Legal Document: BIG WASHINGTON, LLC VS FRY ET AL

On October 05, 2017 a MIL-10 (Hickman) was filed involving a dispute between Big Washington, Llc, A California Limited Liability Company, and Benhong, Ruth M. Fry As Trustee Of The T & R Fry Family Trust, Thomas H. Fry As Trustee Of The T&R Fry Family Trust, for 26-CV Other Real Property-Civil Unlimited in the District Court of Kern County.

Preview
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607)
Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302)
2 Alexander & Associates, PLC
3 1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4 Phone: 661-316-7888
Email: walexander@alexander-law.com; service@alexander-law.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry, Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust

7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF KERN – METRO JUSTICE BUILDING

10 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB
Limited Liability Company, )
11 ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE 10:
12 Plaintiff, )
) EXCLUSION OF ANY TESTIMONY BY
13 vs. ) ALAN HICKMAN OR REFERENCE TO
) ALAN HICKMAN; AND EXCLUSION OF
14 BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. ) ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY BY BEN
15 LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; ) EILENBERG
and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as )
16 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; ) Assigned to: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Div.: H
17 ) Trial date: December 5, 2022
18 Defendants. ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
)
19 ) Complaint Filed: October 6, 2017
)
20 )
21
22 Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry, as Trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust (“Fry”
23 or the “Fry Defendants” or “Defendants”), hereby move this Court for an order excluding any and all
24 testimony by Alan Hickman; reference to the opinions and/or statements of Alan Hickman; or
25 testimony, argument, evidence, or reference to the “expert” opinion of Ben Eilenberg with respect to
26 the cost of removal of the plastic.
27 Mr. Hickman is identified in Big Washington’s exhibit list and is expected to opine as to the
28 cost of removing the Plastic. Mr. Eilenberg also is expected to testify as to the cost of removing the

1
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 plastic. Big Washington never served a designation of experts, and therefore, allowing any testimony
2 by either Mr. Hickman or Mr. Eilenberg would create unfair surprise and prejudice to the moving
3 party. Additionally, Mr. Eilenberg lacks the experience and knowledge necessary to establish
4 expertise with respect to the cost of hauling the plastic from the property, and any testimony by him
5 or reference thereto must be excluded.
6 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7 Plaintiff contends that the Fry Defendants placed 40,000 tons of plastic on plaintiff’s property
8 pursuant to a written lease agreement with Calcot, Ltd., and later failed to remove it after the lease was
9 terminated. Plaintiff contends that it purchased the property from Calcot and the 40,000 tons of plastic
10 remain on the property, constituting a trespass and nuisance. Plaintiff seeks damages for loss of rent
11 for the warehouses in which the plastic is stored, cost of the future removal of the plastic, and costs
12 for additional purchase money loan expenses incurred as a result of the presence of the plastic on the
13 premises.
14 The Fry Defendants contend that at Calcot consented to the continued storage of the plastic on
15 the property. Calcot had agreed to sell the property to defendant, Benhong (America) Recycling Co.,
16 Ltd., who was simultaneously purchasing the plastic from the Fry Defendants. For that reason, Calcot
17 allowed the plastic to remain on the property. Benhong completed its purchase of the plastic and
18 began occupying the property with Calcot’s consent. Benhong, however, subsequently cancelled its
19 purchase of the property and then left the plastic onsite.
20 THE DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS
21 On March 17, 2022, the Fry Defendants served a Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness
22 Information. On April 11, 2022, the Fry Defendants served a Designation of Expert Witnesses,
23 identifying percipient witnesses, Charles D. Melton and Ty N. Mizote, both of whom are attorneys
24 who participated in the property purchase and sale transaction between Calcot and Benhong. Big
25 Washington did not serve a designation. Therefore, neither Mr. Eilenberg nor Mr. Hickman were
26 designated by any party as an expert.
27 BEN EILENBERG’S TESTIMONY
28 The deposition of Ben Eilenberg, who testified both in his individual capacity and as the

2
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 designated person most knowledgeable for Big Washington, took place over the course of two days:
2 April 7 and May 24, 2022. On the second day, Mr. Eilenberg referenced a conversation he had with
3 Mr. Hickman that same morning. He testified:
4 Q. Let’s go to number two, which is the environmental cleanup.
5 Please explain what expertise you believe you hold with regard to
6 environmental cleanup.
7 A. I have had to oversee environmental cleanup aspects to
8 multiple properties, both in my current position and in prior positions.
9 There was, for example, a Bureau of Land Management parcel
10 that had been leased to an outdoor gun range where I had to oversee
11 what would be done to environmentally clean up approximately 80
12 years worth of shotgun lead that had been done throughout the property
13 and which had spilled out beyond the borders of the property onto other
14 parcels, which was the reason why I got involved because I was an
15 attorney on that matter.
16 There was a building in Gardena where I had to address an issue
17 for a prior auto detailing service in that they had a clarifier – and do you
18 need a spelling on that, Madam Court Reporter?
19 THE COURT REPORTER: Sure.
20 THE WITNESS: C-l-a-r-i-f-i-e-r.
21 A clarifier is what goes in between the liquids generated on site
22 before it gets to the sewer system to prevent pollution in the sewer
23 system. And when they are removed, you have to go through quite a bit
24 of environmental testing, environmental remediation, and logistical
25 work with the local water board.
26 I have had to deal with any number of minor environmental
27 issues on properties over the years. Obviously I have now had to
28 become fairly – fairly conversant regarding the pollution that was left

3
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 behind by your clients at our property.
2 In fact, actually, I just finished a conversation with a new
3 potential waste hauler this morning regarding the current rates, given
4 the fact that fuel costs and the closing of China accepting material like
5 the ones that your clients abandoned at our property, China no longer
6 accepting that. So had to have approximately a half-hour long
7 conversation with one of the local haulers in Bakersfield to find out the
8 current market.
9 Plenty of other environmental issues over the years. Have dealt
10 with closing down gas stations, et cetera.
11 Deposition of B. Eilenberg, p. 258, ln. 3 – p. 259, ln. 19)
12 Q. With regard to the conversation you had this morning with
13 the new potential waste hauler, who was that waste hauler?
14 A. It was – and let me give you the exact name - - Clean
15 Management.
16 Q. Clean as in clean and dirty?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. They are a national waste hauler.
20 Q. What person did you speak with?
21 A. The email address he gave me was ahickman - - H-i-c-k-m-
22 a-n. For the life of me I don’t remember his first name as I’m quite
23 terrible with names - - but first initial A, last name Hickman.
24 Q. At?
25 A. Oh, @cleanmanagement.com
26 Q. You’ve exchanged emails with that gentleman, whatever his
27 name is?
28 A. He requested that I send him photos of the plastic, which I

4
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 did. That’s the extent of me - -
2 Q. Was that your first and only conversation you’ve had with
3 Mr. Hickman?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. That was this morning, correct?
6 A. That’s correct.
7 Q. Did you actually speak with him or just exchange emails?
8 A. We spoke for about half an hour.
9 Q. How many emails did you exchange with him or send to him
10 and receive from?
11 A. I sent him two emails. The first one was the copies of the
12 photos and the second one was the address and the details of the
13 buildings.
14 Q. Has he responded yet after receiving your emails?
15 A. Not yet.
16 (Deposition of B. Eilenberg, p. 262, ln. 12 – p. 263, ln. 22.)
17 ARGUMENT
18 I
19 BIG WASHINGTON FAILED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXPERT WITNESS
20 DISCLOSURE PROCESS AND SHOULD BE PRECLUDED
21 FROM OFFERING ANY EXPERT OPINION WHATSOEVER
22 Generally, upon a proper objection, the trial court shall exclude from evidence the expert
23 opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably failed to designate that expert
24 in its expert witness list. (Unzueta v. Akopyan (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 199, 219.) Undesignated expert
25 witnesses may not testify unless the expert was designated by another party and was thereafter
26 deposed. (Ibid.)
27 Big Washington would have been required to designate both Mr. Hickman (as a retained
28 expert) and Mr. Eilenberg (as a party or employee of a party) and to provide a declaration as to their

5
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 expected testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2034.210, subd. (b), & 2034.260, subd. (c) [A declaration
2 stating the qualifications of the expert and the substance of anticipated testimony must be served along
3 with the designation of experts where the designated expert is “retained” and/or is a party or
4 employee of that party.].)
5 Big Washington, however, opted against participating in the simultaneous exchange of expert
6 witness information pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.210. As of the date that this
7 motion is filed, the Fry Defendants still have received no designation of expert witnesses from
8 Plaintiff.
9 Under the plain language of the statute, an undesignated expert witness may not testify unless
10 that witness was designated by another party and was thereafter deposed. Neither Mr. Eilenberg nor
11 Mr. Hickman have ever been designated by any party in this case. Big Washington never sought relief
12 from its failure to participate in the simultaneous exchange of expert witness information. Therefore,
13 Big Washington should be precluded from offering any expert testimony whatsoever, and at the very
14 least, be precluded from offering any expert testimony from Mr. Hickman and Mr. Eilenberg as to the
15 cost of removal of the plastic.
16 II
17 BIG WASHINGTON MUST BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE,
18 TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT, OR REFERENCE TO THE COSTS
19 ASSOCIATED WITH DISPOSAL OR REMOVAL
20 OF THE PLASTIC FROM THE PROPERTY
21 BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE IS BASED UPON EXPERT OPINION
22 Testimony, references to testimony, or argument relating to the cost or expense of disposal or
23 removal of the agricultural plastics from Plaintiff’s property must be excluded because the cost
24 associated with disposal or removal is expert opinion.
25 The purpose of expert testimony is to provide an opinion beyond common experience, and
26 therefore the expert witness must possess uncommon, specialized knowledge. (People v. Chapple
27 (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 540, 547.) An expert’s testimony is admissible where his professional pursuit
28 or peculiar skill and knowledge in some department of science not common to men in general enables

6
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 him to draw inference as to which men of common experience, after proof of all facts, would be left
2 in doubt. (Wells Truckways v. Cebrian (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 666, 674.) Expert opinion is admissible
3 if it is related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience and would assist the trier of
4 fact. (Burton v. Senner (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 12, 19.) Expert opinion evidence is required in some
5 circumstances. “If the matter in issue is one within the knowledge of experts only and not within the
6 common knowledge of laymen, it is necessary for the plaintiff to introduce expert opinion evidence in
7 order to establish a prima facie case.” (McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 56, 99.)
8 Estimates for manpower and labor costs have been held to be expert opinion where the area of
9 work to be performed is not within the general knowledge of laymen. (See Continental Airlines, Inc.
10 v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 388, 413-414 [estimates for manpower and labor
11 to fix a damaged airplane were expert opinion]; See also, McCoy, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 98
12 [amount of soil to be excavated and reasonable cost of excavation in soil contamination case were
13 properly excluded as undisclosed expert witness opinion].)
14 In this case, the cost of removal and proper disposal of 40,000 tons of used agricultural plastic
15 is not within the common knowledge of laymen. The layman would have no general knowledge of
16 whether the plastics could be sold or recycled, where the plastics could be disposed of, how many
17 loads would be necessary, how much manpower it would involve, how long it would take to remove
18 the plastics, what type of equipment would be necessary, the amounts of dumping and transportation
19 fees, and the general logistics of the type of operation for which Plaintiff is asking the Fry defendants
20 to pay. Consequently, expert opinion is necessary for Plaintiff to establish any request for damages
21 for cost of removal of the plastic. And because Plaintiff did not designate or disclose any experts and
22 did not participate in the expert witness disclosure process at all, Plaintiff must be precluded from
23 offering or referencing any evidence as to the cost to dispose of or remove the plastic.
24 It appears that Big Washington is attempting to skirt the consequences of its failure to designate
25 an expert by (1) casting Mr. Eilenberg as an expert; and (2) identifying Mr. Hickman during Ben
26 Eilenberg’s deposition. Mr. Eilenberg was not designated as an expert in the field of environmental
27 cleanup and lacks the qualifications, experience, or training to establish expertise in the cost of removal
28 of the plastic, and Mr. Hickman was neither designated nor deposed.

7
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 During his deposition, Mr. Eilenberg characterized himself as an expert on environmental
2 cleanup because he had overseen the remediation of a few properties, including the cleanup of
3 clarifiers and shotgun lead. Mr. Eilenberg, however, has no experience with the hauling and proper
4 disposal of agricultural plastics. His conversations with one or two waste haulers is insufficient to
5 show the requisite special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to establish expertise.
6 His testimony as to the cost, and any conversations with third parties as to the cost, must be excluded.
7 Mr. Hickman also was not designated as an expert, but his name was briefly referenced during
8 Mr. Eilenberg’s deposition. There has been no exchange of information regarding his qualifications
9 or experience.
10 CONCLUSION
11 By not participating in the expert witness information exchange, Plaintiff must be precluded
12 from offering any expert testimony or evidence from Mr. Hickman and Mr. Eilenberg, including but
13 not limited to any evidence regarding the cost to remove or dispose of the plastic.
14
15 DATED: November 30, 2022 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PLC
16
17 By: /s/ William L. Alexander /s/
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER
18 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry
and Ruth M. Fry as Trustees of the
19
T & R Fry Family Trust
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607)
Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302)
2 Alexander & Associates, PLC
3 1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4 Phone: 661-316-7888
Email: walexander@alexander-law.com; service@alexander-law.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry, Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust

7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF KERN – METRO JUSTICE BUILDING

10 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB
Limited Liability Company, )
11
) DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH
12 Plaintiff, ) ESTRADA IN SUPPORT OF
) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
13 vs. ) 10 RE: EXCLUSION OF EXPERT
) TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN AND
14 BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. ) BEN EILENBERG
15 LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; )
and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as ) Assigned to: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
16 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; ) Div.: H
and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Trial date: December 5, 2022
17 ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
18 Defendants. )
) Complaint Filed: October 6, 2017
19 )
)
20 )
21 I, ELIZABETH ESTRADA, declare as follows:
22 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before the Courts of the State of California. I
23 am an employee of Alexander & Associates, PLC, counsel of record for defendants, Thomas H. Fry
24 and Ruth M. Fry, trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust. As such, I have personal knowledge of the
25 facts set forth in this declaration and if called upon to testify, I would and could competently testify to
26 such facts.
27 2. I make this declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 to exclude
28 any expert testimony by Alan Hickman and Ben Eilenberg, including but not limited to evidence of

9
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
1 the cost of removal of the plastic.
2 3. This motion is filed because Big Washington failed to participate in the designation of
3 expert witnesses and Mr. Eilenberg lacks the requisite expertise in the field to testify as to the cost of
4 removal of the plastic.
5 4. On March 17, 2022, my office served on Big Washington a demand for exchange of
6 expert witness information. A true and correct copy of the demand is attached to this declaration as
7 Exhibit “A.”
8 5. On April 11, 2022, my office served on Big Washington the Fry Defendants’
9 designation of expert witnesses, identifying Charles D. Melton and Ty N. Mizote as non-retained
10 experts. A true and correct copy of the designation is attached to this declaration as Exhibit “B.”
11 6. My office never received from Big Washington any designation of experts.
12 7. My office conducted the deposition of Ben Eilenberg over two dates in April and May
13 2022. On May 24, 2022, the second day of the deposition, Mr. Eilenberg testified that he had a
14 conversation with a waste hauler that morning by the name of A. Hickman. That was the first reference
15 to Mr. Hickman in this litigation that has been pending for 5 years. A true and correct copy of the
16 excerpts from Mr. Eilenberg’s deposition transcript is attached to this declaration as Exhibit “C.”
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
18 is true and correct. Executed this 29th day of November, 2022 in Bakersfield, California
19
______________________________
20
ELIZABETH ESTRADA
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 – EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY OF ALAN HICKMAN
EXHIBIT “A”
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607)
Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302)
2 Alexander & Associates, PLC
3 1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4 Phone: (661) 316-7888
Email: walexander@alexander-law.com; elizabeth@alexander-law.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry
as Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF KERN – METRO JUSTICE BUILDING

10
11 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB
Limited Liability Company, )
12
) DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF EXPERT
13 Plaintiff, ) WITNESS INFORMATION
)
14 vs. ) Assigned to: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
) Div.: H
15 BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. )
16 LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; ) Date: April 11, 2022
and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as )
17 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; ) Complaint Filed: October 6, 2017
and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Trial Date: May 31, 2022
18 )
19 Defendants. )
)
20
DEMANDING PARTY: Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry as Trustees of the T & R
21 Fry Family Trust
22 DATE: April 11, 2022
23 PLACE: Alexander & Associates, 1925 G Street, Bakersfield, California 93301.
24 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
25 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.210, et seq., Defendants, Thomas H. Fry
26 and Ruth M. Fry as Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust (“Defendants”), demand that all parties to
27 this action exchange the following information regarding the expert witnesses on which they intend to
28 rely at trial:

1
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
1 1. A written listcontaining the name and address of any natural person, including one
2 who is a party, whose oral or written testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to
3 offer in evidence at the trial.
4 2. If any expert designated by any party under the above paragraph is a party or employee
5 of a party, or has been retained by a party for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion in
6 anticipation of the litigation or in preparation for the trial of the action, an expert witness declaration
7 for each such witness, signed by the attorney designating the expert, or by the party if the party has no
8 attorney, containing:
9 a. A brief narrative statement of the qualifications of the expert;
10 b. A brief narrative statement of the general substances of the testimony that the
11 expert is expected to give;
12 c. A representation that the expert has agreed to testify at the trial;
13 d. A representation that the expert will be sufficiently familiar with the pending
14 action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including
15 any opinion and its bases, the expert is expected to give at trial; and
16 e. A statement of the expert’s hourly and daily fees for providing deposition
17 testimony and for consulting with the retaining attorney.
18 Defendants also demand pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.210(c) and
19 2034.270 that each party mutually and simultaneously produce for inspection and copying, at the time
20 and place of the exchange stated above, all discoverable reports and writings made by any party
21 described in paragraph 2 above in the course of preparing that expert’s opinion.
22
23 DATED: March 17, 2022 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PLC
24
25 By: /s/ William L. Alexander /s/
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER
26 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry
and Ruth M. Fry as Trustees of the
27 T & R Fry Family Trust
28

2
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE OF EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. §1013a, 2015.5)
2 I am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a
3 party to the within action; my business address is 1925 G Street, Bakersfield, California.

4 On March 17, 2022, I served the foregoing document entitled DEMAND FOR EXCHANGE
OF EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION on interested parties in this action as follows:
5
6 Richard B Jacobs Attorneys for Plaintiff, BIG WASHINGTON, LLC
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD JACOBS
7 13512 Hatteras Street
Van Nuys, CA 91401-4517
8 Email: richardjacobslaw@gmail.com
9
[X] BY MAIL: Pursuant to C.C.P. §1013(a). By placing ( ) the original or (X) a true copy thereof
10 enclosed in a sealed envelope. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the United
11 State Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield,
12 California in the ordinary course of business.

13 [ ] BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to C.C.P §1010.6, subsection
(e)(1), I caused the document(s) to be emailed to the person(s) at the email address(es) on the
14 attached service list. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
15 unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.

16 [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE), pursuant to C.C.P. §1011, by placing a true copy thereof
enclosed in an envelope and caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the
17 addresses(s).
18 [ ] (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER), pursuant to C.C.P. §1013(c)(d), I caused such envelope with
19 delivery fees prepaid to be sent by GENERAL LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. (GSL).

20 Executed on March 17, 2022, at Bakersfield, California.
21 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
22 the above is true and correct.

23 [ ] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made.
24
25
/s/ Shontice Yates /s/
26
SHONTICE YATES
27
28

Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
EXHIBIT “B”
1 William L. Alexander (State Bar Number 126607)
Elizabeth Estrada (State Bar Number 232302)
2 Alexander & Associates, PLC
3 1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4 Phone: (661) 316-7888
Email: walexander@alexander-law.com; elizabeth@alexander-law.com
5
6 Attorneys for Defendants, Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry
as Trustees of the T&R Fry Family Trust
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION
10 BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, a California Limited ) Case No. BCV-17-102341 BCB
Liability Company, )
11
) DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS
12 Plaintiff, ) INFORMATION OF DEFENDANTS,
) THOMAS H. FRY AND RUTH M. FRY AS
13 vs. ) TRUSTEES OF THE T & R FAMILY
) TRUST
14
BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. )
15 LTD, a California Limited Liability Company; )
and THOMAS H. FRY and RUTH M. FRY as ) Complaint Filed: October 6, 2017
16 Trustees of the T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST; ) Judge: Hon. Bernard C. Barmann
and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, ) Div.: H
17
)
18 Defendants. ) Trial Date: May 6, 2022
)
19
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to C.C.P., §2034.260, defendants, Thomas H. Fry and
21 Ruth M. Fry, Trustees of the T & R Fry Family Trust (“Defendants”), designate the following as expert
22 witnesses:
23 NON-RETAINED EXPERTS
24 Charles D. Melton, Esq.
Zimmer & Melton, LLP
25
11601 Bolthouse Drive, Ste. 100
26 Bakersfield, CA 93311
Tel. No. (661) 463-6700
27
28

1
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
1 Ty N. Mizote
Griswold LaSalle Cobb Dowd & Gin, LLP
2 111 E. 7th St.
3 Hanford, CA 93239
Tel. No. (559) 584-6656
4
5 In addition, Defendants reserve the right under sections 2034.260, 2034.80, 2034.310,
6 2034.610 and 2034.710 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as any other constitutional, statutory
7 and/or common law, to later name other experts before trial or call to testify at trial experts not
8 presently identified whose testimony is needed to aid in the prosecution of this action and/or refute or
9 rebut the contentions and testimony of plaintiffs’ testifying experts.
10
11 DATED: April 11, 2022 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PLC
12
13 By: /s/ Elizabeth Estrada /s/
ELIZABETH ESTRADA
14
Attorneys for Defendants
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Alexander & Associates
Attorneys at Law
1925 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 316-7888
DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. §1013a, 2015.5)
2 I am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a
3 party to the within action; my business address is 1925 G Street, Bakersfield, California.

4 O

Case Info

Judge

Schuett, Stephen D. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 30, 2022

Case Filing Date

October 05, 2017

County

Parties

ALEXANDER, WILLIAM L Attorney for the Defendant
BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. LTD, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Defendant
BIG WASHINGTON, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Plaintiff
EILENBERG, BENJAMIN A Attorney for the Plaintiff
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Non-party
JACOBS, RICHARD B Attorney for the Plaintiff
PALLA, ALISYN J Attorney for the Defendant
RUTH M. FRY AS TRUSTEE OF THE T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST Defendant
THOMAS H. FRY AS TRUSTEE OF THE T&R FRY FAMILY TRUST Defendant
Elizabeth Estrada Attorneys for Defendants
John McCroskey Attorney
John Richardson Attorney
Josiah Neeper Attorney
Charles Melton Attorney
Drevet Hunt Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tatiana Gaur Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephen Holzer Attorneys for Defendants
Hannah Sweiss Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for BIG WASHINGTON, LLC VS FRY ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties