Preview
MOA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-22-2012 3:54 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-501168
Filing Date: Mar-22-2012 3:54
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03546796
DECLARATION OF
JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et.
001003546796
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
+)Com IN DH BF BY
Sb NR Y YN NY NN NK NY Be ewe Be Be eB Be ewe ew
ao ND HW BF YW NH = SGD we NK AA BBN SF S
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999
kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, California 94710
a
0,
Telephone: (510) 549-5900 Wake
Facsimile: (510) 549-5901 , <
Mop “WSO,
Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al., & Q ip Bey
and all others similarly situated “Sy, 2 ph
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFO.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CASE NO. CGC-10-501168
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ
JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA,
RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON,
JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
Similarly Situated, OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiffs,
Date: March 29, 2012
v. Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California
Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an
individual, BRLAN SAVAGE, an
individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an
individual, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
eee
I, Paul L. Kranz, declare as follows in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Opposition To
Motion For Reconsideration:
1. [have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, unless noted on
information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if
called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
-l-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATIONCoe YN DW RB Bw NY
S
11
2. I did not look into the tax returns of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's
Foundation and the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association until receipt of the information
contained in the Declaration of Robert Trevizo, in particular the canceled checks that had been
wrongly deposited into a San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Foundation account, as evidenced in my
declaration submitted with Plaintiffs’ moving papers.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and accurate copy of a Notice of Deposition
of Defendant David Wong With Production of Documents, dated March 2, 2012.
4, Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and accurate copy of Objection to Notice of
Deposition of David Wong, including a cover letter from Larry Murray, David Wong’s attorney,
stating that a basis for the objection is that “there is no Notice of Entry of Order in regards to
SLAPP motion.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and accurate copy of a Notice of Deposition
of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association’s Person Most Knowledgeable With
Production of Documents.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and accurate Defendants’ David Wong,
Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick McDaniels, [sic] Objections to Notice of Deposition of
Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association’s Person Most Knowledgeable With
Production of Documents, including letters of October 27, 2011 and November 2, 2011,
objecting to the deposition because there had been no notice of entry of an order.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and accurate copy of an amendment to the San
Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Articles of Incorporation obtained from the records of the
California Secretary of State.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and accurate copy of a declaration from Robert
Trevizo, dated March 21, 2012, including two exhibits.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and accurate copy of a declaration from Louis
Garcia, dated March 22, 2012.
10. I have reviewed the Declaration of David Ongaro, submitted in support of
-2-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATIONoO ND HW PB WH =
RR®BP RPP PR RY eee ewe ee nL LD 8
Stet FP NFS SCHAAR KDESCH SS
Defendants’ opposition to the subject motion for reconsideration. I never indicated to Mr.
Ongaro that I thought the production in the federal court action to which he refers was complete
or satisfactory. Nor am I aware of repeated requests by him to identify what documents I
believed were missing from the production. In fact, the document production was primarily
handled by Louis Garcia, an attomey who worked for my office during the pendency of the
federal court action. I do recall that the Mr. Ongaro’s client sought a stay of discovery, which
effectively stopped any further production.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing ©
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Berkeley, California, on March 22,
2012. Diu LG
Paul L. Kranz
-3-
DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBIT “J”oe IR DWH B® WH
10
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999
WILLIAM A. BARNES, SBN 114635
kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, California 94710
Telephone: (510) 549-5900
Facsimile: (510) 549-5901
Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al,
and all others similarly situated
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, CASE NO. CGC-10-501168
RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON,
JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF
DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY
SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California
Corporation, DAVID WONG, an
individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an
individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an
individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an
individual, and DOES 1-100,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
)
To Defendant DAVID WONG, his attorney of record, and all attorneys of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220 and
other applicable statutes, Plaintiffs will take the deposition of Defendant DAVID WONG on oral
examination to commence at 9:30 a.m. on March 12, 2012. The deposition will be taken at the
-1-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSLaw Offices of Paul. L. Kranz, 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213, Berkeley, California before a
licensed court reporter, may be videotaped, and may be continued from day to day thereafter,
except for Sundays and holidays, the same place, until completed.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.220 and other applicable sections, the
deponent(s) is hereby requested to produce the following documents and tangible things at the
deposition, as described in the following requests, to which the following definitions and
instructions apply.
1.. "YOU" and "YOUR" refer to Defendant DAVID WONG, his attorneys,
investigators, experts, consultants, businesses owned or managed by said defendant, and any
other persons acting on her behalf.
2. "DOCUMENT" is herein defined as a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section
250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating,
photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form of
communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or
combinations of them.
3. Whenever the word "and" appears in this request, the word shall include "or" and shall
be the logical inclusive "and/or".
4. Whenever the word "and" appears in this request, the word shall include "or" and
shall be the logical inclusive "and/or".
5. For each document called for herein as to which you may claim a privilege or work
product as a ground for not responding, the following information shall be provided:
a. date of the communication or transaction for which you contend the privilege or work
product applies;
d. ifa document or communication, its general subject matter (without revealing
information to which the privilege or work product is claimed);
e. if a communication (or document), the participants, identifying authors and recipients,
and other persons present when the communication was made (or if a document, thee author(s),
addressees and any other persons who is shown on such document as receiving a copy thereof;
2-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS0 Oo YN DH BF WN
be oR Ye NY YY NH NHN NY YD Be Be ee Be Be eB Be ew me
ort nn Fw NH = SGC H&M IX AA RB ODN = SS
f. all persons who actually heard or observed such communication (or if a document, all
persons who received or saw such document or any copy or portion thereof); and
g. the factual or legal bases for claiming privilege or
other grounds for not responding.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
Request No. 1.:
All DOCUMENTS that at one time were the property of the San Francisco Deputy
Sheriff's Association.
Request_No. 2.:
All DOCUMENTS that at one time were maintained at the offices of San Francisco
Deputy Sheriffs’ Association.
Request_No. 3.:
All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial
records including bank and credit union statements and records, that at one time were the
property of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association.
Request_No. 4.:
All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial
records, including bank and credit union statements and records, that at one time were
maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association.
Request_No. 5.:
For each bank or credit union account for which originals or copies of any records or
statements have been maintained at any time at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Association, all DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing
financial records pertaining to such accounts, including statements for up to and including the
present period.
Request No. 6.:
For each bank or credit union account for which any records were previously and/or are
currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any ~
3-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSCom nr DH FF Ww NY =
NY RM WY NK NY NY NN NY Bee Be we Be ewe ewe eH
eo Nt DA A RB YW NH = SoD we NY DH RB WN |=
DOCUMENTS indicating which persons have had authority to access such accounts.
Request_No. 7.:
For each bank or credit union account for which any records were previously and/or are
currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any
DOCUMENTS concerning your authority to change the persons or limit the persons who may
have access such accounts.
Request_No. 8.:
For each bank or credit union account for which records were previously and/or are
currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any
DOCUMENTS concerning the authority of any person other than you or the authority of any
entity to change and/or limit the persons who may have access such accounts.
Dated: March 2, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ
oy Vu £7
* Paul L. Kranz
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4.
NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSEXHIBIT “K”' MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
March 8, 2012
Paul Kranz Via Hand Delivery
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: — Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
Enclosed is our Objection to Notice of Deposition of David Wong. I am not available on the
date you unilaterally selected. Furthermore, there is no Notice of Entry of Order in regards to the
SLAPP motion. Until there is such a notice, discovery continues to be stayed. When discovery
resumes, I ask that you contact all opposing counsel for available dates prior to noticing any
depositions. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Encl.
ce: Harry S. Stern (w/ encl.) [Via Fax: (925) 609-1690]
David R. Ongaro (w/encl.) [Via Fax: (415) 433-3950]LAWRENCE D. MURRAY (SBN 77536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084
Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS
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
and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF
Plaintiffs, DEPOSITION OF DAVID WONG
v.
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit
Corporation, SAN 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.
Defendant DAVID WONG OBJECTS to the Notice of Deposition currently scheduled for March
12, 2012 as follows:
1. No attempt was made to schedule the deposition and counsel cannot attend to the
deposition as scheduled.
As a result of the ruling on the SLAPP motion, all viable claims against Defendant
David Wong have been dismissed and said defendant awaits the entry of judgment on
his behalf.OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
. The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section
832 et seq_as it requests information relating to peace officers without having
followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq.
. The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents constitutes harassment and
lacks good cause because all documents requested and in the possession of this
responding defendant were previously delivered to plaintiff in the prior case in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, case no. CV 08-5125 CRB.
. The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is no longer in issue as the
court as all claims against all individual defendants have been dismissed and the one
remaining claim against David Wong for violation of Corporations Code Section
6333 and 6334 for failure to provide access to documents and information was
dismissed with prejudice in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE
NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, barring further litigation on those topics.
. The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is no longer in issue in this
court as all claims against all individual defendants have been dismissed and the one
remaining claim against David Wong for violation of Corporations Code Section
6333 and 6334 for failure to provide access to documents and information is barred in
that it cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
. The request for information and documents requested by means of the Notice of
Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a
request for obtaining “employment records” (see CCP § 1985.6, J 8:596.5) or the
“personal records” of a consumer (see CCP § 1985.3, 8:580), and the deposition
notice has not been served on the “employee” or “consumer” since the employees and
consumers in issue are not already a party to the action. [CCP § 2025.240(b);
. The request for information and documents requested by means of the Notice of
Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before
any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only
commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP.
No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as
of the service of this notice of deposition. ,OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
Document Request No. 1 All DOCUMENTS that at one time were the property of the San
Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” {See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”] .
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(c) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 2 All DOCUMENTS that at one time were maintained at the offices of
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be °
produced by the deponent.”] :
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot'v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 3 All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or
memiorializing financial records including bank and credit union statements and records, that at
one time were the property of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”]
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 4.: All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or
memorializing financial records, including bank and credit union statements and records, that at
one time were maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”]
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims-against all defendants
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 5.: For each bank or credit union account for which originals or copies
of any records or statements have been maintained at any time at the offices of the San Francisco
Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, all DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or
memorializing financial records pertaining to such accounts, including statements for up to and
including the present period.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”]
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 6.: For each bank or credit union account for which any records were
previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Association, any indicating which persons have had authority to access such accounts.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”}
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
_ documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants
: save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
. production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No.7.: For each bank or credit union account for which any records were
previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Association, any concerning your authority to change the persons or limit the persons who may
have access such accounts.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”]
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5 125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants *
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No.8.: For each bank or credit union account for which records were
previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Association, any DOCUMENTS conceming the authority of any person other than you or the
authority of any entity to change and/or limit the persons who may have access such accounts.
Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the
deposition and the description of documents to be produced:
(a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced
must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states:
“The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be
produced by the deponent.”]
(b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it
requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of
Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion)
(c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of
discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, GASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB.
(d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all
documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those
topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related
claims in the United States District Court for the Northem District of California, entitled Pecot v.
San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation
by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants
save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for
production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted
against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity.
(e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of
Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining
“employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's
Department.
(f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant
David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion
that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the
motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the
Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Date: March 8. 2012, Respectfully submitted,
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
\ ~
Attémey for Defendants: DAVID w¢ G,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE
and SHEDRICK McDANIELSPROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. | 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): OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION OF DAVID WONG on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendant
Paul L. Kranz San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Lara Cullinanae-Smith
Berkeley, CA 94710 Rains Lucia Stern, PC
Tel: (510) 549 5900 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500
Fax: (510) 549 5901 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel: (925) 609-1699
Fax: (925) 609-1690
Ismith@rlslawyers.com
Attorney for Defendant San Francisco
Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation
David R. Ongaro
Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 433-3900
Fax: (415) 433-3950
[ ] [BY MAIL] I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in
the United States mai] at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above.
[XX] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] for Paul Kranz, I caused such envelope(s) to be
delivered by hand to the above address(es).
[XX] [BY FAX] for David Ongaro and Harry Stern, 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, oN) 8, 2012
oon
i
/
/
N
/
/EXHIBIT “L”EXHIBIT “M”MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
October 27, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
I received your “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association
Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Document ° and enclose the following the
objection. You will please note that over three months ago I asked you to sign an order
comporting with what the ruling was that the court gave. You refused to do so and insist that I go
through the signatory process that will take some time. Be that as it may, you are not ina
position to go forward until there is a notice of entry of order filed in Superior Court. Please see
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery
occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a
notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. Given that you have failed to assist us in
bringing this order before the court for signature, you can hardly complain.
You also should also note that should be a judgment entered shortly since the only remaining
cause of action for the failure to observe records can only be asserted against the association and
not against the individual defendants, hence the individual defendants will be likely be out of this
case in the not too distant future. Please immediately withdraw your notice of deposition which
have served, otherwise we will be required to seek an order of the court for your violation of the
foregoing rule.
Very truly yours,
Murray & “SS
~ e
Lo ees wen! ) A fecrrRs
~Lawreyice D. Murray /
ce: Harry S. Stern
David R. OngaroMURRAY & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT Law
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
November 2, 2011
Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901
Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213
Berkeley, CA 94710
Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong
First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB
Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168
Dear Mr. Kranz:
This letter serves as a follow up to my letter sent October 27, 2011 regarding my objections to
the “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most
Knowledgeable with Production of Documents.” You have not responded. As stated in my
previous letter, your notice is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section
425.16(g).
Enclosed is a true and correct copy of my letter. You have until noon tomorrow to respond by
removing the deposition from calendar or I will be forced to file a motion for protective order to
block the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable and request sanctions against you in the
amount of $2,500.
Very truly yours,
Murray & Assqciates
awrgnce D. Murray
ce: Harry S. Stern
David R. Ongaro
Encl.LAWRENCE D. MURRAY (SBN 77536)
MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
1781 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel: (415) 673-0555
Fax: (415) 928-4084
Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS
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
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, DEFENDANTS, DAVID WONG, MICHAEL
ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK
Plaintiffs, MCDANIELS, OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SAN
v.
FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S
SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION PERSON MOST
ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION
Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY OF DOCUMENTS
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.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
Please take notice that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) these
responding defendants, DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK
McDANIELS hereby object to any discovery occurring pending the entry of an order and notice of entry
of order filed in the Superior Court pursuant to said section on the ruling on the Special Motion to Strike
made by plaintiffs. Said order has not been entered by the court nor has there been a Notice of Entry of
Order filed, a prerequisite to any discovery going forward.
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 1
Defendants’ David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick Mcdaniels, Objections To Notice Of Deposition Of
Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable With Production Of DocumentsDATE: October 27, 2011 Respectfully submitted:
MURRAY & ASSOCIATE
+ i> 4
cop we fecvee
te (
There D. Murray,
Attorney for Defendants DAVID WONG}
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE
and SHEDRICK McDANIELS
Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2
Defendants’ David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick Mcdaniels, Objections To Notice Of Deposition Of
Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable With Production Of DocumentsPROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age o:
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): DEFENDANTS, DAVID WONG,
MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK MCDANIELS, OBJECTIONS TO
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendant
Paul L. Kranz San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern
2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Lara Cullinanae-Smith
Berkeley, CA 94710 Rains Lucia Stern, PC
Tel: (510) 549 5900 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500
Fax: (510) 549 5901 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel: (925) 609-1699
Fax: (925) 609-1690
Ismith@rlslawyers.com
Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy
Sheriffs’ Foundation
David R. Ongaro
Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94105
[XX] [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.
[ ] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above
address(es).
[XX] [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 October 27, 2011.
o a
fre
Pecot,
Preview
MOA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-22-2012 3:54 pm Case Number: CGC-10-501168 Filing Date: Mar-22-2012 3:54 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03546796 DECLARATION OF JOHNA PECOT et al VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A et. 001003546796 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. +)Com IN DH BF BY Sb NR Y YN NY NN NK NY Be ewe Be Be eB Be ewe ew ao ND HW BF YW NH = SGD we NK AA BBN SF S LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999 kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, California 94710 a 0, Telephone: (510) 549-5900 Wake Facsimile: (510) 549-5901 , < Mop “WSO, Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al., & Q ip Bey and all others similarly situated “Sy, 2 ph SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFO. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CASE NO. CGC-10-501168 DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO Similarly Situated, OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiffs, Date: March 29, 2012 v. Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California Corporation, DAVID WONG, an individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRLAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. eee I, Paul L. Kranz, declare as follows in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Opposition To Motion For Reconsideration: 1. [have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, unless noted on information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. -l- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCoe YN DW RB Bw NY S 11 2. I did not look into the tax returns of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Foundation and the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association until receipt of the information contained in the Declaration of Robert Trevizo, in particular the canceled checks that had been wrongly deposited into a San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Foundation account, as evidenced in my declaration submitted with Plaintiffs’ moving papers. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and accurate copy of a Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong With Production of Documents, dated March 2, 2012. 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and accurate copy of Objection to Notice of Deposition of David Wong, including a cover letter from Larry Murray, David Wong’s attorney, stating that a basis for the objection is that “there is no Notice of Entry of Order in regards to SLAPP motion. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and accurate copy of a Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association’s Person Most Knowledgeable With Production of Documents. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and accurate Defendants’ David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick McDaniels, [sic] Objections to Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association’s Person Most Knowledgeable With Production of Documents, including letters of October 27, 2011 and November 2, 2011, objecting to the deposition because there had been no notice of entry of an order. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and accurate copy of an amendment to the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Articles of Incorporation obtained from the records of the California Secretary of State. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and accurate copy of a declaration from Robert Trevizo, dated March 21, 2012, including two exhibits. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and accurate copy of a declaration from Louis Garcia, dated March 22, 2012. 10. I have reviewed the Declaration of David Ongaro, submitted in support of -2- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONoO ND HW PB WH = RR®BP RPP PR RY eee ewe ee nL LD 8 Stet FP NFS SCHAAR KDESCH SS Defendants’ opposition to the subject motion for reconsideration. I never indicated to Mr. Ongaro that I thought the production in the federal court action to which he refers was complete or satisfactory. Nor am I aware of repeated requests by him to identify what documents I believed were missing from the production. In fact, the document production was primarily handled by Louis Garcia, an attomey who worked for my office during the pendency of the federal court action. I do recall that the Mr. Ongaro’s client sought a stay of discovery, which effectively stopped any further production. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing © is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Berkeley, California, on March 22, 2012. Diu LG Paul L. Kranz -3- DECLARATION OF PAUL L. KRANZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBIT “J”oe IR DWH B® WH 10 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ PAUL L. KRANZ, ESQ., SBN 114999 WILLIAM A. BARNES, SBN 114635 kranzlaw@sbcglobal.net 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 549-5900 Facsimile: (510) 549-5901 Attorneys for Named Plaintiffs Johna Pecot, et al, and all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOHNA PECOT, THOMAS ARATA, CASE NO. CGC-10-501168 RICH OWYANG, STEPHEN TILTON, JOSEPH LEAKE, and OSCAR TAYLOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiffs, Vv. ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S FOUNDATION, a California Corporation, DAVID WONG, an individual, MICHAEL ZEHNER, an individual, BRIAN SAVAGE, an individual, SHEDRICK McDANIELS, an individual, and DOES 1-100, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) To Defendant DAVID WONG, his attorney of record, and all attorneys of record: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220 and other applicable statutes, Plaintiffs will take the deposition of Defendant DAVID WONG on oral examination to commence at 9:30 a.m. on March 12, 2012. The deposition will be taken at the -1- NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSLaw Offices of Paul. L. Kranz, 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213, Berkeley, California before a licensed court reporter, may be videotaped, and may be continued from day to day thereafter, except for Sundays and holidays, the same place, until completed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.220 and other applicable sections, the deponent(s) is hereby requested to produce the following documents and tangible things at the deposition, as described in the following requests, to which the following definitions and instructions apply. 1.. "YOU" and "YOUR" refer to Defendant DAVID WONG, his attorneys, investigators, experts, consultants, businesses owned or managed by said defendant, and any other persons acting on her behalf. 2. "DOCUMENT" is herein defined as a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them. 3. Whenever the word "and" appears in this request, the word shall include "or" and shall be the logical inclusive "and/or". 4. Whenever the word "and" appears in this request, the word shall include "or" and shall be the logical inclusive "and/or". 5. For each document called for herein as to which you may claim a privilege or work product as a ground for not responding, the following information shall be provided: a. date of the communication or transaction for which you contend the privilege or work product applies; d. ifa document or communication, its general subject matter (without revealing information to which the privilege or work product is claimed); e. if a communication (or document), the participants, identifying authors and recipients, and other persons present when the communication was made (or if a document, thee author(s), addressees and any other persons who is shown on such document as receiving a copy thereof; 2- NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS0 Oo YN DH BF WN be oR Ye NY YY NH NHN NY YD Be Be ee Be Be eB Be ew me ort nn Fw NH = SGC H&M IX AA RB ODN = SS f. all persons who actually heard or observed such communication (or if a document, all persons who received or saw such document or any copy or portion thereof); and g. the factual or legal bases for claiming privilege or other grounds for not responding. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED Request No. 1.: All DOCUMENTS that at one time were the property of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association. Request_No. 2.: All DOCUMENTS that at one time were maintained at the offices of San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. Request_No. 3.: All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial records including bank and credit union statements and records, that at one time were the property of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association. Request_No. 4.: All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial records, including bank and credit union statements and records, that at one time were maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association. Request_No. 5.: For each bank or credit union account for which originals or copies of any records or statements have been maintained at any time at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, all DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial records pertaining to such accounts, including statements for up to and including the present period. Request No. 6.: For each bank or credit union account for which any records were previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any ~ 3- NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSCom nr DH FF Ww NY = NY RM WY NK NY NY NN NY Bee Be we Be ewe ewe eH eo Nt DA A RB YW NH = SoD we NY DH RB WN |= DOCUMENTS indicating which persons have had authority to access such accounts. Request_No. 7.: For each bank or credit union account for which any records were previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any DOCUMENTS concerning your authority to change the persons or limit the persons who may have access such accounts. Request_No. 8.: For each bank or credit union account for which records were previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any DOCUMENTS concerning the authority of any person other than you or the authority of any entity to change and/or limit the persons who may have access such accounts. Dated: March 2, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. KRANZ oy Vu £7 * Paul L. Kranz Attorney for Plaintiffs 4. NOTICE OF DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT DAVID WONG WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSEXHIBIT “K”' MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 March 8, 2012 Paul Kranz Via Hand Delivery Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: — Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: Enclosed is our Objection to Notice of Deposition of David Wong. I am not available on the date you unilaterally selected. Furthermore, there is no Notice of Entry of Order in regards to the SLAPP motion. Until there is such a notice, discovery continues to be stayed. When discovery resumes, I ask that you contact all opposing counsel for available dates prior to noticing any depositions. Thank you. Very truly yours, Encl. ce: Harry S. Stern (w/ encl.) [Via Fax: (925) 609-1690] David R. Ongaro (w/encl.) [Via Fax: (415) 433-3950]LAWRENCE D. MURRAY (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELS 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 and on behalf of all other similarly situated, OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF Plaintiffs, DEPOSITION OF DAVID WONG v. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation, SAN 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. Defendant DAVID WONG OBJECTS to the Notice of Deposition currently scheduled for March 12, 2012 as follows: 1. No attempt was made to schedule the deposition and counsel cannot attend to the deposition as scheduled. As a result of the ruling on the SLAPP motion, all viable claims against Defendant David Wong have been dismissed and said defendant awaits the entry of judgment on his behalf.OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS . The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq_as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. . The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents constitutes harassment and lacks good cause because all documents requested and in the possession of this responding defendant were previously delivered to plaintiff in the prior case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, case no. CV 08-5125 CRB. . The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is no longer in issue as the court as all claims against all individual defendants have been dismissed and the one remaining claim against David Wong for violation of Corporations Code Section 6333 and 6334 for failure to provide access to documents and information was dismissed with prejudice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, barring further litigation on those topics. . The request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is no longer in issue in this court as all claims against all individual defendants have been dismissed and the one remaining claim against David Wong for violation of Corporations Code Section 6333 and 6334 for failure to provide access to documents and information is barred in that it cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. . The request for information and documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” (see CCP § 1985.6, J 8:596.5) or the “personal records” of a consumer (see CCP § 1985.3, 8:580), and the deposition notice has not been served on the “employee” or “consumer” since the employees and consumers in issue are not already a party to the action. [CCP § 2025.240(b); . The request for information and documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition. ,OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Document Request No. 1 All DOCUMENTS that at one time were the property of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” {See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”] . (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (c) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 2 All DOCUMENTS that at one time were maintained at the offices of San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be ° produced by the deponent.”] : (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot'v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 3 All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memiorializing financial records including bank and credit union statements and records, that at one time were the property of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”] (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 4.: All DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial records, including bank and credit union statements and records, that at one time were maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”] (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims-against all defendants save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 5.: For each bank or credit union account for which originals or copies of any records or statements have been maintained at any time at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, all DOCUMENTS concerning, evidencing, identifying and/or memorializing financial records pertaining to such accounts, including statements for up to and including the present period. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”] (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No. 6.: For each bank or credit union account for which any records were previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any indicating which persons have had authority to access such accounts. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”} (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all _ documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants : save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for . production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No.7.: For each bank or credit union account for which any records were previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any concerning your authority to change the persons or limit the persons who may have access such accounts. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”] (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5 125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants * save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Document Request No.8.: For each bank or credit union account for which records were previously and/or are currently maintained at the offices of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, any DOCUMENTS conceming the authority of any person other than you or the authority of any entity to change and/or limit the persons who may have access such accounts. Objection To Document Request: Subject to the foregoing objections to the notice of the deposition and the description of documents to be produced: (a) Said request is vague in that the materials or category of materials to be produced must be specified with “reasonable particularity.” [See CCP § 2025.220(a) (4)], which states: “The specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials to be produced by the deponent.”] (b) Said request for Production of Documents violates Penal Code Section 832 et seq as it requests information relating to peace officers without having followed the requirements of Evidence Code Section 1032 et seq. (a Pitchess Motion) (c) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here have previously been provided as part of discovery in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, GASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB. (d) Said request for Production of Documents constitutes harassment in that all documents falling within the description set out here are barred from further litigation on those topics raised by this request in that they are the subject to a dismissal with prejudice for related claims in the United States District Court for the Northem District of California, entitled Pecot v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, CASE NO. CV 08-5125 CRB, and in this litigation by reason of the SLAPP Motion Order of this court dismissing all claims against all defendants save and except claims for the Sixth Cause of Action nominally against David Wong for production of documents which have already been delivered, and said claim cannot be asserted against an individual and is for mandamus against an entity. (e) That said request for documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents will include a request for obtaining “employment records” and “consumer records” of union members working for the Sheriff's Department. (f) That said documents requested by means of the Notice of Deposition of Defendant David Wong with Production of Documents is barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. No such notice of entry of order has been filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court as of the service of this notice of deposition.Date: March 8. 2012, Respectfully submitted, MURRAY & ASSOCIATES \ ~ Attémey for Defendants: DAVID w¢ G, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELSPROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. | 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): OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID WONG on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendant Paul L. Kranz San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Lara Cullinanae-Smith Berkeley, CA 94710 Rains Lucia Stern, PC Tel: (510) 549 5900 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500 Fax: (510) 549 5901 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690 Ismith@rlslawyers.com Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation David R. Ongaro Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 433-3900 Fax: (415) 433-3950 [ ] [BY MAIL] I caused envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mai] at San Francisco, California, addressed as shown above. [XX] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] for Paul Kranz, I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). [XX] [BY FAX] for David Ongaro and Harry Stern, 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, oN) 8, 2012 oon i / / N / /EXHIBIT “L”EXHIBIT “M”MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 October 27, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: I received your “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Document ° and enclose the following the objection. You will please note that over three months ago I asked you to sign an order comporting with what the ruling was that the court gave. You refused to do so and insist that I go through the signatory process that will take some time. Be that as it may, you are not ina position to go forward until there is a notice of entry of order filed in Superior Court. Please see California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) which requires that before any discovery occur upon the filing of a motion that the discovery can only commence when there has been a notice of entry of order on the motion for SLAPP. Given that you have failed to assist us in bringing this order before the court for signature, you can hardly complain. You also should also note that should be a judgment entered shortly since the only remaining cause of action for the failure to observe records can only be asserted against the association and not against the individual defendants, hence the individual defendants will be likely be out of this case in the not too distant future. Please immediately withdraw your notice of deposition which have served, otherwise we will be required to seek an order of the court for your violation of the foregoing rule. Very truly yours, Murray & “SS ~ e Lo ees wen! ) A fecrrRs ~Lawreyice D. Murray / ce: Harry S. Stern David R. OngaroMURRAY & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT Law 1781 Union Street San Francisco, California 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 November 2, 2011 Paul Kranz Via Mail & Fax: (510) 549-5901 Law Offices of Paul L. Kranz 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Pecot et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and David Wong First Case: Northern District Case Number CV-08-5125-CRB Second Case: San Francisco Superior Court Case Number CGC-10-501168 Dear Mr. Kranz: This letter serves as a follow up to my letter sent October 27, 2011 regarding my objections to the “Notice of Deposition of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable with Production of Documents.” You have not responded. As stated in my previous letter, your notice is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(g). Enclosed is a true and correct copy of my letter. You have until noon tomorrow to respond by removing the deposition from calendar or I will be forced to file a motion for protective order to block the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable and request sanctions against you in the amount of $2,500. Very truly yours, Murray & Assqciates awrgnce D. Murray ce: Harry S. Stern David R. Ongaro Encl.LAWRENCE D. MURRAY (SBN 77536) MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 1781 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Tel: (415) 673-0555 Fax: (415) 928-4084 Attorney for Defendants: DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELS 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 and on behalf of all other similarly situated, DEFENDANTS, DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK Plaintiffs, MCDANIELS, OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SAN v. FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION PERSON MOST ASSOCIATION, a California Nonprofit KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION Corporation, SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY OF DOCUMENTS 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. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Please take notice that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 (g) these responding defendants, DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELS hereby object to any discovery occurring pending the entry of an order and notice of entry of order filed in the Superior Court pursuant to said section on the ruling on the Special Motion to Strike made by plaintiffs. Said order has not been entered by the court nor has there been a Notice of Entry of Order filed, a prerequisite to any discovery going forward. Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 1 Defendants’ David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick Mcdaniels, Objections To Notice Of Deposition Of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable With Production Of DocumentsDATE: October 27, 2011 Respectfully submitted: MURRAY & ASSOCIATE + i> 4 cop we fecvee te ( There D. Murray, Attorney for Defendants DAVID WONG} MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE and SHEDRICK McDANIELS Pecot, et al. vs. SFDSA, et al.; San Francisco Superior Court No: CGC — 10 — 501168 Page 2 Defendants’ David Wong, Michael Zehner, Brian Savage, Shedrick Mcdaniels, Objections To Notice Of Deposition Of Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association Person Most Knowledgeable With Production Of DocumentsPROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age o: 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): DEFENDANTS, DAVID WONG, MICHAEL ZEHNER, BRIAN SAVAGE, SHEDRICK MCDANIELS, OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorney for Plaintiffs: Attorney for Defendant Paul L. Kranz San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Law Office of Paul L. Kranz Harry S. Stern 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 213 Lara Cullinanae-Smith Berkeley, CA 94710 Rains Lucia Stern, PC Tel: (510) 549 5900 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500 Fax: (510) 549 5901 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Tel: (925) 609-1699 Fax: (925) 609-1690 Ismith@rlslawyers.com Attorney for Defendant San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Foundation David R. Ongaro Ongaro Burtt & Louderback LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94105 [XX] [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. [ ] [BY PERSONAL SERVICE] _ I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). [XX] [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 October 27, 2011. o a fre Pecot,