Preview
DUN
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-18-2013 08:19 am
Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Filing Date: May-09-2013 08:18 am
Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04130306
DECLARATION OF
JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION,
Aetal
001004130306
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) Superior Gott of Cul: n
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES County of San Francis
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123 MAY 09 2013
Tel: (415) 673-0555 CLERK OF THE COUR
Fax: (415) 928-4084 BY: > Meter
Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, Deputy Clerk
BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK McDANIELS and the SAN
FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH Case No. CGC — 10 -501168
OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH
LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually Declaration of David Wong In Support of
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Opposition To San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s
DSA Notice Of Motion to Disqualify Counsel
Plaintiffs,
v.
Date: May 24, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S DSA, Time: 9:30 a.m.
a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN Dept: 302
FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, DAVID WONG, an individual,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN
SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK
McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
iit
Mit
Mt
MI]
Mf
Ml
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 1
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27
28
I, David Wong, declare
1.
. I became a Deputy Sheriff from October 29, 1990 until May of 2011.
. [joined the Deputy Sheriffs DSA of City and County of San Francisco (DSA), our union after
. I was elected to the position of President of the DSA and served as President from 2002 to 2009,
. I participated in negotiation and bargaining on behalf of the deputy sheriffs throughout the eight
. Lalso have experience in entering a few ‘Settlement Agreements’ where both sides must abide by|
. When I signed it I read Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement which both sides agreed to
DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG
Iam one of the defendants in this action. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge
unless stated otherwise.
becoming a Deputy Sheriff. In 1997 I was elected to the position of Treasurer and served in that
capacity until elected President of the DSA in 2002.
and served with compensation permitted by DSA members and the Board of Directors.
A. Settlement Agreement
years as president of the DSA.
the term and conditions of that said agreements.
I believed that the comprehensive Settlement Agreement that I signed on February 18, 2013, in
this matter, attached as Exhibit 1, to the Murray Declaration, settled all claims known and
unknown matters between myself, the Foundation and the DSA, and that this type of motion to
defeat the obligation of attorney fees would not be permitted.
‘unconditionally, irrevocably, and absolutely releases and discharges the David Wong and the
SFDSF, as well as any of its present or former employees, officers, agents, attorneys, affiliates,
successors, assigns and any other representative of the SFDSA (collectively "Released Parties")
from all causes of action, judgments, liens, indebtedness, damages, losses, claims, liabilities, and|
demands of any kind, known or unknown, including attorneys’ fees and costs, ... arising from, or
in way related to the allegations in Pecot II, the Trademark Action and the Conversion Action.
I also was under the belief that any dispute known and unknown matter shall be present to
Retired Judge Cahill of JAMS (see Title D of the Settlement Agreement), no longer in Court.
Mit
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel10.
11.
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
17.
The DSA Never Retained or Refer Any Representation Case To Murray and Associates
I did not know Larry Murray prior to becoming an officer of the DSA. It was only when I
became an officer of the DSA, including Shop Steward (as known as a member of the board of
director), the Treasurer and then the President of the DSA did I get to meet him.
In all the years that I have been with the DSA, I have never, nor did the DSA officers or Board of
Directors refer any administrative, civil or criminal cases to Mr. Murray and his office. And this
never happened in the eight years I was president. The matters which he did pick up was on his
own and without any referral from the DSA.
In fact, since he represented members who were not necessarily pleased with the DSA, on several
occasions in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the Board of Directors, the Operating Engineers Local 3
representative lively discussions occurred and I evicted Mr. Murray from the DSA office. One o
those occasions was at the request of our own attorneys, the Mastagni firm.
There was no relationship by and between the DSA and Murray’s firm prior to or during his
taking my case to defend on cases 1, 2,3 and 4. As President then and now as a member of the
Board of Directors under our Bylaws, at no time before, during or after any of these cases has the
Murray Firm or the Bosworth firm ever represented the DSA.
For years the firms that represented the DSA have been many, but never the Murray Firm or the
Bosworth firm.
C. Ongaro’s Firm Was Hired To Represent The DSA And Murray Was Hired By Officers,
With The Authorization To Pay DSA From Resolution of the Board
The Board of Directors, (“board”) in 2008 determined that both individual officers and the DSA
required separate and independent legal representation to defend Pecot I, case #1.
When we got the first suit, we, the DSA Board, held a special meeting of the Board. (The DSA is
tun by the Board of Directors) The special meeting took place in November 2008 and presided
over not by me, (as I was a defendant) but by then Vice President Scott Osha to hold the meeting.
Thus, as a result of the discussions at that meeting there was a resolution of the Board passed
with authorized the DSA to pay for separate and independent legal representation of the
individual officers and separate legal representation of the DSA. A true and correct copy of the
resolution of the Board authorizing that separate and independent representation and that the
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 3
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27
28
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
DSA would be responsible for the payments of fees is attached to the Murray Declaration as
Exhibit 2.
As one of the defendants, I and the other individual officers, the others being the current and past
Treasurers named in the Pecot I, met with several legal firms. After those meetings we chose
Murray and Associates while the DSA hired David Ongaro and his firm to represent the DSA.
Since the original retention of the Murray firm, he has represented me in three other suits that
followed. From my position as President and then as a member of the Board of Directors, I have
observed that Murray has not received any other referrals from the DSA nor has he represented
the DSA in any manner.
D. Meeting With DSA Along With Other Attorneys Regarding Defense To Pecot II
Mr. Murray represent the individuals, Mr. Ongaro representing the Foundation, Mr. Harry Sterns
along with Ms. Smith represented the DSA met in the DSA with Mr. Don Wilson, the DSA
President and me after the Pecot II state lawsuit served all the parties. We meet in the DSA
office which was close to the court after a court appearance.
Mr. Murray asked Mr. Ongaro, Mr. Sterns and Ms. Smith to work collaboratively getting Anti-
SLAPP motion for the lawsuit.
All the other counsels did not want to participate in the Anti-SLAPP motion. Murray argued that|
this case could be over before it gets started because the claims in the suit are all about advocacy
in elections and other procedures.
The other attorneys for the DSA agreed that Mr. Murray should move forward with the Anti-
SLAPP motion but that they did not want any part of it. The motion won.
In every case, Murray has consistently stated on the record and in his pleadings that the Murray
firm represents myself and the other individual DSA officers defendants. He has never given me,
any reason to think that he represents the DSA in any manner at any time.
In each of my discussions with Michael Bosworth, I have been consistently clear that he is
retained to represent the Foundation only. Murray would have no taint in dealing with Bosworth
as he has never represented the DSA.
E. Bosworth Hired To Work For And Represent The Foundation
I was referred to Mr. Michael Bosworth from an attorney friend.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 4
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
I was also the President of the Foundation in 2005 when I asked Mr. Bosworth to activate “Shop
With a Deputy Sheriff trademark. From the outset of my discussions with Mr. Bosworth and
throughout all of them. After that, he was told by me that he represented and worked for the
foundation. Mr. Bosworth was paid exclusively from foundation funds held in the name of the
“Project Fund.”
The findings of the Special Litigation Committee and the prior investigating committee both
found that are having set up the Foundation, collected money and donations on behalf of the
Foundation, segregating that money into the “Project Fund” and paying for the Foundation
expenses independently from DSA funds in a separate account call the Project Fund, was proper
and that there was no violation or wrongdoing. (See Murray Declaration, Exhibit Four,
Declaration of Marcia Pollioni, Exhibits 1 and 2, Sections in each referring to the “Project
Fund”.)
In their motion, the DSA tends to suggest that Mr. Bosworth was hired by the DSA and paid for
by the DSA. This is not accurate.
land the Board of the Foundation hired him for the Foundation and the Foundation alone. I
caused him to be paid from the account that was money brought in as Foundation contributions
and paid out for Foundation expenses. It was never money taken into or paid from the DSA
general fund. His sole and exclusive client has always been the Foundation.
Mr. Bosworth has never represented the DSA.
Mr. Murray stated he needed guidance in case number three a Trademark case. Murray asked
who had performed the trademark work on behalf of the Foundation. I explained that it was Mr.
Bosworth. He asked to meet Mr. Bosworth and talk to him, much like anyone would talk to an
expert witness, or consultant. I drove Mr. Murray to Mr. Bosworth’s office and made the
introduction. I facilitated discussion that enabled the two of them to work together. That was
accomplished as part of preparing for and representation in case number three the trademark
case.
Mit
/il
Mt
Mit
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 5
‘Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27
28
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
F. Inconsistency of Minutes Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Disqualification,
Especially Where My Lawyer And I Had Nothing To Do With The Creation And
Storage Of The Document And The Minutes In Issue Accurately Reflect The Meeting
Where The DSA Board Discussion Of Separating From OE3 And Hiring Mastagni
Keeping the DSA records was a huge task for all the officers and the shop stewards. With over
800 members and thousands of events each year, we needed to get on top of the collection,
storage, labeling, and retrieval of the records from the point they came in or were created to their
search and retrieval.
I advocated that as part of the record keeping process, we utilize a method to centralize the
records by scanning them to, or creating and transferring them to a network server. I would like
to think that this was accomplished during my Presidency.
Even with that process, we were not able to centralize all of our records. As the President, I was
but one of the individuals who captured created and maintained records. I was not the only one.
On the claims by the DSA in their motion to disqualify my lawyer, the DSA complains that I
presented an altered board of directors minutes. They argue that the event never occurred. They
claim that the event was central to the case. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, I did not alter any documents.
What is key here is that the DSA lawyer, not understanding the process we use back when I was
President, assumes that if there’s more than one version that it was a forgery, and that the forgery
was done by me. Both assumptions were and are in error. And, regardless, none of this has
anything to do with my attorney.
First and foremost the document in issue here came from our server. Anyone of the individuals,
including secretaries, having access to the server could have, and did create minutes of meetings.
During the time that I was President, board minutes and resolutions are written by the Secretary
of the DSA, not by me. The minutes would be amended, updated, and modified by the secretary
at various times consistent with the practices of making sure that all relevant material was
contained in the minutes. This is also true for the minutes in issue in this particular setting.
Different Secretary would do their task and saving the records in different style.
It was not my job to create minutes of meetings and I did not in the instance in which is in issue.
Additionally, the documents that I presented as accurate or presented because I believe them to
be accurate, and still believe them to be accurate and complete. Other versions, which did not
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 6
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Si.
52.
have reference to the OE#3 discussion were likely not complete at the time they were left on the
computer or printed.
During the course of discovery in Pecot I, if there was any error or modification in the document,
or the failure to finalize the document, I would not begin and end my analysis that it was
intentional. Also, the modifications may well have been from others because the document was
in a word format. One way or another did not happen in my hand, and more importantly, the
events reported did occur.
I took the minutes from the documents we got as discovery in Pecot I. I did not modify the
minutes nor did I alter it.
There were different minutes which were updated at various times while I was president. On
occasion, modifications were necessary when we saw that the secretary forgot an item or two.
For example, November 14, 2007 has two minutes, one has hand written ‘corrected’ and I would
not even know which minutes were handed out the board.
According to the DSA motion to disqualify my lawyer, they seek to use minutes to disqualify my
attorney. My attorney had absolutely nothing to do with creation, retention, or retrieval of the
document.
Regardless, the information which I presented in my prior exhibit, which centers around whether
or not there was a discussion on May 14 2008, and a discussion to separate from OE#3 replacing
that entity with the Mustang the law firm, ever occurred.
The other documents which would have been created support the notion that we did have that
discussion.
When we prepare for meetings we print agendas. The agenda is stored on the computer also. The|
5/14/2008 agenda did reflect the OE#3 matter was discussed and the vote to hire Mastagni law
firm did occurred. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Agenda for
that meeting demonstrating that OE#3 was on the list of items we were to talk about. I know
that we talked about it because I was there.
The minutes I presented in my May 3, 2011, declaration was the completed minutes which has
the vote regarding PORAC and the LDF, and the board vote to hire Mastagni, as I got them from
the discovery from the DSA in Pecot I.
And as a result of the discussion before the board, we took the action discussed, separating from
OE three and hiring mistake me.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 7
‘Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27
28
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
I was not the only witness present in that meeting. There were a number of witnesses present
during the meeting, and at least two of them that I have contacted indicate that they recall the
discussion on May 14, 2008, in which OE#3 was replaced by the Mastagni law firm.
My attorney was not present at the meeting, did not prepare any documents, did not even know
about the meeting prior to its occurrence or.after until it was subject of a lawsuit.
According to the motion to disqualify my lawyer, this is one of the basis to remove Murray from
my case. My lawyers, the subject of this motion to disqualify him, having had nothing to do with]
this.
Suffice to say, there was a discussion. According to our notes on the agenda and the discussion
resulted in the separation of OE three.
The DSA Arguments That Communication And Meeting With Scott Osha, The DSA Vice
President, Had To Have Created The DSA As A Client Fails. The Communication With
Scott Osha Was Simply For The Purposes Of Securing The Resolution And A Contract So
That We As The Individual Officers Of The DSA Would Be Protected
In their motion, the DSA attempts to claim that because there was contact between myself, Scott
Osha and Lawrence Murray, that the DSA had hired Murray to be the DSA lawyer. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
As the records that are cited by the DSA in their motion demonstrate, on November 24, 2008,
Murray, myself and Osha had a discussion. The discussion was simple. On November 17, 2008
the DSA had authorized the payments for the defense of the individuals by means of the Board
Resolution. Now we were in the process of interviewing attorneys for myself and the other three
defendants.
By November 26, 2008, we were in our final selection process.
On November 26, 2008, we met at Murray’s office. That meeting was with three of the
individual DSA officers being sued, Mr. Murray and Scott Osha. By that point, we the
individuals were satisfied with Mr. Murray and then negotiated a contract.
61. We had in hand a copy of the negotiated a contract and the terms of the contract, such that while
we would be receiving representation. The DSA would be responsible for costs. Osha was in the
meeting to sign for the DSA that they would be responsible for the fees. At no time did that
discussion suggest that Mr. Murray would be representing the DSA or that the DSA was Larry
Pecot, et al. vs. SEDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 8
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27
28
Murray client. The contacts leading up to and the meeting on November 26 were totally
consistent with how we selected who the lawyer was going to be, and secured legal
representation and the DSA would be responsible for the fees.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
executed in San Francisco, California on May 8, 2013.
avid Wong
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 9
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify CounselLISTING OF EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG
1. Agenda for May 14, 2008, Board of Director Meeting.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 10
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1781 Union Street, San Francisco,
California 94123; (415) 673-0555. On this date, I served the following document(s): Declaration of
David Wong In Support of Opposition To San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's DSA Notice Of Motion
to Disqualify Counsel on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Attorney for Plaintiffs:
Paul L. Kranz
Law Office of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: (510) 549 5900
Fax: (510) 549 5901
Attorneys for Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ DSA
Lara Cullinane-Smith
1086 Arlington Blvd.
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Tel: (510) 919-3214
Fax: (510) 705-1854
laracsmith@gmail.com
{ ] [BY MAIL] _ I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United]
States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above.
[XX] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above
address(es).
{[ ] [BY FAX] _ I caused the above entitled document(s) to be personally served on the above
shown parties by facsimile transmission on the date shown below by confirming the fax phone number
with the law office shown above then (a) transmitting it via the fax machine within this office, and (b)
receiving a receipt from the machine within this office confirming all documents sent were in fact
properly received.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and
correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on May 9, 2013.
Jat Ath
2
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 11
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify CounselEXHIBIT 1 TO THE DECLARATION
OF DAVID WONG
Agenda for May 14, 2008,
Board of Director Meeting.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco-Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 12
Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify CounselSan Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Inc. FRG Mgt
444 6" Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 861-8060 Fax (415) 861-8057 KY
Affiliate of Operating Engineers Local Union #3
LC
DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER 1.0... eecsesseceseeseseeteneeneee DAVID WONG
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE
EXECUTIVE BOARD REPORTS
OE-3 REPRESENTATIVE .
PAST PRESIDENT’S ..
Dave Gossman
VICE PRESIDENT’S .. S. Osha
SECRETARY'S ... E. Cerbone (Excused)
TREASURER’S S. McDaniels
SGT. AT ARM’S .. B. Savage
PARLIAMENTARIAN .. K. Heuer
R. Romanski
COMMITTEE REPORTS
COMMITTEE: PRESENTED BY:
Investigative K. McDonnell
OLD BUSINESS
ISSUE: PRESENTED BY:
NEW BUSINESS
ISSUE: PRESENTED BY:
Departmental Budget Reduction D. Wong
Long Term Disability Plan Comparison D. Wong
Concerns of Police Survivors D. Wong
Meet and Confer Issue D. Wong
State Bills D. Wong
—> OFF D. Wong
Donation Request R. Terry
Statement of Charges K. McDonnell
State Law Suit O. Taylor
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT EXHIBIT 1
Preview
DUN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-18-2013 08:19 am Case Number: CGC-10-501168 Filing Date: May-09-2013 08:18 am Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN Juke Box: 001 Image: 04130306 DECLARATION OF JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, Aetal 001004130306 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Lawrence D. Murray (SBN 77536) Superior Gott of Cul: n MURRAY & ASSOCIATES County of San Francis 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 MAY 09 2013 Tel: (415) 673-0555 CLERK OF THE COUR Fax: (415) 928-4084 BY: > Meter Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, Deputy Clerk BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK McDANIELS and the SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH Case No. CGC — 10 -501168 OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually Declaration of David Wong In Support of and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Opposition To San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s DSA Notice Of Motion to Disqualify Counsel Plaintiffs, v. Date: May 24, 2013 SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S DSA, Time: 9:30 a.m. a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN Dept: 302 FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, DAVID WONG, an individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. iit Mit Mt MI] Mf Ml Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 1 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27 28 I, David Wong, declare 1. . I became a Deputy Sheriff from October 29, 1990 until May of 2011. . [joined the Deputy Sheriffs DSA of City and County of San Francisco (DSA), our union after . I was elected to the position of President of the DSA and served as President from 2002 to 2009, . I participated in negotiation and bargaining on behalf of the deputy sheriffs throughout the eight . Lalso have experience in entering a few ‘Settlement Agreements’ where both sides must abide by| . When I signed it I read Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement which both sides agreed to DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG Iam one of the defendants in this action. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge unless stated otherwise. becoming a Deputy Sheriff. In 1997 I was elected to the position of Treasurer and served in that capacity until elected President of the DSA in 2002. and served with compensation permitted by DSA members and the Board of Directors. A. Settlement Agreement years as president of the DSA. the term and conditions of that said agreements. I believed that the comprehensive Settlement Agreement that I signed on February 18, 2013, in this matter, attached as Exhibit 1, to the Murray Declaration, settled all claims known and unknown matters between myself, the Foundation and the DSA, and that this type of motion to defeat the obligation of attorney fees would not be permitted. ‘unconditionally, irrevocably, and absolutely releases and discharges the David Wong and the SFDSF, as well as any of its present or former employees, officers, agents, attorneys, affiliates, successors, assigns and any other representative of the SFDSA (collectively "Released Parties") from all causes of action, judgments, liens, indebtedness, damages, losses, claims, liabilities, and| demands of any kind, known or unknown, including attorneys’ fees and costs, ... arising from, or in way related to the allegations in Pecot II, the Trademark Action and the Conversion Action. I also was under the belief that any dispute known and unknown matter shall be present to Retired Judge Cahill of JAMS (see Title D of the Settlement Agreement), no longer in Court. Mit Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. The DSA Never Retained or Refer Any Representation Case To Murray and Associates I did not know Larry Murray prior to becoming an officer of the DSA. It was only when I became an officer of the DSA, including Shop Steward (as known as a member of the board of director), the Treasurer and then the President of the DSA did I get to meet him. In all the years that I have been with the DSA, I have never, nor did the DSA officers or Board of Directors refer any administrative, civil or criminal cases to Mr. Murray and his office. And this never happened in the eight years I was president. The matters which he did pick up was on his own and without any referral from the DSA. In fact, since he represented members who were not necessarily pleased with the DSA, on several occasions in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the Board of Directors, the Operating Engineers Local 3 representative lively discussions occurred and I evicted Mr. Murray from the DSA office. One o those occasions was at the request of our own attorneys, the Mastagni firm. There was no relationship by and between the DSA and Murray’s firm prior to or during his taking my case to defend on cases 1, 2,3 and 4. As President then and now as a member of the Board of Directors under our Bylaws, at no time before, during or after any of these cases has the Murray Firm or the Bosworth firm ever represented the DSA. For years the firms that represented the DSA have been many, but never the Murray Firm or the Bosworth firm. C. Ongaro’s Firm Was Hired To Represent The DSA And Murray Was Hired By Officers, With The Authorization To Pay DSA From Resolution of the Board The Board of Directors, (“board”) in 2008 determined that both individual officers and the DSA required separate and independent legal representation to defend Pecot I, case #1. When we got the first suit, we, the DSA Board, held a special meeting of the Board. (The DSA is tun by the Board of Directors) The special meeting took place in November 2008 and presided over not by me, (as I was a defendant) but by then Vice President Scott Osha to hold the meeting. Thus, as a result of the discussions at that meeting there was a resolution of the Board passed with authorized the DSA to pay for separate and independent legal representation of the individual officers and separate legal representation of the DSA. A true and correct copy of the resolution of the Board authorizing that separate and independent representation and that the Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 3 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27 28 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. DSA would be responsible for the payments of fees is attached to the Murray Declaration as Exhibit 2. As one of the defendants, I and the other individual officers, the others being the current and past Treasurers named in the Pecot I, met with several legal firms. After those meetings we chose Murray and Associates while the DSA hired David Ongaro and his firm to represent the DSA. Since the original retention of the Murray firm, he has represented me in three other suits that followed. From my position as President and then as a member of the Board of Directors, I have observed that Murray has not received any other referrals from the DSA nor has he represented the DSA in any manner. D. Meeting With DSA Along With Other Attorneys Regarding Defense To Pecot II Mr. Murray represent the individuals, Mr. Ongaro representing the Foundation, Mr. Harry Sterns along with Ms. Smith represented the DSA met in the DSA with Mr. Don Wilson, the DSA President and me after the Pecot II state lawsuit served all the parties. We meet in the DSA office which was close to the court after a court appearance. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Ongaro, Mr. Sterns and Ms. Smith to work collaboratively getting Anti- SLAPP motion for the lawsuit. All the other counsels did not want to participate in the Anti-SLAPP motion. Murray argued that| this case could be over before it gets started because the claims in the suit are all about advocacy in elections and other procedures. The other attorneys for the DSA agreed that Mr. Murray should move forward with the Anti- SLAPP motion but that they did not want any part of it. The motion won. In every case, Murray has consistently stated on the record and in his pleadings that the Murray firm represents myself and the other individual DSA officers defendants. He has never given me, any reason to think that he represents the DSA in any manner at any time. In each of my discussions with Michael Bosworth, I have been consistently clear that he is retained to represent the Foundation only. Murray would have no taint in dealing with Bosworth as he has never represented the DSA. E. Bosworth Hired To Work For And Represent The Foundation I was referred to Mr. Michael Bosworth from an attorney friend. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 4 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. I was also the President of the Foundation in 2005 when I asked Mr. Bosworth to activate “Shop With a Deputy Sheriff trademark. From the outset of my discussions with Mr. Bosworth and throughout all of them. After that, he was told by me that he represented and worked for the foundation. Mr. Bosworth was paid exclusively from foundation funds held in the name of the “Project Fund.” The findings of the Special Litigation Committee and the prior investigating committee both found that are having set up the Foundation, collected money and donations on behalf of the Foundation, segregating that money into the “Project Fund” and paying for the Foundation expenses independently from DSA funds in a separate account call the Project Fund, was proper and that there was no violation or wrongdoing. (See Murray Declaration, Exhibit Four, Declaration of Marcia Pollioni, Exhibits 1 and 2, Sections in each referring to the “Project Fund”.) In their motion, the DSA tends to suggest that Mr. Bosworth was hired by the DSA and paid for by the DSA. This is not accurate. land the Board of the Foundation hired him for the Foundation and the Foundation alone. I caused him to be paid from the account that was money brought in as Foundation contributions and paid out for Foundation expenses. It was never money taken into or paid from the DSA general fund. His sole and exclusive client has always been the Foundation. Mr. Bosworth has never represented the DSA. Mr. Murray stated he needed guidance in case number three a Trademark case. Murray asked who had performed the trademark work on behalf of the Foundation. I explained that it was Mr. Bosworth. He asked to meet Mr. Bosworth and talk to him, much like anyone would talk to an expert witness, or consultant. I drove Mr. Murray to Mr. Bosworth’s office and made the introduction. I facilitated discussion that enabled the two of them to work together. That was accomplished as part of preparing for and representation in case number three the trademark case. Mit /il Mt Mit Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 5 ‘Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27 28 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. F. Inconsistency of Minutes Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Disqualification, Especially Where My Lawyer And I Had Nothing To Do With The Creation And Storage Of The Document And The Minutes In Issue Accurately Reflect The Meeting Where The DSA Board Discussion Of Separating From OE3 And Hiring Mastagni Keeping the DSA records was a huge task for all the officers and the shop stewards. With over 800 members and thousands of events each year, we needed to get on top of the collection, storage, labeling, and retrieval of the records from the point they came in or were created to their search and retrieval. I advocated that as part of the record keeping process, we utilize a method to centralize the records by scanning them to, or creating and transferring them to a network server. I would like to think that this was accomplished during my Presidency. Even with that process, we were not able to centralize all of our records. As the President, I was but one of the individuals who captured created and maintained records. I was not the only one. On the claims by the DSA in their motion to disqualify my lawyer, the DSA complains that I presented an altered board of directors minutes. They argue that the event never occurred. They claim that the event was central to the case. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, I did not alter any documents. What is key here is that the DSA lawyer, not understanding the process we use back when I was President, assumes that if there’s more than one version that it was a forgery, and that the forgery was done by me. Both assumptions were and are in error. And, regardless, none of this has anything to do with my attorney. First and foremost the document in issue here came from our server. Anyone of the individuals, including secretaries, having access to the server could have, and did create minutes of meetings. During the time that I was President, board minutes and resolutions are written by the Secretary of the DSA, not by me. The minutes would be amended, updated, and modified by the secretary at various times consistent with the practices of making sure that all relevant material was contained in the minutes. This is also true for the minutes in issue in this particular setting. Different Secretary would do their task and saving the records in different style. It was not my job to create minutes of meetings and I did not in the instance in which is in issue. Additionally, the documents that I presented as accurate or presented because I believe them to be accurate, and still believe them to be accurate and complete. Other versions, which did not Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 6 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Si. 52. have reference to the OE#3 discussion were likely not complete at the time they were left on the computer or printed. During the course of discovery in Pecot I, if there was any error or modification in the document, or the failure to finalize the document, I would not begin and end my analysis that it was intentional. Also, the modifications may well have been from others because the document was in a word format. One way or another did not happen in my hand, and more importantly, the events reported did occur. I took the minutes from the documents we got as discovery in Pecot I. I did not modify the minutes nor did I alter it. There were different minutes which were updated at various times while I was president. On occasion, modifications were necessary when we saw that the secretary forgot an item or two. For example, November 14, 2007 has two minutes, one has hand written ‘corrected’ and I would not even know which minutes were handed out the board. According to the DSA motion to disqualify my lawyer, they seek to use minutes to disqualify my attorney. My attorney had absolutely nothing to do with creation, retention, or retrieval of the document. Regardless, the information which I presented in my prior exhibit, which centers around whether or not there was a discussion on May 14 2008, and a discussion to separate from OE#3 replacing that entity with the Mustang the law firm, ever occurred. The other documents which would have been created support the notion that we did have that discussion. When we prepare for meetings we print agendas. The agenda is stored on the computer also. The| 5/14/2008 agenda did reflect the OE#3 matter was discussed and the vote to hire Mastagni law firm did occurred. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Agenda for that meeting demonstrating that OE#3 was on the list of items we were to talk about. I know that we talked about it because I was there. The minutes I presented in my May 3, 2011, declaration was the completed minutes which has the vote regarding PORAC and the LDF, and the board vote to hire Mastagni, as I got them from the discovery from the DSA in Pecot I. And as a result of the discussion before the board, we took the action discussed, separating from OE three and hiring mistake me. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 7 ‘Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27 28 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. I was not the only witness present in that meeting. There were a number of witnesses present during the meeting, and at least two of them that I have contacted indicate that they recall the discussion on May 14, 2008, in which OE#3 was replaced by the Mastagni law firm. My attorney was not present at the meeting, did not prepare any documents, did not even know about the meeting prior to its occurrence or.after until it was subject of a lawsuit. According to the motion to disqualify my lawyer, this is one of the basis to remove Murray from my case. My lawyers, the subject of this motion to disqualify him, having had nothing to do with] this. Suffice to say, there was a discussion. According to our notes on the agenda and the discussion resulted in the separation of OE three. The DSA Arguments That Communication And Meeting With Scott Osha, The DSA Vice President, Had To Have Created The DSA As A Client Fails. The Communication With Scott Osha Was Simply For The Purposes Of Securing The Resolution And A Contract So That We As The Individual Officers Of The DSA Would Be Protected In their motion, the DSA attempts to claim that because there was contact between myself, Scott Osha and Lawrence Murray, that the DSA had hired Murray to be the DSA lawyer. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the records that are cited by the DSA in their motion demonstrate, on November 24, 2008, Murray, myself and Osha had a discussion. The discussion was simple. On November 17, 2008 the DSA had authorized the payments for the defense of the individuals by means of the Board Resolution. Now we were in the process of interviewing attorneys for myself and the other three defendants. By November 26, 2008, we were in our final selection process. On November 26, 2008, we met at Murray’s office. That meeting was with three of the individual DSA officers being sued, Mr. Murray and Scott Osha. By that point, we the individuals were satisfied with Mr. Murray and then negotiated a contract. 61. We had in hand a copy of the negotiated a contract and the terms of the contract, such that while we would be receiving representation. The DSA would be responsible for costs. Osha was in the meeting to sign for the DSA that they would be responsible for the fees. At no time did that discussion suggest that Mr. Murray would be representing the DSA or that the DSA was Larry Pecot, et al. vs. SEDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 - 501168 Page 8 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27 28 Murray client. The contacts leading up to and the meeting on November 26 were totally consistent with how we selected who the lawyer was going to be, and secured legal representation and the DSA would be responsible for the fees. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in San Francisco, California on May 8, 2013. avid Wong Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 9 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify CounselLISTING OF EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG 1. Agenda for May 14, 2008, Board of Director Meeting. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 10 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify Counsel27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1781 Union Street, San Francisco, California 94123; (415) 673-0555. On this date, I served the following document(s): Declaration of David Wong In Support of Opposition To San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's DSA Notice Of Motion to Disqualify Counsel on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorney for Plaintiffs: Paul L. Kranz Law Office of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 549 5900 Fax: (510) 549 5901 Attorneys for Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ DSA Lara Cullinane-Smith 1086 Arlington Blvd. El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 919-3214 Fax: (510) 705-1854 laracsmith@gmail.com { ] [BY MAIL] _ I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United] States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above. [XX] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). {[ ] [BY FAX] _ I caused the above entitled document(s) to be personally served on the above shown parties by facsimile transmission on the date shown below by confirming the fax phone number with the law office shown above then (a) transmitting it via the fax machine within this office, and (b) receiving a receipt from the machine within this office confirming all documents sent were in fact properly received. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on May 9, 2013. Jat Ath 2 Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 11 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify CounselEXHIBIT 1 TO THE DECLARATION OF DAVID WONG Agenda for May 14, 2008, Board of Director Meeting. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco-Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 12 Wong Dec In Support of Opposition To Motion To Disqualify CounselSan Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Inc. FRG Mgt 444 6" Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 861-8060 Fax (415) 861-8057 KY Affiliate of Operating Engineers Local Union #3 LC DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 CALL TO ORDER 1.0... eecsesseceseeseseeteneeneee DAVID WONG ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE EXECUTIVE BOARD REPORTS OE-3 REPRESENTATIVE . PAST PRESIDENT’S .. Dave Gossman VICE PRESIDENT’S .. S. Osha SECRETARY'S ... E. Cerbone (Excused) TREASURER’S S. McDaniels SGT. AT ARM’S .. B. Savage PARLIAMENTARIAN .. K. Heuer R. Romanski COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE: PRESENTED BY: Investigative K. McDonnell OLD BUSINESS ISSUE: PRESENTED BY: NEW BUSINESS ISSUE: PRESENTED BY: Departmental Budget Reduction D. Wong Long Term Disability Plan Comparison D. Wong Concerns of Police Survivors D. Wong Meet and Confer Issue D. Wong State Bills D. Wong —> OFF D. Wong Donation Request R. Terry Statement of Charges K. McDonnell State Law Suit O. Taylor PRESIDENT’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT EXHIBIT 1