Preview
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080)
jmanly@manlystewart.com
2 VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279)
vfinaldi@manlystewart.com
3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567)
acunny@manlystewart.com
4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382)
cpendry@manlystewart.com
5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
6 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
7 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 JANE BE DOE, Case No. 21CV000805
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 Plaintiff,
Irvine, California 92612
MOTION AND MOTION FOR
14 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION OF BIG BROTHERS BIG
15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SISTERS PERSON MOST QUALIFIED
AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG RE: SAFETY AND VETTING OF
16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS AND
COUNTY, a California corporation; BOYS & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
17 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, DEFENDANT BBBSA AND ITS
a California corporation; JON DAVID COUNSEL OF RECORD BLEDSOE,
18 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE, LLP IN
inclusive, THE AMOUNT OF $3,150.00
19 Defendant.
Filed concurrently with [Declaration of
20 Courtney P. Pendry and [Proposed] Order]
21 Date:
Time:
22 Judge: Thomas W. Wills
Dept.: 15
23
Action Filed: March 12, 2021
24 FAC Filed: December 13, 2021
Trial Date: January 29, 2024
25
26
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
27
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on __________, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
28
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK
1 the matter may be heard, in Department 15 of the above-captioned Court, Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE
2 (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record herein, will move this Court for an Order (1)
3 limiting counsel for Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (“BBBSA”) to objections on
4 grounds not automatically preserved for trial during Volume II of the Deposition of BBBSA’s
5 Person Most Qualified, Julie Novak and (2) imposing monetary sanction against BBBSA’s counsel
6 of record, Tara Murray and Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP in the amount of $3,150.00 for
7 Ms. Murray’s improper and abusive conduct as set forth herein.
8 This Motion, which is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.420(b)(5) and
9 2023.030, has been made necessary by BBBSA’s harassing, abusive, and unprofessional conduct
10 throughout the deposition of BBBSA’s Person Most Qualified, Julie Novak (“Ms. Novak”). The
11 deposition transcript evidences improper and misplaced objections being frequently made, without
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 any cognizable basis, in a manner clearly intended to coach the witness and disrupt the deposition.
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 Throughout the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly asked Ms. Murray to refrain from making
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 improper speaking objections as they were obstructive, harassing and disrupted the flow of the
15 deposition. However, Ms. Murray continued to engage in these abusive tactics, making seriatim
16 speaking objections for the entirety of the deposition. This Motion is made following Plaintiff’s
17 unsuccessful efforts to meet and confer, which were largely ignored by BBBSA.
18 This motion is grounded in C.C.P. §§2025.420(b) and 2023.030. This Motion is based upon
19 this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Courtney P.
20 Pendry and the exhibits attached thereto, the entirety of the files and records in this case, and upon
21 any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling.
22
23 DATED: February 7, 2023 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
24
25
By:
26 COURTNEY P. PENDRY
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe
27
28
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................5
4 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................5
5 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...........................................................5
6 A. COUNSEL FOR BBBSA’S HARASSING AND INAPPROPRIATE
CONDUCT PERSISTED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF MS.
7 NOVAK’S DEPOSITION .........................................................................................5
8 B. PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH COUNSEL
FOR BBBSA, TO NO AVAIL AS PLAINTIFF’S MEET AND CONFER
9 EFFORTS WERE LARGELY IGNORED BY BBBSA .........................................10
10 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................11
11 A. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER ............11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 B. COUNSEL FOR BBBSA’S CONDUCT NECESSITATES THE
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER ............................................................12
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13
Irvine, California 92612
C. THE COURT ALSO HAS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE MONETARY
14 SANCTIONS UPON BBBSA AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR ITS
CONDUCT CONSTITUTING ABUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS. ........15
15
IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................17
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
2
Cases
3
Argaman v. Ratan,
4
(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th ................................................................................................................. 15
5 Boler v. Sup.Ct.,
(1987) 201 CA3d 467 .................................................................................................................. 12
6 Clement v. Alegre,
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277 ...................................................................................................... 16
7 Kalaba v. Gray,
(2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416 ........................................................................................................ 12
8
Lucas v. Breg, Inc.,
9 2016 WL 2996843 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2016) ............................................................................. 16
Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.,
10 (2014) 223 CA4th 261................................................................................................................. 11
Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc.,
11 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285 ........................................................................................................ 16
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.,
(2001) 87 Cal. App.4th ................................................................................................................ 12
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services,
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13
Irvine, California 92612
(2010) 186 CA4th 1548......................................................................................................... 12, 15
14
Rules
15
Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.4(a) ..................................................................................... 13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 The instant Motion stems from the abusive, improper, and unprofessional conduct which
4 counsel for Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (“BBBSA”) engaged in at the deposition
5 of BBBSA’s Person Most Qualified, Julie Novak (“Ms. Novak”) by lodging repetitious, seriatim,
6 and pervasive objections, most of which being preserved for trial and not concerning a privilege or
7 substantive right not to answer. These objections were clearly made with the intent of coaching the
8 witness and impeding the fair and orderly flow of discovery in this matter. During the course of the
9 first session of Ms. Novak’s deposition – consisting of just over four (4) hours of on-record
10 testimony – Ms. Novak spoke approximately 7,000 words, while counsel for BBBSA, Ms. Tara
11 Murray (“Ms. Murray”) spoke approximately 3,300 words – nearly half has much as Ms. Novak
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 spoke. Declaration of Courtney P. Pendry ¶, (“DCP”). Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13 requests that Ms. Murray refrain from disrupting the deposition with improper and unnecessary
Irvine, California 92612
14 speaking objections, Ms. Murray’s abusive and harassing conduct persisted throughout the entirety
15 of Ms. Novak’s deposition. As set forth in detail below (and as evidenced clearly in the deposition
16 transcript of Ms. Novak) Ms. Murray’s objections, consisting of longwinded, argumentative, and at
17 times incoherent speaking objections were clearly designed to – and in fact did – influence the
18 testimony of the witness and obstruct the flow of the deposition. Ms. Murray’s goal throughout the
19 deposition of Ms. Novak was clearly to make it as difficult as possible for Plaintiff’s counsel to elicit
20 relevant (albeit damning) testimony from the deponent. As such, the Plaintiff seeks a Protective
21 Order to prevent such further conduct at the subsequent deposition of Ms. Novak and to impose
22 sanctions against BBBSA and its counsel of record, Tara Murray.
23 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
24 A. COUNSEL FOR BBBSA’S HARASSING AND INAPPROPRIATE
CONDUCT PERSISTED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF MS.
25 NOVAK’S DEPOSITION
26
This matter arises from the repeated childhood sexual abuse of the Plaintiff by serial sexual
27
predator and BBBSA volunteer, Jon David Woody. See Complaint, Exhibit “1” to “DCP”. After
28
5
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK
1 well over a years worth of delays by BBBSA, on November 17, 2022 Plaintiff took the deposition
2 of BBBSA’s Person Most Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision. Fifth Amended NTD,
3 attached as Exhibit “2” to DCP. The deposition of Ms. Novak consisted of just over four (4) hours
4 of on-record testimony – much of which was monopolized by Ms. Murray’s improper and
5 unfounded speaking objections. DCP ¶ 3. The deposition was further cut short as BBBSA did not
6 inform Plaintiff’s counsel until the deposition was well underway that the deposition would need to
7 conclude prematurely, as the witness was in another time zone. Id.
8 As a threshold matter, Ms. Murry refused to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to establish whether
9 or not Ms. Novak was in fact the individual most qualified on the noticed topics. Novak Deposition,
10 at 34:5- 40:1 attached as Exhibit “3” to DCP. While Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Notice of Deposition
11 sought the Person Most Qualified on various topics during the years of 1979-20121, Ms. Novak
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 indicated she did not feel comfortable testifying to the entirety of that time period, as portions pre-
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 dated her involvement with BBBSA. Id.; see also Exhibit “2”. When counsel for Plaintiff asked Ms.
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 Novak which years she did feel comfortable testifying to, Ms. Murray attempted to argue, in essence,
15 that the question called for a legal conclusion. Id. When Ms. Murray ceased her improper and
16 misplaced speaking objections, she nevertheless continued to object to this simple foundational
17 question as follows:
18 7 MS. MURRAY: Objection. Compound. Vague.
8 Calls for speculation. Exceeds the scope of the
19 9 deposition. Overbroad as to scope and time.
10 Did I mention compound? Calls for a narrative.
20 11 Incomplete hypothetical as it seeks the witness to
21 12 anticipate what questions will be posed to her throughout
13 this deposition.
22 14 BY MR. CUNNY:
15 Q. You can answer.
23 16 MS. MURRAY: Also, argumentative and assumes
17 facts that lacks foundation, also asked and answered.
24
25
26 This date range includes the time in which Jon David Woody’s involvement with BBBSA is
1
believed to have begun, up until the time of his arrest. This time period was selected based upon
27
BBBSA’s previous representations that it did not know what years Woody was involved with
28 BBBSA or its local affiliates.
6
PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK
1 See Exhibit “3” at 39:7-17
2 Ms. Murray’s improper speaking objections continued as she made blatant and calculated
3 attempts to frustrate and impede the deposition, even in spite of her own witness’ clear expressions
4 of understanding and agreement.
5 14 Q. Okay. And when we say local agencies, and
15 maybe moving forward, does that include sponsoring
6 16 agencies as well as affiliated agencies?
17 A. Yes.
7 18 Q. Okay. And if there's a distinction as we move
8 19 forward, let me know; otherwise, I'll just assume that
20 they're both treated equally. Okay?
9 21 A. Okay.
22 MS. MURRAY: I'll object to the extent it asks
10 23 that -- the deponent to hold in mind that all of her
24 responses need to be distinguished between the sponsoring
11 25 agency and the other local affiliates.
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
MR. CUNNY: Okay. Well, I'm -- I'm trying not
12 2 to ask her the same question -- or to double the
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
3 questions here today, is my only intent in doing that,
Telephone (949) 252-9990
13
Irvine, California 92612
4 but if -- if I need to, I will.
14
See Exhibit “3” at 45:14-46:4; see also 54:15-20; 112:14-113:5
15
Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated requests for Ms. Murry to cease obstructing the
16
deposition with improper speaking objections, Ms. Murry persisted, at times even offering her own
17
views on the case and relevance of the witnesses testimony.
18
9 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand your
19 10 question, and it's -- there -- you know, structure varies
11 nationally over time. Can you be mo
Preview
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080) jmanly@manlystewart.com 2 VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279) vfinaldi@manlystewart.com 3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567) acunny@manlystewart.com 4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382) cpendry@manlystewart.com 5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 6 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 7 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 11 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 JANE BE DOE, Case No. 21CV000805 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 Plaintiff, Irvine, California 92612 MOTION AND MOTION FOR 14 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF BIG BROTHERS BIG 15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SISTERS PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG RE: SAFETY AND VETTING OF 16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS AND COUNTY, a California corporation; BOYS & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST 17 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, DEFENDANT BBBSA AND ITS a California corporation; JON DAVID COUNSEL OF RECORD BLEDSOE, 18 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE, LLP IN inclusive, THE AMOUNT OF $3,150.00 19 Defendant. Filed concurrently with [Declaration of 20 Courtney P. Pendry and [Proposed] Order] 21 Date: Time: 22 Judge: Thomas W. Wills Dept.: 15 23 Action Filed: March 12, 2021 24 FAC Filed: December 13, 2021 Trial Date: January 29, 2024 25 26 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on __________, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 28 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK 1 the matter may be heard, in Department 15 of the above-captioned Court, Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE 2 (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record herein, will move this Court for an Order (1) 3 limiting counsel for Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (“BBBSA”) to objections on 4 grounds not automatically preserved for trial during Volume II of the Deposition of BBBSA’s 5 Person Most Qualified, Julie Novak and (2) imposing monetary sanction against BBBSA’s counsel 6 of record, Tara Murray and Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP in the amount of $3,150.00 for 7 Ms. Murray’s improper and abusive conduct as set forth herein. 8 This Motion, which is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.420(b)(5) and 9 2023.030, has been made necessary by BBBSA’s harassing, abusive, and unprofessional conduct 10 throughout the deposition of BBBSA’s Person Most Qualified, Julie Novak (“Ms. Novak”). The 11 deposition transcript evidences improper and misplaced objections being frequently made, without MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 any cognizable basis, in a manner clearly intended to coach the witness and disrupt the deposition. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Throughout the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly asked Ms. Murray to refrain from making Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 improper speaking objections as they were obstructive, harassing and disrupted the flow of the 15 deposition. However, Ms. Murray continued to engage in these abusive tactics, making seriatim 16 speaking objections for the entirety of the deposition. This Motion is made following Plaintiff’s 17 unsuccessful efforts to meet and confer, which were largely ignored by BBBSA. 18 This motion is grounded in C.C.P. §§2025.420(b) and 2023.030. This Motion is based upon 19 this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Courtney P. 20 Pendry and the exhibits attached thereto, the entirety of the files and records in this case, and upon 21 any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling. 22 23 DATED: February 7, 2023 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 24 25 By: 26 COURTNEY P. PENDRY Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe 27 28 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................5 4 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................5 5 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...........................................................5 6 A. COUNSEL FOR BBBSA’S HARASSING AND INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT PERSISTED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF MS. 7 NOVAK’S DEPOSITION .........................................................................................5 8 B. PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH COUNSEL FOR BBBSA, TO NO AVAIL AS PLAINTIFF’S MEET AND CONFER 9 EFFORTS WERE LARGELY IGNORED BY BBBSA .........................................10 10 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................11 11 A. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER ............11 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 B. COUNSEL FOR BBBSA’S CONDUCT NECESSITATES THE 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER ............................................................12 Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 Irvine, California 92612 C. THE COURT ALSO HAS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE MONETARY 14 SANCTIONS UPON BBBSA AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR ITS CONDUCT CONSTITUTING ABUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS. ........15 15 IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 2 Cases 3 Argaman v. Ratan, 4 (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th ................................................................................................................. 15 5 Boler v. Sup.Ct., (1987) 201 CA3d 467 .................................................................................................................. 12 6 Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277 ...................................................................................................... 16 7 Kalaba v. Gray, (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416 ........................................................................................................ 12 8 Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 9 2016 WL 2996843 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2016) ............................................................................. 16 Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 10 (2014) 223 CA4th 261................................................................................................................. 11 Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc., 11 (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285 ........................................................................................................ 16 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc., (2001) 87 Cal. App.4th ................................................................................................................ 12 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 Irvine, California 92612 (2010) 186 CA4th 1548......................................................................................................... 12, 15 14 Rules 15 Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, 3.4(a) ..................................................................................... 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 The instant Motion stems from the abusive, improper, and unprofessional conduct which 4 counsel for Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (“BBBSA”) engaged in at the deposition 5 of BBBSA’s Person Most Qualified, Julie Novak (“Ms. Novak”) by lodging repetitious, seriatim, 6 and pervasive objections, most of which being preserved for trial and not concerning a privilege or 7 substantive right not to answer. These objections were clearly made with the intent of coaching the 8 witness and impeding the fair and orderly flow of discovery in this matter. During the course of the 9 first session of Ms. Novak’s deposition – consisting of just over four (4) hours of on-record 10 testimony – Ms. Novak spoke approximately 7,000 words, while counsel for BBBSA, Ms. Tara 11 Murray (“Ms. Murray”) spoke approximately 3,300 words – nearly half has much as Ms. Novak MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 spoke. Declaration of Courtney P. Pendry ¶, (“DCP”). Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 requests that Ms. Murray refrain from disrupting the deposition with improper and unnecessary Irvine, California 92612 14 speaking objections, Ms. Murray’s abusive and harassing conduct persisted throughout the entirety 15 of Ms. Novak’s deposition. As set forth in detail below (and as evidenced clearly in the deposition 16 transcript of Ms. Novak) Ms. Murray’s objections, consisting of longwinded, argumentative, and at 17 times incoherent speaking objections were clearly designed to – and in fact did – influence the 18 testimony of the witness and obstruct the flow of the deposition. Ms. Murray’s goal throughout the 19 deposition of Ms. Novak was clearly to make it as difficult as possible for Plaintiff’s counsel to elicit 20 relevant (albeit damning) testimony from the deponent. As such, the Plaintiff seeks a Protective 21 Order to prevent such further conduct at the subsequent deposition of Ms. Novak and to impose 22 sanctions against BBBSA and its counsel of record, Tara Murray. 23 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 A. COUNSEL FOR BBBSA’S HARASSING AND INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT PERSISTED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF MS. 25 NOVAK’S DEPOSITION 26 This matter arises from the repeated childhood sexual abuse of the Plaintiff by serial sexual 27 predator and BBBSA volunteer, Jon David Woody. See Complaint, Exhibit “1” to “DCP”. After 28 5 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK 1 well over a years worth of delays by BBBSA, on November 17, 2022 Plaintiff took the deposition 2 of BBBSA’s Person Most Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision. Fifth Amended NTD, 3 attached as Exhibit “2” to DCP. The deposition of Ms. Novak consisted of just over four (4) hours 4 of on-record testimony – much of which was monopolized by Ms. Murray’s improper and 5 unfounded speaking objections. DCP ¶ 3. The deposition was further cut short as BBBSA did not 6 inform Plaintiff’s counsel until the deposition was well underway that the deposition would need to 7 conclude prematurely, as the witness was in another time zone. Id. 8 As a threshold matter, Ms. Murry refused to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to establish whether 9 or not Ms. Novak was in fact the individual most qualified on the noticed topics. Novak Deposition, 10 at 34:5- 40:1 attached as Exhibit “3” to DCP. While Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Notice of Deposition 11 sought the Person Most Qualified on various topics during the years of 1979-20121, Ms. Novak MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 indicated she did not feel comfortable testifying to the entirety of that time period, as portions pre- 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 dated her involvement with BBBSA. Id.; see also Exhibit “2”. When counsel for Plaintiff asked Ms. Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 Novak which years she did feel comfortable testifying to, Ms. Murray attempted to argue, in essence, 15 that the question called for a legal conclusion. Id. When Ms. Murray ceased her improper and 16 misplaced speaking objections, she nevertheless continued to object to this simple foundational 17 question as follows: 18 7 MS. MURRAY: Objection. Compound. Vague. 8 Calls for speculation. Exceeds the scope of the 19 9 deposition. Overbroad as to scope and time. 10 Did I mention compound? Calls for a narrative. 20 11 Incomplete hypothetical as it seeks the witness to 21 12 anticipate what questions will be posed to her throughout 13 this deposition. 22 14 BY MR. CUNNY: 15 Q. You can answer. 23 16 MS. MURRAY: Also, argumentative and assumes 17 facts that lacks foundation, also asked and answered. 24 25 26 This date range includes the time in which Jon David Woody’s involvement with BBBSA is 1 believed to have begun, up until the time of his arrest. This time period was selected based upon 27 BBBSA’s previous representations that it did not know what years Woody was involved with 28 BBBSA or its local affiliates. 6 PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION JULIE NOVAK 1 See Exhibit “3” at 39:7-17 2 Ms. Murray’s improper speaking objections continued as she made blatant and calculated 3 attempts to frustrate and impede the deposition, even in spite of her own witness’ clear expressions 4 of understanding and agreement. 5 14 Q. Okay. And when we say local agencies, and 15 maybe moving forward, does that include sponsoring 6 16 agencies as well as affiliated agencies? 17 A. Yes. 7 18 Q. Okay. And if there's a distinction as we move 8 19 forward, let me know; otherwise, I'll just assume that 20 they're both treated equally. Okay? 9 21 A. Okay. 22 MS. MURRAY: I'll object to the extent it asks 10 23 that -- the deponent to hold in mind that all of her 24 responses need to be distinguished between the sponsoring 11 25 agency and the other local affiliates. MANLY STEWART FINALDI MR. CUNNY: Okay. Well, I'm -- I'm trying not 12 2 to ask her the same question -- or to double the 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 3 questions here today, is my only intent in doing that, Telephone (949) 252-9990 13 Irvine, California 92612 4 but if -- if I need to, I will. 14 See Exhibit “3” at 45:14-46:4; see also 54:15-20; 112:14-113:5 15 Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated requests for Ms. Murry to cease obstructing the 16 deposition with improper speaking objections, Ms. Murry persisted, at times even offering her own 17 views on the case and relevance of the witnesses testimony. 18 9 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand your 19 10 question, and it's -- there -- you know, structure varies 11 nationally over time. Can you be mo