the moving party: “(1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect. (2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning
of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (3) Promptly thereafter served a
copy of the proposed expert witness information described in Section 2034.260 on all other
parties who have appeared in the action.” CCP § 2034.620(c); CCP §2034.720(c).” Finally, any
order granting leave is conditioned on the moving party making any newly-listed expert witness
? Plaintiff has not noticed Defendants designated cultural expert.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27
OAKLAND, Ca 94612
(510) 832-1606
immediately available for deposition by the nonmoving party. CCP §2034.620(d); CCP
§2034.720(d).
Defendants’ submission of expert witnesses is late because Defendants had difficulty
locating experts willing to testify as witnesses, inadvertent and excusable neglect at worst.
Moreover, much difficulty stemmed from Plaintiff's persistent refusal to engage in any
meaningful discovery, requiring Defendants to bring no less than four motions to compel
discovery responses*. Plaintiff's near total lack of discovery responses left Defendants unable to
timely assess its needs for expert testimony in particular areas. Here, after sifting through a
disorganized, incomplete, and partially-delayed production of documents that in no way
complied with relevant discovery laws pertaining to document production, Defendants gleaned
several likely improprieties concerning appraisals of several properties at issue in this litigation.
Properties appeared to have been reappraised at increasingly low values, without explanation and
disproportionate to any market fluctuations, even during the recession which occurred during the
relevant time period. Consequently, Defendants seek to retain an appraisal expert. Due to
Plaintiff's refusal to identify responsive documents, produce all documents in a timely manner, or
produce documents in an organized fashion as required by law, Defendants cannot reasonably be
expected to have become aware of the need to retain an appraisal expert earlier. Any blame
belongs to counsel, and the actual party should not be prevented from offering expert testimony.
Defendants have moved to remedy any deficiencies as promptly as possible, by offering
an expert witness list three days after the deadline, and by otherwise identifying expert witnesses
as soon as practicable after the need became apparent. Plaintiff's own disclosure lists three
‘potential’ experts who have not been retained, provides no category of testimony each expects to
give, nor provides a bio. Plaintiff cannot make a good faith argument that Defendants have
prejudiced Plaintiff's trial preparation while acting in the same manner.
> Defendants have overwhelmingly prevailed on the three motions to compel that have been heard; the fourth is
pending hearing.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]1 Moreover, the Defendants will make the newly-added expert witness immediately
2 || available for deposition, thus complying with subsections (d) of both CCP §§2034.620,
3 || 2034.720.
4 CONCLUSION
5 For all the reasons stated above, Defendants request this motion for leave to submit tardy
6 || expert witness list under CCP §2034.710, and/or motion to request leave to augment a witness
7 || list under CCP §2034.610 be granted.
8
9 Dated: October 30 » 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES
10
By: A
i Scott Nenni
Attorney for Defendants and Cross-
12 Complainants,
B RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(S10) 632-1686 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]
Preview
OOO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-30-2012 4:00 pm Case Number: CGC-10-500934 Filing Date: Oct-30-2012 3:57 Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN Juke Box: 001 Image: 03823298 MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC) CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND XIANG ZHANG et al , 001003823298 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO wm ND HW BF WN 1B 14 Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) PILL dh. D Tancisco Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Ve SCT 30 2012 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 RK Oakland, CA 94612 By Mao hE Court Telephone: (510) 832-1686 ba Fax: (510) 251-1155 Puty Clerk Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 - 500934 Corporation, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR Plaintiff, LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610], RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al.,_ | DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI Defendants. DISCOVERY Date: November 26, 2012 Time: 9:00 Dept.: 302 Complaint filed: June 22, 2010 -l- NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants/Cross-Complainants Raymond Zhang et al. will move the Court at the above date and time for an order granting leave to submit tardy expert witness information, and/or to augment a previously submitted expert list. This motion is made under Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §2034.710 and §2034.610 on the grounds that insufficient time has passed since the initial deadline for the opposing party to have detrimentally relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses; the opposing party will not be prejudiced, as expert discovery has not yet begun and ample time remains for expert depositions; the Defendants’ tardy submission is excusable conduct. This motion is based on this notice, the attached supporting memorandum, the attached declaration of Scott Nenni, the attached demand for exchange of expert witness list and subsequent party disclosures, all pleadings, records and files in this action and further oral and | documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing on this motion. Date: October 30, 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. by 22 Scott Nenni Attorney for Defendants, Raymond Zhang, et al. -1- NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]CS Om ND HW FF YW NY = 27 OAKLAND, Ca 94612 (so) 83-1088 4 PP Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) ¥ J dase Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) a CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. oct 302 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 T Oakland, CA 94612 RK Telephone: (510) 832-1686 cLER Ove Deputy Clerk Fax: (510) 251-1155 BY: Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 — 500934 Corporation, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP Plaintiff, §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610], DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI v. RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al, | DISCOVERY Date: November 26, 2012 Time: 9:00 Defendants. Dept.: 302 Complaint filed: June 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION Defendants should be granted leave to submit tardy expert witness information, and/or to augment a previously submitted expert list. Either way, the total number of expert witnesses for Defendants would be three at most, and would not create a large impact on Plaintiff's trial preparation. Defendants meet all requirements under CCP §2034.720, and effectively though not technically comply with the requirements under CCP §2034.620: Insufficient time has passed since the initial deadline for the opposing party to have detrimentally relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses; the opposing party will not be prejudiced, as expert discovery has not yet 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27 OAKLAND, Ca 94612 (S10) 832-1606 begun and ample time remains for expert depositions; the Defendants’ tardy submission is excusable for a variety of reasons discussed below, and Defendants have moved to remedy as promptly as possible given the circumstances. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff served its Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Lists via mail on September 19, 2012, thereby making the date of the exchange October 15, 2012'. Plaintiff served their expert witness list via mail on October 12, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, §3. After difficulties in finding an expert willing to be involved in this litigation, counsel for Defendants obtained a cultural expert on October 18, 2012 and served notice with the required declaration on counsel for Plaintiff on the same date. Decl. of Nenni, 4. Plaintiff then demanded on October 22, 2012 that Defendants withdraw their expert witness list, and filed their motion to strike the expert witness list on October 23, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, §5. Defendants attempted to meet & confer with Plaintiff to resolve this matter informally, through a letter sent to Plaintiff on October 24, 2012, via email, fax, and U.S. mail. Decl. of Nenni, §6. Plaintiff, however, was not amenable to this effort, as stated in their response, sent via fax on October 25. Decl. of Nenni, §7. Plaintiff did not identify any instance of reliance, detrimental or otherwise, nor did they identify any prejudicial impact of late expert witness designation. Decl. of Nenni, {9. In addition, at the requests of counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant’s counsel in good faith has rescheduled multiple depositions just this week, and also agreed to Plaintiff's request to conduct non-expert depositions after the regular discovery cut-off. Decl. of Nenni, 16. Defendants have already submitted one expert witness list. Decl. of Nenni, §11. Although submitted late, it was submitted merely three business days after the deadline, and could not have harmed or prejudiced Plaintiff in any way as expert discovery has not yet begun, and there is a month remaining to conduct but a few depositions of Defendants’ experts, if ' Plaintiff apparently made a calendaring error, demanding the exchange be made on October 12, 2012 in the body of their document, not the 15", which is 20 days after service. 2 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710};, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (ei0) 932-1606 Plaintiff even so desires”. Any delay was caused, as discussed at length below, by the excusable neglect of the Defendants’ counsel, and by the total unwillingness of Plaintiff to comply with discovery laws and thus apprise Defendants of their expert witness needs. Decl. of Nenni, { 14, 15. Defendants now seek to augment their previously-submitted expert witness list with an appraisal expert, and a banking finance expert, bringing the total amount of expert witnesses to three. Decl. of Nenni, 13. Well over three weeks remain for conducting depositions, a task which neither party has yet begun. Decl. of Nenni, 417. ARGUMENT Defendants intend to call on only three expert witnesses, one of whom has already been identified. Expert discovery has not yet commenced, and over three weeks remain for Plaintiff to depose expert witnesses. As such, Plaintiff will be unable to show detrimental reliance on a lack of expert witness list; and, Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice moving forward, as Plaintiff has ample time and resources to conduct depositions. CCP §§ 2034.620 and 2034.720 use the same legal standards in addressing when and whether courts may grant leave to augment or belatedly submit expert witness lists: “(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the absence of a list of expert witnesses; (b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.” Thus, the first two subsections can be summarized as (a) reliance, and (b) prejudice. Next, courts assess whether the moving party: “(1) Failed to submit the information as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (2) Sought leave to submit the information promptly after learning of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (3) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.” CCP § 2034.620(c); CCP §2034.720(c).” Finally, any order granting leave is conditioned on the moving party making any newly-listed expert witness ? Plaintiff has not noticed Defendants designated cultural expert. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27 OAKLAND, Ca 94612 (510) 832-1606 immediately available for deposition by the nonmoving party. CCP §2034.620(d); CCP §2034.720(d). Defendants’ submission of expert witnesses is late because Defendants had difficulty locating experts willing to testify as witnesses, inadvertent and excusable neglect at worst. Moreover, much difficulty stemmed from Plaintiff's persistent refusal to engage in any meaningful discovery, requiring Defendants to bring no less than four motions to compel discovery responses*. Plaintiff's near total lack of discovery responses left Defendants unable to timely assess its needs for expert testimony in particular areas. Here, after sifting through a disorganized, incomplete, and partially-delayed production of documents that in no way complied with relevant discovery laws pertaining to document production, Defendants gleaned several likely improprieties concerning appraisals of several properties at issue in this litigation. Properties appeared to have been reappraised at increasingly low values, without explanation and disproportionate to any market fluctuations, even during the recession which occurred during the relevant time period. Consequently, Defendants seek to retain an appraisal expert. Due to Plaintiff's refusal to identify responsive documents, produce all documents in a timely manner, or produce documents in an organized fashion as required by law, Defendants cannot reasonably be expected to have become aware of the need to retain an appraisal expert earlier. Any blame belongs to counsel, and the actual party should not be prevented from offering expert testimony. Defendants have moved to remedy any deficiencies as promptly as possible, by offering an expert witness list three days after the deadline, and by otherwise identifying expert witnesses as soon as practicable after the need became apparent. Plaintiff's own disclosure lists three ‘potential’ experts who have not been retained, provides no category of testimony each expects to give, nor provides a bio. Plaintiff cannot make a good faith argument that Defendants have prejudiced Plaintiff's trial preparation while acting in the same manner. > Defendants have overwhelmingly prevailed on the three motions to compel that have been heard; the fourth is pending hearing. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]1 Moreover, the Defendants will make the newly-added expert witness immediately 2 || available for deposition, thus complying with subsections (d) of both CCP §§2034.620, 3 || 2034.720. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For all the reasons stated above, Defendants request this motion for leave to submit tardy 6 || expert witness list under CCP §2034.710, and/or motion to request leave to augment a witness 7 || list under CCP §2034.610 be granted. 8 9 Dated: October 30 » 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES 10 By: A i Scott Nenni Attorney for Defendants and Cross- 12 Complainants, B RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (S10) 632-1686 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]