Preview
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027
WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
2 P.O. BOX 1050
Windsor, CA 95492-1050
3 Telephone: (707) 236-2176
Email: bill@wladamspc.com
4
Attorneys for Defendant
5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated actions
ASTRID SCHMID, SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
11
Plaintiffs,
12 DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS
v. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO
13 ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF
DEPARTMENT, DOCUMENTS AT THE CONTINUED
15 DEPOSTION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID
Defendant. SCHMID; AND FOR SANCTIONS
16 [CCP § 2025.480]
17 Hearing Date:
Time:
18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS Department: 19
19 Trial Call: TBD
20
21 I, WILLIAM L. ADAMS, declare:
22 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of California.
23 I am the attorney of record for Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, also known as
24 Two Rock Fire Department (“Two Rock Fire”) in this consolidated case.
25 2. I make this Declaration in support of the motion of Two Rock Fire to compel
26 answers and production of documents by Plaintiff ASTRID SCHMID (“Plaintiff”), at her Court-
27 ordered deposition. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called upon to
28 -1-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
1 testify thereto in a court of law, I could and would do so competently. Pursuant to Evidence Code
2 section 452(d), I respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the entirety of its own files
3 and records in this consolidated matter.
4 3. The relevant chronology of Plaintiff’s refusal to attend her deposition and Plaintiff’s
5 subsequent failure to answer questions and produce documents at her Court-ordered deposition is
6 documented below. Since all the documents and pleadings are already in the Court’s file, the
7 multiple supporting documents are not submitted again for the Motion to Compel.
8 4. After this Court issued its Order after Hearing on July 29, 2022, consolidating these
9 actions, Two Rock Fire issued a deposition notice with production of nine categories of documents
10 pursuant to sections 2025.210 and 2025.220 to Plaintiff on August 4, 2022, setting Plaintiff’s
11 deposition for 1:00 pm on August 26, 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct
12 copy of the Two Rock Fire deposition notice to Plaintiff.
13 5. On August 26, 2022, at approximately 1:05 am, after there was no appearance by
14 Plaintiff and none of the documents called in the deposition notice were produced, Two Rock Fire
15 counsel went on the record to document Plaintiff’s nonappearance. This Statement of
16 Nonappearance was the basis for Two Rock Fire’s successful Motion to obtain a Court-order
17 compelling Plaintiff’s deposition.
18 6. On September 2, 2022, after the transcript was received, Two Rock Fire filed its
19 first Motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct the
20 five-page Motion (without the supporting documentary exhibits).
21 7. On September 23, 2022, after the parties were informed that the Court had set the
22 Motion for hearing in February 2023, three months after the trial date, Two Rock Fire immediately
23 moved to advance the hearing date to October 14, 2022, so that Plaintiff’s deposition could be
24 completed before trial.
25 8. On October 14, 2022, Judge Zuniga granted Two Rock Fire’s motion and ordered
26 Plaintiff’s deposition to occur on October 26, 2022, in a stipulated Order entered on October 20,
27 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Order entered 10/20/22.
28 -2-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
1 9. On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s deposition commenced (with Plaintiff being
2 represented by her attorney-husband and co-Plaintiff FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID) – as set forth
3 in accompanying Separate Statement - the deposition was suspended after no documents were
4 produced, numerous unmeritorious objections, and Plaintiff’s repeated failure to answer questions.
5 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript
6 (excluding the word index and exhibits) with highlighted excerpts which are also cross-referenced
7 in the accompanying Separate Statement.
8 10. During Plaintiff’s deposition, reference was made to “thousands of documents” and
9 “all the documents” in relation to an October 26, 2022, email from Plaintiff to defense counsel, that
10 was authenticated and marked as Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff’s deposition. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5
11 is a true and correct copy of the one-page 10/26/22 email identified as Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff’s
12 deposition.
13 11. On November 1, 2022, Two Rock Fire filed its Motion in Limine #3 of 3 seeking to
14 exclude Plaintiff’s testimony or use of documents at trial. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true
15 and correct the eight-page Motion in Limine #3 of 3 (without the supporting documentary
16 exhibits).
17 12. On November 11, 2022, Certified Shorthand Reporter Maximillian A. Contreras,
18 CSR #13876, sent the Reporters Certificate and draft October 26, 2022 deposition transcript to
19 Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond to the Review, Approval and Signature forms sent by the Court
20 Reporter within the 30-day statutory period with any edits or changes; and the transcript and the
21 record of Plaintiff’s deposition is therefore complete effective December 10, 2022.
22 13. On December 29, 2022, I counsel sent a ten-page meet and confer letter, with an
23 additional copy of the Court Reporter’s Review, Approval and Signature letter, requesting that
24 Plaintiff provide the documents called for in the deposition notice and stipulate to a continued
25 deposition to complete Defendants’ examination of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond. Attached
26 hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of my ten-page meet and confer letter sent to Plaintiff
27 on December 29, 2022.
28 -3-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
1 14. This is not the first occasion that Plaintiff has refused to attend her deposition. On
2 October 8, 2021, TRVFD predecessor counsel noticed Plaintiff’s deposition with production of
3 documents on October 19, 2021, and the deposition notice was personally served at Plaintiff’s
4 residence at 7585 Valley Ford Road in Petaluma, CA . Nevertheless, Plaintiff propounded invalid
5 objections falsely stating that she had not been served and refused to attend her deposition or
6 produce documents requested. Because the Trial Court thereafter sua sponte vacated the trial set
7 for November 19, 2021, no motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition under section 2025.450 was
8 brought. The October 8, 2021, deposition notice to Plaintiff and proof of service are attached as
9 Exhibit 2 hereto.
10 15. When its initial Motion to Compel was filed September 2, 2022, Two Rock Fire
11 requested an award of $2,075.00 in attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions against Plaintiff, as
12 mandated in section 2025.450(g)(2) and 2023.050(a). When the Court previously granted Two
13 Rock Fire Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s deposition in October 2022, the Court reserved, without
14 prejudice, these requested sanctions. For this second Motion to Compel, Two Rock Fire requests
15 the Court impose sanctions and order Plaintiff to pay Two Rock Fire $4,750.00 for the attorney’s
16 fees and costs, including court reporter fees, as follows: $2,250.00 for ten hours of attorney time at
17 $225.00 per hour, to prepare this Motion to Compel; prepare, reply and appear at the hearing
18 concerning this Motion; review documents to be produced by Plaintiff prior to the deposition; and
19 attend the next session of Plaintiff’s deposition; as well as the estimated $2,500.00 for the Court
20 Reporter fees for another day of deposition. Additionally, Two Rock Fire requests an additional
21 $500.00 in sum certain sanctions pursuant to section 2023.050(a). Thus, the total sanctions request
22 from Two Rock Fire is $7,325.00.
23 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Windsor, California.
25
26 Dated: February 8, 2023
William L. Adams
27
28 -4-
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
EXHIBIT 1
1 William L. Adams, Esq. (SBN 166027
JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, P.C.
2 1400 N. Dutton Avenue, Suite 21
Santa Rosa, California 95401
3 Phone (707) 545-6542
Facsimile (707) 545-1522
4 E-mail: wadams@johnstonthomas.com
5 Counsel for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6 in consolidated Case Nos. SCV-266225 and. SCV-270339
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL
11 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225
ASTRID SCHMID, and consolidated actions SCV-266731 and
12 SCV-270339
Plaintiffs,
13
vs. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF
14 ASTRID SCHMID AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
15 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, A California Nonprofit Public Date: August 26, 2022
16 Benefit Corporation, Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: 1400 N. Dutton Ave, #21
17 Defendant. Santa Rosa, CA 95401
18 Trial Date: November 4, 2022
Judge: Hon. Gary Nadler
19 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. Dept.: 19
20
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department will take the
23 deposition of Plaintiff Astrid Schmid on August 26, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., at the law offices of Johnston
24 Thomas, 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 21, Santa Rosa CA 95401.
25 Pursuant to the Order After Hearing issued July 29, 2022, this deposition shall concern only
26 issues, claims, and defenses arising in recently consolidated case number SCV-270339, which was
27 filed by Plaintiffs on March 7, 2022.
28 ///
-1-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 If said deposition is not completed on said date, taking thereof will be continued from day-
2 to-day thereafter at the same place, Sundays and holidays excepted, until completed.
3 Defendant reserves the right to record this deposition by videotape pursuant to Code of Civil
4 Procedure section 2025.220(a)(5). Likewise, Defendant also reserves the right to record this
5 deposition by a machine using instantaneous (or “real-time”) transcription pursuant to Code of Civil
6 Procedure section 2025.220(a)(5). Noticing Party reserves the right to record the deposition via
7 certified videographer. Defendant also reserves the right to use a video recording of this deposition
8 in lieu of live testimony at the trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d). See
9 also Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220(a)(6); California Rules of Court rule 333A.
10 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220(a)(4r), Defendant also instructs the
11 witness to produce documents at the deposition as further described below.
12 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 1:
13 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to
14 YOUR claims that Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department (hereinafter “TRVFD”) obtained YOUR
15 written waiver to reduce the set back to 5 feet for the TRVFD facility improvements located at 7599
16 Valley Ford Rd., Petaluma, CA, 94952 (hereinafter “the Facility”) through intentional fraud, as
17 alleged in paragraph 9 of YOUR Complaint filed March 7, 2022 (hereinafter “YOUR Complaint”).
18 [For purposes of this deposition notice, the terms "DOCUMENT" as used herein is intended to have
19 the broadest possible meaning and encompasses, without limitation, the definitions of EVIDENCE
20 and WRITING set forth in Evidence Code §§140 and 250, respectively, and includes the original or
21 copy, and both sides thereof, of handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing,
22 and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication and
23 representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, and symbols or combinations of them. For
24 purposes of this deposition notice, the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" mean Plaintiffs FREAR STEPHEN
25 SCHMID and ASTRID SCHMID and any individual(s) or entity(ies) acting by their individual or
26 joint authority or behalf.]
27 ///
28 ///
-2-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 2:
2 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to
3 YOUR claims that YOU “have been damaged by losing the value of the setback” and “diminution in
4 the value of [YOUR] property”, as alleged in paragraph 10 of YOUR Complaint.
5 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 3:
6 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that establish the amount
7 of damages YOU claim, as alleged in paragraph 10 of YOUR Complaint.
8 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 4:
9 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR
10 claim for an award of punitive damages against TRVFD, as alleged in paragraph 10 of YOUR
11 Complaint.
12 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 5:
13 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to
14 YOUR claims that TRVFD obtained YOUR written waiver for a reduced set back of 5 feet for the
15 TRVFD Facility improvements through negligent misrepresentation, as alleged in paragraph 12 of
16 YOUR Complaint.
17 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 6:
18 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to
19 YOUR claims that YOU “have been damaged by losing the value of the setback” and “diminution in
20 the value of [YOUR] property”, as alleged in paragraph 13 of YOUR Complaint.
21 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 7:
22 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that establish the amount
23 of damages YOU claim, as alleged in paragraph 13 of YOUR Complaint.
24 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 8:
25 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that YOU claim refute
26 any affirmative defenses set forth in the Answer filed by TRVFD on July 18, 2022.
27 ///
28 ///
-3-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 9:
2 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS which you intend to
3 offer as evidentiary exhibits in support of YOUR Complaint at the trial of this matter set to begin on
4 November 4, 2022.
5 Dated: August 5, 2022 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC
6
By:
7 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
8 in Cases No. SCV-266225 and SCV-270339
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Dept.
2 Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV 266225
and consolidated actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
3
4 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where the
mailing occurred and my business address is: Johnston | Thomas, Attorneys at Law, PC,
5 1400 N. Dutton Ave, Suite 21, Santa Rosa, CA 95401.
6 On, August 5, 2022, I served the parties indicated below the foregoing documents(s)
described as:
7
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID
8 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
9 on the parties involved addressed as follows:
10 Frear Stephen Schmid Plaintiffs in Pro Per
Astrid Schmid
11 7585 Valley Ford Road
Petaluma, CA 94952
12 frearschmid@aol.com
13 Michael A. King Counsel for Defendant County of Sonoma
Deputy County Counsel
14 County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive, Room 105-A
15 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Michael.King@sonoma-county.org
16
17 [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE – Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and
California Rules of Court section 2.251, I affected electronic service of the documents indicated
18 above to the email address(es) listed above by submitting an electronic PDF version of the
document(s) to Microsoft Outlook, through the user interface at johnstonthomas.com. My
19 eService address is: jschaap@johnstonthomas.com
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct. Executed on August 5, 2022, at Santa Rosa, California.
21
22
Jacqueline Schaap, Paralegal
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027 Superior Court of California
JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC County of Sonoma
2 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 21 9/2/2022 4:46 PM
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 By: Melisa Kennedy, Deputy Clerk
3 Telephone: (707) 545-6542
Facsimile: (707) 545-1522
4 Email: wadams@johnstonthomas.com
5 Attorneys for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated
ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339
11
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER
12 FIRE DEPARTMENT’S NOTICE OF
v. MOTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE
13 THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF
PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPEL DEPOSITION: AND FOR
DEPARTMENT, SANCTIONS
15 [CCP § 2025.450]
Defendant. 02/01/2023
16 Hearing Date:
Hearing Time: 3:00 p.m.
17 Department: 19
18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. Trial Call: November 4, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 Department: 19
20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 1, at 3:00 pm, on02/01/2023
__________ 2022,
22 in Department 19 of the Sonoma County Superior Court, 3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa,
23 CA, the Court will hear the motion of Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department
24 (“TRVFD”) to exclude the trial testimony of Plaintiff ASTRID SCHMID (“Plaintiff”), or to
25 compel her deposition, because of Plaintiff’s refusal to attend her duly noticed deposition on
26 August 26, 2022.
27
28 1
All statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
1
MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 This Motion will be based on this Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the
2 accompanying supporting declaration of TRVFD counsel William L Adams and documentary
3 exhibits attached thereto; on the Court’s own records and files in this consolidated action pursuant
4 to Evidence Code section 452(d); and on such additional argument as may be presented at the
5 hearing on this Motion. Additionally, TRVFD requests an award of $1,575.00 in attorney’s fees
6 and costs as sanctions against Plaintiff, as mandated in section 2025.450(g)(2); as well as
7 potential sum certain sanctions of a further $500.00, as mandated by section 2023.050(a).
8 PROCEDURAL CHRONOLOGY
9 The relevant chronology of Plaintiff’s refusal to attend her deposition is documented in
10 the certified court reporter Statement of Nonappearance attached as Exhibit 1 to the supporting
11 declaration of William L Adams (hereinafter “Adams Decl.”)
12 After this Court issued its Order after Hearing on July 29, 2022, consolidating these
13 actions, TRVFD issued a deposition notice with production of documents pursuant to section
14 2025.210 to Plaintiff on August 4, 2022, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for 9:00 am on August 26,
15 2022. (See Exhibits A and B to Statement of Nonappearance.)
16 On the evening of Friday, August 19, 2022, Plaintiff served via email invalid objections
17 to the deposition notice (still using the former case number that was consolidated three weeks
18 before), ignoring the Court’s consolidation of Plaintiff’s cases against TRVFD and arguing that
19 TRVFD was not a party and William L. Adams was not attorney of record for a party. (See
20 Exhibit C to Statement of Nonappearance). On Monday, August 22, 2022, TRVFD counsel
21 reviewed Plaintiff’s invalid objections and responded to Plaintiff, informing Plaintiff that the
22 objections were invalid, and that the deposition would proceed as noticed on August 26, 2022,
23 and further informing Plaintiff that this Motion would be brought if Plaintiff continued to refuse
24 to appear without substantial justification. (See Exhibit D to Statement of Nonappearance.)
25 On Wednesday, August 24, 2022, at the deposition of TRVFD Treasurer Paul Martin,
26 Plaintiff again informed TRVFD counsel that he was not going to attend her duly noticed
27 deposition, and TRVFD counsel informed Plaintiff the deposition would go on the record as
28 noticed at 9:00 am on August 26, 2022, to document her deliberate refusal to appear.
2
MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 On August 26, 2022, at approximately 8:45 am, TRVFD counsel received a call from
2 Deputy County Counsel Michael King, who represents Defendant County of Sonoma in this
3 consolidated action, who informed me that he would not attend unless Plaintiff appeared and
4 authorized me to state on the record that stipulated to proceeding with the deposition as noticed
5 in order to document Plaintiff’s refusal to appear.
6 On August 26, 2022, at approximately 1:05 pm, after there was no appearance or further
7 communication from Plaintiff and none of the documents called in the deposition notice pursuant
8 to section 2025.210 were produced, TRVFD counsel went on the record to document Plaintiff’s
9 nonappearance, as set forth in the transcript and supporting documents provided in Exhibit 1 to
10 Adams Decl.
11 Unfortunately, this is not the first occasion that Plaintiff has refused to attend her
12 deposition. On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff’s deposition with production of documents on October
13 18, 2021, was duly noticed and the deposition personally served at Plaintiff’s residence at 7585
14 Valley Ford Road in Petaluma, CA . Nevertheless, Plaintiff propounded invalid objection falsely
15 stating that he had not been served and refused to attend or produce documents requested Because
16 the Trial Court thereafter sua sponte vacated the trial set for November 19, 2021, no motion to
17 compel Plaintiff’s deposition under section 2025.450 was brought. However, the Court is
18 respectfully requested to consider Plaintiff’s documented pattern of refusing to comply with valid
19 discovery and refusing to provide her testimony on the eve of trial, in making its determinations
20 concerning this Motion. The October 8, 2021, deposition notice to Plaintiff and proof of service
21 are attached as Exhibit 2 to Adams Decl.
22 LEGAL ARGUMENT
23 Plaintiff’s objections arguing that TRVFD lacks standing to issue a deposition notice with
24 production of documents are clearly specious and invalid. Where invalid objections are
25 propounded, a deponent is subject to the sanction regime set forth in section 2025.450. (See
26 2025.450(a); see also Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702 (“The
27 question before us is not whether the trial should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the
28 question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose.”
3
MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 (quoting Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.,4th 1093,
2 1105).)
3 Plaintiff’s pattern and demonstrated practice of willful discovery violations is particularly
4 egregious since Plaintiff is represented and advised by her husband, co-Plaintiff Frear Stephen
5 Schmid, a licensed California attorney with 42 years of experience. “[W]here a violation is
6 willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would
7 not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the
8 ultimate sanction.” (Creed -21, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at 702 (quoting Doppes v. Bentley Motors,
9 Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992).)
10 Because Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to participate in discovery to provide her
11 testimony as required by the Discovery Act, rather than the “ultimate” terminating sanction,
12 TRVFD requests this Court impose an evidentiary sanction precluding Plaintiff from testifying
13 at the trial.
14 In the alternative, TRVFD requests an order compelling and expediting Plaintiffs
15 deposition testimony, subject to the full range sanctions to terminating sanction and findings of
16 indirect contempt, if and when Plaintiff fails to comply. (See Creed -21, supra, 18 Cal.App. 5th
17 at fn. 11 (“disobedience of a court order outside of the presence of the judge . . . is categorized as
18 indirect contempt.” (citing Kohler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1159).)
19 REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
20 Section 2025.450(g)(2) provides for mandatory monetary sanctions against Plaintiff,
21 unless the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pattern of refusing to appear at his deposition has some
22 “substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
23 There is no substantial justification or other circumstances to excuse the mandatory imposition
24 of sanction against Plaintiff in this situation.
25 Monetary sanctions are also available and appropriate for Plaintiff’s discovery misuse
26 under section 2023.010(d) for failing to submit to an authorized method of discovery in an effort
27 to avoid her deposition before trial. TRVFD requests the Court order Plaintiff to pay TRVFD
28 $1,575.00 for the attorney’s fees and costs, including court reporter charges for an expedited
4
MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 Statement of Nonappearance, incurred for Plaintiff’s deposition, as follows: $1,125.00 for five
2 hours of attorney time at $225.00 per hour, to prepare the deposition notices, communicate with
3 Plaintiff, convene the deposition to obtain the Statement of Nonappearance; prepare, reply and
4 appear at the hearing concerning this Motion; and $450.00 for the Court Reporter invoice.
5 Additionally, section 2023.050 mandates a further $250.00 sum certain sanction, where,
6 as here, Plaintiff failed to produce documents identified in her deposition notice pursuant to
7 section 2025.210, (see section 2023.050(a)(1), as well as a further $250.00 sum certain sanction
8 if Plaintiff fails to produce the documents requested pursuant to section 2025.210 within seven
9 days before the Court hears this Motion under section 2025.450 (see section 2023.050(a)(2).)
10 CONCLUSION
11 Without any substantial justification and based on specious invalid objections, Plaintiff
12 deliberately refused to attend her duly noticed deposition and failed to produce documents called
13 for in her deposition notice. Because this is a recurring example of discovery abuse by Plaintiff in
14 this case, TRVFD requests the Court issue an Order precluding Plaintiff from testifying at the trial
15 set to begin on November 4, 2022.
16
17 DATED: September 2, 2022 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC
18
By:
19 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF SONOMA
3
4 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND )
ASTRID SCHMID, )
5 )
Plaintiffs, )
6 )
vs. ) Case No.:
7 ) SCV-266225
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, )
8 A California Nonprofit Public )
Benefit Corporation, )
9 )
Defendant. )
10 ____________________________________)
11
12
13
14
15 DEPOSITION OF
16 ASTRID SCHMID
17 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA
18 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2022
19
20
21
22 ATKINSON-BAKER, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300
23 www.veritext.com
24
FILE NO.: AB 5550450
25 REPORTED BY: MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS, CSR #13876
Page 1
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF SONOMA
3
4 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND )
ASTRID SCHMID, )
5 )
Plaintiffs, )
6 )
vs. ) Case No.:
7 ) SCV-266225
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, )
8 A California Nonprofit Public )
Benefit Corporation, )
9 )
Defendant. )
10 ____________________________________)
11
12
13
14
15 DEPOSITION OF ASTRID SCHMID, taken on behalf
16 of Defendant, at 1400 North Dutton Avenue, Suite 21,
17 Santa Rosa, California 95401, commencing at 9:32 AM,
18 Wednesday, October 26, 2022, before Maximillian A.
19 Contreras, CSR #13876.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3 FOR PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID:
4 BY: FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, ESQ.
7585 Valley Ford Road
5 Petaluma, California 94952
(415) 788-5957
6 frearschmid@aol.com
In propria persona
7
8
FOR DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT:
9
BY: WILLIAM L. ADAMS, ESQ.
10 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
P.O. Box 1050
11 Windsor, California 95492
(707) 236-2176
12 bill@wladamspc.com
13
14 FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SONOMA:
15 BY: MICHAEL A. KING, ESQ.
DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
16 575 Administration Drive
Room 105A
17 Santa Rosa, California 95403
(707) 565-2421
18 michael.king@sonoma-county.org
19
20 ALSO PRESENT:
21 PAUL MARTIN
22
23
24
25
Page 3
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 I N D E X
2 PAGE
WITNESS: Astrid Schmid
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. ADAMS............................6
EXAMINATION BY MR. KING.............................212
4
5
6 E X H I B I T S
7 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
8 Exhibit 1 Amended Notice of Deposition of Plf Astrid.....8
Schmid and Request for Production of Documents
9
Exhibit 2 Complaint for Damages for Fraud................10
10
Exhibit 3 11/25/2018 Schmid Statement....................18
11
Exhibit 4 [Proposed] Order After Hearing of Law and......21
12 Motion Matters and Parties' Stipulations
13 Exhibit 5 Google Earth Aerial Photograph.................26
14 Exhibit 6 Notice of Deposition of Plf Astrid Schmid......71
and Request for Production of Documents
15
Exhibit 7 TRVFD Parcel Setback Data - Existing and.......108
16 Proposed Structures
17 Exhibit 8 Verified Complaint for Declaratory and.........114
Injunctive Relief for Encforcement of County
18 Ordinances, Nuisances and Tresspass
19 Exhibit 9 10/26/22 Schmid e-mail, "Schmid v. TRFD........116
pictures documents"
20
Exhibit 10 Phone screenshot..............................128
21
Exhibit 11 Photograph, swale.............................131
22
Exhibit 12 Photograph, red building project..............142
23
Exhibit 13 Dft TRFD's Form Interrogatories to Plf........187
24 Astrid Schmid, Set 1
25 Exhibit 14 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Form..........188
Interrogatories
Page 4
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 E X H I B I T S (CONT.)
2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
3 Exhibit 15 Dft TRVFD's Special Interrogatories to........192
Plf Astrid Schmid, Set 1
4
Exhibit 16 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Special.......193
5 Interrogatories
6 Exhibit 17 Dft TRVFD's Request for Production of.........197
Documents to Pft Astrid Schmid, Set 1
7
Exhibit 18 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Requests......197
8 for Production of Documents
9 Exhibit 19 Dft TRVFD's Request for Admission of..........201
Genuineness of Documents to Plf Astrid Schmid,
10 Set 1
11 Exhibit 20 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Requests......201
for Admissions
12
Exhibit 21 Demand for Inspection of Real Property........206
13
Exhibit 22 Plfs' Objection to Inspection Demand..........206
14
15
16 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS:
17 PAGE LINE
18 10 1
32 23
19 43 13
57 16
20 72 11
89 11
21 90 9
90 22
22 95 24
194 22
23 195 18
196 13
24 197 6
203 16
25
Page 5
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2
3 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA
4 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2022, 9:32 AM
5
6 ASTRID SCHMID,
7 having first been duly sworn, was
8 examined and testified as follows:
9
10 EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. ADAMS:
12 Q. Well, good morning, Mrs. Schmid. As you
13 know, my name is Bill Adams. I represent the Two Rock
14 Fire Department. Seated to my right is Paul Martin,
15 who you know. He's on the Board. At the end of
16 the table is Mike King. Mr. King is a Deputy County
17 Counsel. He represents the Defendant County of Sonoma.
18 And we're here for your deposition today. Thank you
19 for being here.
20 Have you ever had your deposition taken
21 before?
22 MR. SCHMID: If I could make a couple
23 statements before we go on.
24 First of all, I'm going to be representing
25 Astrid today for the purposes of this deposition.
Page 6
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 And secondly, since Paul Martin's here,
2 obviously that would require him to be the sole and
3 exclusive representative at trial in this matter.
4 MR. KING: I'm going to disagree with your
5 representation. But that's what it is.
6 MR. ADAMS: Yeah. As I will also disagree.
7 But your comments are noted for the record. Thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: No.
9 BY MR. ADAMS:
10 Q. Thank you. So I'm going to give you briefly
11 what are called "admonitions." They're kind of the
12 ground rules for a deposition. Have you had the --
13 and again, sitting next to you is Frear Schmid.
14 He's also a Plaintiff in this case and he's your
15 husband; is that correct?
16 A. Oh. I thought that was an instruction.
17 That was question.
18 Q. No, that was a question.
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 Q. Have you had the opportunity to speak with
21 Mr. Schmid about the nature and purpose of a deposition
22 generally? I don't want to know what you talked about,
23 but have you spoken to him about --
24 A. No, not really.
25 Q. Okay. Have you had the opportunity to review
Page 7
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 your amended deposition notice, which was sent out after
2 Judge Zuniga set the deposition for today?
3 A. Can I see that?
4 Q. Sure. We marked that as Exhibit 1 before the
5 deposition started.
6 (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
7 MR. SCHMID: For the record, I'm going to
8 object. That notice is meaningless, void on its face,
9 and irregular on its face. And we previously lodged
10 an objection. It's completely specious in view of
11 Judge Zuniga's order. You cannot re-notice a deposition
12 after it's been brought to the court and the court has
13 ordered the deposition. So that's the rule --
14 We're going by the Court's order, not by your
15 notice. It's absolutely fascially defective and without
16 any merit whatsoever.
17 MR. ADAMS: And you have some authority for
18 that?
19 MR. SCHMID: Yeah. The judge's order.
20 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And I know you sent
21 an objection that appeared to transpose the dates.
22 MR. SCHMID: That might be true.
23 I don't know.
24 MR. ADAMS: Okay, fine.
25 MR. SCHMID: You mean that dates of mine
Page 8
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 versus Astrid's?
2 MR. ADAMS: Yes. That's what your objection
3 said; that you did not like Ms. Schmid's being today
4 and yours tomorrow. There was a different order.
5 MR. SCHMID: Whatever. I --
6 MR. ADAMS: So I don't need to have a dialogue
7 with you. You've made your objection. Thank you, sir.
8 MR. SCHMID: If you want to attach my
9 objection to the record, that's fine. I didn't bring it
10 with me.
11 BY MR. ADAMS:
12 Q. So have you seen --
13 A. I don't think I have seen this in particular
14 before. I have --
15 MR. SCHMID: You've answered the question.
16 BY MR. ADAMS:
17 Q. Okay. Have you ever been a deposition notice
18 to you in this case?
19 A. I -- have I ever seen a deposition notice to
20 me in this case? I think I did, yes.
21 Q. Okay. Your deposition was noticed previously
22 for August 26th. And do you recall now that I've said
23 that date, that you got a deposition notice during the
24 month of August for your deposition?
25 A. Yes.
Page 9
Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
Astrid Schmid
October 26, 2022
1 *Q. Okay. The deposition notice for your
2 deposition on August 26th and this deposition notice
3 which was served on you on October 17th of the amended
4 deposition notice, identified nine categories of
5 documents that you were requested to bring.
6 I'd like you to look at those.
7 Have you brought any documents with you today?
8 MR. SCHMID: Objection. Instruct not to
9 answer. Not calculated to lead to admissible evidence
10 at this deposition. You never sought an order to compel
11 production of documents. Defendants have waived any
12 and all rights to seek compulsion of it and therefore
13 there's no merit to your question.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay. I will not.
15 MR. ADAMS: Are you instructing the witness
16 not to answer?
17 MR. SCHMID: Could you read it back, please.
18 (Record read.)
19 MR. SCHMID: Instruct not to answer one the
20 foregoing basis.
21 MR. ADAMS: Let me ask you a different way.
22 So we'll come back to that Exhibit 1.
23 (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)
24 BY MR. ADAMS:
25 Q. Exhibit 2, also pre-marked, i
Preview
1 William L. Adams SBN 166027 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 2 P.O. BOX 1050 Windsor, CA 95492-1050 3 Telephone: (707) 236-2176 Email: bill@wladamspc.com 4 Attorneys for Defendant 5 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated actions ASTRID SCHMID, SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 11 Plaintiffs, 12 DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS v. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWO 13 ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT, DOCUMENTS AT THE CONTINUED 15 DEPOSTION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID Defendant. SCHMID; AND FOR SANCTIONS 16 [CCP § 2025.480] 17 Hearing Date: Time: 18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS Department: 19 19 Trial Call: TBD 20 21 I, WILLIAM L. ADAMS, declare: 22 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of California. 23 I am the attorney of record for Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, also known as 24 Two Rock Fire Department (“Two Rock Fire”) in this consolidated case. 25 2. I make this Declaration in support of the motion of Two Rock Fire to compel 26 answers and production of documents by Plaintiff ASTRID SCHMID (“Plaintiff”), at her Court- 27 ordered deposition. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called upon to 28 -1- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID 1 testify thereto in a court of law, I could and would do so competently. Pursuant to Evidence Code 2 section 452(d), I respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the entirety of its own files 3 and records in this consolidated matter. 4 3. The relevant chronology of Plaintiff’s refusal to attend her deposition and Plaintiff’s 5 subsequent failure to answer questions and produce documents at her Court-ordered deposition is 6 documented below. Since all the documents and pleadings are already in the Court’s file, the 7 multiple supporting documents are not submitted again for the Motion to Compel. 8 4. After this Court issued its Order after Hearing on July 29, 2022, consolidating these 9 actions, Two Rock Fire issued a deposition notice with production of nine categories of documents 10 pursuant to sections 2025.210 and 2025.220 to Plaintiff on August 4, 2022, setting Plaintiff’s 11 deposition for 1:00 pm on August 26, 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct 12 copy of the Two Rock Fire deposition notice to Plaintiff. 13 5. On August 26, 2022, at approximately 1:05 am, after there was no appearance by 14 Plaintiff and none of the documents called in the deposition notice were produced, Two Rock Fire 15 counsel went on the record to document Plaintiff’s nonappearance. This Statement of 16 Nonappearance was the basis for Two Rock Fire’s successful Motion to obtain a Court-order 17 compelling Plaintiff’s deposition. 18 6. On September 2, 2022, after the transcript was received, Two Rock Fire filed its 19 first Motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct the 20 five-page Motion (without the supporting documentary exhibits). 21 7. On September 23, 2022, after the parties were informed that the Court had set the 22 Motion for hearing in February 2023, three months after the trial date, Two Rock Fire immediately 23 moved to advance the hearing date to October 14, 2022, so that Plaintiff’s deposition could be 24 completed before trial. 25 8. On October 14, 2022, Judge Zuniga granted Two Rock Fire’s motion and ordered 26 Plaintiff’s deposition to occur on October 26, 2022, in a stipulated Order entered on October 20, 27 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Order entered 10/20/22. 28 -2- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID 1 9. On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s deposition commenced (with Plaintiff being 2 represented by her attorney-husband and co-Plaintiff FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID) – as set forth 3 in accompanying Separate Statement - the deposition was suspended after no documents were 4 produced, numerous unmeritorious objections, and Plaintiff’s repeated failure to answer questions. 5 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript 6 (excluding the word index and exhibits) with highlighted excerpts which are also cross-referenced 7 in the accompanying Separate Statement. 8 10. During Plaintiff’s deposition, reference was made to “thousands of documents” and 9 “all the documents” in relation to an October 26, 2022, email from Plaintiff to defense counsel, that 10 was authenticated and marked as Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff’s deposition. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 11 is a true and correct copy of the one-page 10/26/22 email identified as Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff’s 12 deposition. 13 11. On November 1, 2022, Two Rock Fire filed its Motion in Limine #3 of 3 seeking to 14 exclude Plaintiff’s testimony or use of documents at trial. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true 15 and correct the eight-page Motion in Limine #3 of 3 (without the supporting documentary 16 exhibits). 17 12. On November 11, 2022, Certified Shorthand Reporter Maximillian A. Contreras, 18 CSR #13876, sent the Reporters Certificate and draft October 26, 2022 deposition transcript to 19 Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond to the Review, Approval and Signature forms sent by the Court 20 Reporter within the 30-day statutory period with any edits or changes; and the transcript and the 21 record of Plaintiff’s deposition is therefore complete effective December 10, 2022. 22 13. On December 29, 2022, I counsel sent a ten-page meet and confer letter, with an 23 additional copy of the Court Reporter’s Review, Approval and Signature letter, requesting that 24 Plaintiff provide the documents called for in the deposition notice and stipulate to a continued 25 deposition to complete Defendants’ examination of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond. Attached 26 hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of my ten-page meet and confer letter sent to Plaintiff 27 on December 29, 2022. 28 -3- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID 1 14. This is not the first occasion that Plaintiff has refused to attend her deposition. On 2 October 8, 2021, TRVFD predecessor counsel noticed Plaintiff’s deposition with production of 3 documents on October 19, 2021, and the deposition notice was personally served at Plaintiff’s 4 residence at 7585 Valley Ford Road in Petaluma, CA . Nevertheless, Plaintiff propounded invalid 5 objections falsely stating that she had not been served and refused to attend her deposition or 6 produce documents requested. Because the Trial Court thereafter sua sponte vacated the trial set 7 for November 19, 2021, no motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition under section 2025.450 was 8 brought. The October 8, 2021, deposition notice to Plaintiff and proof of service are attached as 9 Exhibit 2 hereto. 10 15. When its initial Motion to Compel was filed September 2, 2022, Two Rock Fire 11 requested an award of $2,075.00 in attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions against Plaintiff, as 12 mandated in section 2025.450(g)(2) and 2023.050(a). When the Court previously granted Two 13 Rock Fire Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s deposition in October 2022, the Court reserved, without 14 prejudice, these requested sanctions. For this second Motion to Compel, Two Rock Fire requests 15 the Court impose sanctions and order Plaintiff to pay Two Rock Fire $4,750.00 for the attorney’s 16 fees and costs, including court reporter fees, as follows: $2,250.00 for ten hours of attorney time at 17 $225.00 per hour, to prepare this Motion to Compel; prepare, reply and appear at the hearing 18 concerning this Motion; review documents to be produced by Plaintiff prior to the deposition; and 19 attend the next session of Plaintiff’s deposition; as well as the estimated $2,500.00 for the Court 20 Reporter fees for another day of deposition. Additionally, Two Rock Fire requests an additional 21 $500.00 in sum certain sanctions pursuant to section 2023.050(a). Thus, the total sanctions request 22 from Two Rock Fire is $7,325.00. 23 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Windsor, California. 25 26 Dated: February 8, 2023 William L. Adams 27 28 -4- DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID EXHIBIT 1 1 William L. Adams, Esq. (SBN 166027 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, P.C. 2 1400 N. Dutton Avenue, Suite 21 Santa Rosa, California 95401 3 Phone (707) 545-6542 Facsimile (707) 545-1522 4 E-mail: wadams@johnstonthomas.com 5 Counsel for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 in consolidated Case Nos. SCV-266225 and. SCV-270339 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL 11 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 ASTRID SCHMID, and consolidated actions SCV-266731 and 12 SCV-270339 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF 14 ASTRID SCHMID AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 15 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, A California Nonprofit Public Date: August 26, 2022 16 Benefit Corporation, Time: 1:00 p.m. Location: 1400 N. Dutton Ave, #21 17 Defendant. Santa Rosa, CA 95401 18 Trial Date: November 4, 2022 Judge: Hon. Gary Nadler 19 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. Dept.: 19 20 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department will take the 23 deposition of Plaintiff Astrid Schmid on August 26, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., at the law offices of Johnston 24 Thomas, 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 21, Santa Rosa CA 95401. 25 Pursuant to the Order After Hearing issued July 29, 2022, this deposition shall concern only 26 issues, claims, and defenses arising in recently consolidated case number SCV-270339, which was 27 filed by Plaintiffs on March 7, 2022. 28 /// -1- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 If said deposition is not completed on said date, taking thereof will be continued from day- 2 to-day thereafter at the same place, Sundays and holidays excepted, until completed. 3 Defendant reserves the right to record this deposition by videotape pursuant to Code of Civil 4 Procedure section 2025.220(a)(5). Likewise, Defendant also reserves the right to record this 5 deposition by a machine using instantaneous (or “real-time”) transcription pursuant to Code of Civil 6 Procedure section 2025.220(a)(5). Noticing Party reserves the right to record the deposition via 7 certified videographer. Defendant also reserves the right to use a video recording of this deposition 8 in lieu of live testimony at the trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d). See 9 also Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220(a)(6); California Rules of Court rule 333A. 10 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220(a)(4r), Defendant also instructs the 11 witness to produce documents at the deposition as further described below. 12 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 1: 13 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to 14 YOUR claims that Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department (hereinafter “TRVFD”) obtained YOUR 15 written waiver to reduce the set back to 5 feet for the TRVFD facility improvements located at 7599 16 Valley Ford Rd., Petaluma, CA, 94952 (hereinafter “the Facility”) through intentional fraud, as 17 alleged in paragraph 9 of YOUR Complaint filed March 7, 2022 (hereinafter “YOUR Complaint”). 18 [For purposes of this deposition notice, the terms "DOCUMENT" as used herein is intended to have 19 the broadest possible meaning and encompasses, without limitation, the definitions of EVIDENCE 20 and WRITING set forth in Evidence Code §§140 and 250, respectively, and includes the original or 21 copy, and both sides thereof, of handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing, 22 and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication and 23 representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, and symbols or combinations of them. For 24 purposes of this deposition notice, the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" mean Plaintiffs FREAR STEPHEN 25 SCHMID and ASTRID SCHMID and any individual(s) or entity(ies) acting by their individual or 26 joint authority or behalf.] 27 /// 28 /// -2- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 2: 2 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to 3 YOUR claims that YOU “have been damaged by losing the value of the setback” and “diminution in 4 the value of [YOUR] property”, as alleged in paragraph 10 of YOUR Complaint. 5 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 3: 6 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that establish the amount 7 of damages YOU claim, as alleged in paragraph 10 of YOUR Complaint. 8 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 4: 9 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR 10 claim for an award of punitive damages against TRVFD, as alleged in paragraph 10 of YOUR 11 Complaint. 12 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 5: 13 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to 14 YOUR claims that TRVFD obtained YOUR written waiver for a reduced set back of 5 feet for the 15 TRVFD Facility improvements through negligent misrepresentation, as alleged in paragraph 12 of 16 YOUR Complaint. 17 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 6: 18 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS in any way related to 19 YOUR claims that YOU “have been damaged by losing the value of the setback” and “diminution in 20 the value of [YOUR] property”, as alleged in paragraph 13 of YOUR Complaint. 21 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 7: 22 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that establish the amount 23 of damages YOU claim, as alleged in paragraph 13 of YOUR Complaint. 24 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 8: 25 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS that YOU claim refute 26 any affirmative defenses set forth in the Answer filed by TRVFD on July 18, 2022. 27 /// 28 /// -3- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 9: 2 Produce in native format with all metadata intact all DOCUMENTS which you intend to 3 offer as evidentiary exhibits in support of YOUR Complaint at the trial of this matter set to begin on 4 November 4, 2022. 5 Dated: August 5, 2022 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC 6 By: 7 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 8 in Cases No. SCV-266225 and SCV-270339 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Schmid v. Two Rock Volunteer Fire Dept. 2 Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV 266225 and consolidated actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 3 4 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. I am employed in the county where the mailing occurred and my business address is: Johnston | Thomas, Attorneys at Law, PC, 5 1400 N. Dutton Ave, Suite 21, Santa Rosa, CA 95401. 6 On, August 5, 2022, I served the parties indicated below the foregoing documents(s) described as: 7 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID 8 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 9 on the parties involved addressed as follows: 10 Frear Stephen Schmid Plaintiffs in Pro Per Astrid Schmid 11 7585 Valley Ford Road Petaluma, CA 94952 12 frearschmid@aol.com 13 Michael A. King Counsel for Defendant County of Sonoma Deputy County Counsel 14 County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Room 105-A 15 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Michael.King@sonoma-county.org 16 17 [X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE – Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court section 2.251, I affected electronic service of the documents indicated 18 above to the email address(es) listed above by submitting an electronic PDF version of the document(s) to Microsoft Outlook, through the user interface at johnstonthomas.com. My 19 eService address is: jschaap@johnstonthomas.com 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 5, 2022, at Santa Rosa, California. 21 22 Jacqueline Schaap, Paralegal 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 2 ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1 William L. Adams SBN 166027 Superior Court of California JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC County of Sonoma 2 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 21 9/2/2022 4:46 PM Santa Rosa, CA 95401 By: Melisa Kennedy, Deputy Clerk 3 Telephone: (707) 545-6542 Facsimile: (707) 545-1522 4 Email: wadams@johnstonthomas.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND Case No. SCV-266225 and consolidated ASTRID SCHMID, actions SCV-266731 and SCV-270339 11 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER 12 FIRE DEPARTMENT’S NOTICE OF v. MOTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE 13 THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPEL DEPOSITION: AND FOR DEPARTMENT, SANCTIONS 15 [CCP § 2025.450] Defendant. 02/01/2023 16 Hearing Date: Hearing Time: 3:00 p.m. 17 Department: 19 18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS. Trial Call: November 4, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Department: 19 20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 1, at 3:00 pm, on02/01/2023 __________ 2022, 22 in Department 19 of the Sonoma County Superior Court, 3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, 23 CA, the Court will hear the motion of Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department 24 (“TRVFD”) to exclude the trial testimony of Plaintiff ASTRID SCHMID (“Plaintiff”), or to 25 compel her deposition, because of Plaintiff’s refusal to attend her duly noticed deposition on 26 August 26, 2022. 27 28 1 All statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 1 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 This Motion will be based on this Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the 2 accompanying supporting declaration of TRVFD counsel William L Adams and documentary 3 exhibits attached thereto; on the Court’s own records and files in this consolidated action pursuant 4 to Evidence Code section 452(d); and on such additional argument as may be presented at the 5 hearing on this Motion. Additionally, TRVFD requests an award of $1,575.00 in attorney’s fees 6 and costs as sanctions against Plaintiff, as mandated in section 2025.450(g)(2); as well as 7 potential sum certain sanctions of a further $500.00, as mandated by section 2023.050(a). 8 PROCEDURAL CHRONOLOGY 9 The relevant chronology of Plaintiff’s refusal to attend her deposition is documented in 10 the certified court reporter Statement of Nonappearance attached as Exhibit 1 to the supporting 11 declaration of William L Adams (hereinafter “Adams Decl.”) 12 After this Court issued its Order after Hearing on July 29, 2022, consolidating these 13 actions, TRVFD issued a deposition notice with production of documents pursuant to section 14 2025.210 to Plaintiff on August 4, 2022, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for 9:00 am on August 26, 15 2022. (See Exhibits A and B to Statement of Nonappearance.) 16 On the evening of Friday, August 19, 2022, Plaintiff served via email invalid objections 17 to the deposition notice (still using the former case number that was consolidated three weeks 18 before), ignoring the Court’s consolidation of Plaintiff’s cases against TRVFD and arguing that 19 TRVFD was not a party and William L. Adams was not attorney of record for a party. (See 20 Exhibit C to Statement of Nonappearance). On Monday, August 22, 2022, TRVFD counsel 21 reviewed Plaintiff’s invalid objections and responded to Plaintiff, informing Plaintiff that the 22 objections were invalid, and that the deposition would proceed as noticed on August 26, 2022, 23 and further informing Plaintiff that this Motion would be brought if Plaintiff continued to refuse 24 to appear without substantial justification. (See Exhibit D to Statement of Nonappearance.) 25 On Wednesday, August 24, 2022, at the deposition of TRVFD Treasurer Paul Martin, 26 Plaintiff again informed TRVFD counsel that he was not going to attend her duly noticed 27 deposition, and TRVFD counsel informed Plaintiff the deposition would go on the record as 28 noticed at 9:00 am on August 26, 2022, to document her deliberate refusal to appear. 2 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 On August 26, 2022, at approximately 8:45 am, TRVFD counsel received a call from 2 Deputy County Counsel Michael King, who represents Defendant County of Sonoma in this 3 consolidated action, who informed me that he would not attend unless Plaintiff appeared and 4 authorized me to state on the record that stipulated to proceeding with the deposition as noticed 5 in order to document Plaintiff’s refusal to appear. 6 On August 26, 2022, at approximately 1:05 pm, after there was no appearance or further 7 communication from Plaintiff and none of the documents called in the deposition notice pursuant 8 to section 2025.210 were produced, TRVFD counsel went on the record to document Plaintiff’s 9 nonappearance, as set forth in the transcript and supporting documents provided in Exhibit 1 to 10 Adams Decl. 11 Unfortunately, this is not the first occasion that Plaintiff has refused to attend her 12 deposition. On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff’s deposition with production of documents on October 13 18, 2021, was duly noticed and the deposition personally served at Plaintiff’s residence at 7585 14 Valley Ford Road in Petaluma, CA . Nevertheless, Plaintiff propounded invalid objection falsely 15 stating that he had not been served and refused to attend or produce documents requested Because 16 the Trial Court thereafter sua sponte vacated the trial set for November 19, 2021, no motion to 17 compel Plaintiff’s deposition under section 2025.450 was brought. However, the Court is 18 respectfully requested to consider Plaintiff’s documented pattern of refusing to comply with valid 19 discovery and refusing to provide her testimony on the eve of trial, in making its determinations 20 concerning this Motion. The October 8, 2021, deposition notice to Plaintiff and proof of service 21 are attached as Exhibit 2 to Adams Decl. 22 LEGAL ARGUMENT 23 Plaintiff’s objections arguing that TRVFD lacks standing to issue a deposition notice with 24 production of documents are clearly specious and invalid. Where invalid objections are 25 propounded, a deponent is subject to the sanction regime set forth in section 2025.450. (See 26 2025.450(a); see also Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702 (“The 27 question before us is not whether the trial should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the 28 question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose.” 3 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 (quoting Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.,4th 1093, 2 1105).) 3 Plaintiff’s pattern and demonstrated practice of willful discovery violations is particularly 4 egregious since Plaintiff is represented and advised by her husband, co-Plaintiff Frear Stephen 5 Schmid, a licensed California attorney with 42 years of experience. “[W]here a violation is 6 willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would 7 not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the 8 ultimate sanction.” (Creed -21, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at 702 (quoting Doppes v. Bentley Motors, 9 Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992).) 10 Because Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to participate in discovery to provide her 11 testimony as required by the Discovery Act, rather than the “ultimate” terminating sanction, 12 TRVFD requests this Court impose an evidentiary sanction precluding Plaintiff from testifying 13 at the trial. 14 In the alternative, TRVFD requests an order compelling and expediting Plaintiffs 15 deposition testimony, subject to the full range sanctions to terminating sanction and findings of 16 indirect contempt, if and when Plaintiff fails to comply. (See Creed -21, supra, 18 Cal.App. 5th 17 at fn. 11 (“disobedience of a court order outside of the presence of the judge . . . is categorized as 18 indirect contempt.” (citing Kohler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1159).) 19 REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 20 Section 2025.450(g)(2) provides for mandatory monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, 21 unless the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pattern of refusing to appear at his deposition has some 22 “substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 23 There is no substantial justification or other circumstances to excuse the mandatory imposition 24 of sanction against Plaintiff in this situation. 25 Monetary sanctions are also available and appropriate for Plaintiff’s discovery misuse 26 under section 2023.010(d) for failing to submit to an authorized method of discovery in an effort 27 to avoid her deposition before trial. TRVFD requests the Court order Plaintiff to pay TRVFD 28 $1,575.00 for the attorney’s fees and costs, including court reporter charges for an expedited 4 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 Statement of Nonappearance, incurred for Plaintiff’s deposition, as follows: $1,125.00 for five 2 hours of attorney time at $225.00 per hour, to prepare the deposition notices, communicate with 3 Plaintiff, convene the deposition to obtain the Statement of Nonappearance; prepare, reply and 4 appear at the hearing concerning this Motion; and $450.00 for the Court Reporter invoice. 5 Additionally, section 2023.050 mandates a further $250.00 sum certain sanction, where, 6 as here, Plaintiff failed to produce documents identified in her deposition notice pursuant to 7 section 2025.210, (see section 2023.050(a)(1), as well as a further $250.00 sum certain sanction 8 if Plaintiff fails to produce the documents requested pursuant to section 2025.210 within seven 9 days before the Court hears this Motion under section 2025.450 (see section 2023.050(a)(2).) 10 CONCLUSION 11 Without any substantial justification and based on specious invalid objections, Plaintiff 12 deliberately refused to attend her duly noticed deposition and failed to produce documents called 13 for in her deposition notice. Because this is a recurring example of discovery abuse by Plaintiff in 14 this case, TRVFD requests the Court issue an Order precluding Plaintiff from testifying at the trial 15 set to begin on November 4, 2022. 16 17 DATED: September 2, 2022 JOHNSTON | THOMAS, Attorneys at Law, PC 18 By: 19 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID OR TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; AND FOR SANCTIONS EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SONOMA 3 4 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ) ASTRID SCHMID, ) 5 ) Plaintiffs, ) 6 ) vs. ) Case No.: 7 ) SCV-266225 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, ) 8 A California Nonprofit Public ) Benefit Corporation, ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10 ____________________________________) 11 12 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF 16 ASTRID SCHMID 17 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 18 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2022 19 20 21 22 ATKINSON-BAKER, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 23 www.veritext.com 24 FILE NO.: AB 5550450 25 REPORTED BY: MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS, CSR #13876 Page 1 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SONOMA 3 4 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID AND ) ASTRID SCHMID, ) 5 ) Plaintiffs, ) 6 ) vs. ) Case No.: 7 ) SCV-266225 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, ) 8 A California Nonprofit Public ) Benefit Corporation, ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10 ____________________________________) 11 12 13 14 15 DEPOSITION OF ASTRID SCHMID, taken on behalf 16 of Defendant, at 1400 North Dutton Avenue, Suite 21, 17 Santa Rosa, California 95401, commencing at 9:32 AM, 18 Wednesday, October 26, 2022, before Maximillian A. 19 Contreras, CSR #13876. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 FOR PLAINTIFF ASTRID SCHMID: 4 BY: FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, ESQ. 7585 Valley Ford Road 5 Petaluma, California 94952 (415) 788-5957 6 frearschmid@aol.com In propria persona 7 8 FOR DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: 9 BY: WILLIAM L. ADAMS, ESQ. 10 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC P.O. Box 1050 11 Windsor, California 95492 (707) 236-2176 12 bill@wladamspc.com 13 14 FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SONOMA: 15 BY: MICHAEL A. KING, ESQ. DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL 16 575 Administration Drive Room 105A 17 Santa Rosa, California 95403 (707) 565-2421 18 michael.king@sonoma-county.org 19 20 ALSO PRESENT: 21 PAUL MARTIN 22 23 24 25 Page 3 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE WITNESS: Astrid Schmid 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. ADAMS............................6 EXAMINATION BY MR. KING.............................212 4 5 6 E X H I B I T S 7 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 8 Exhibit 1 Amended Notice of Deposition of Plf Astrid.....8 Schmid and Request for Production of Documents 9 Exhibit 2 Complaint for Damages for Fraud................10 10 Exhibit 3 11/25/2018 Schmid Statement....................18 11 Exhibit 4 [Proposed] Order After Hearing of Law and......21 12 Motion Matters and Parties' Stipulations 13 Exhibit 5 Google Earth Aerial Photograph.................26 14 Exhibit 6 Notice of Deposition of Plf Astrid Schmid......71 and Request for Production of Documents 15 Exhibit 7 TRVFD Parcel Setback Data - Existing and.......108 16 Proposed Structures 17 Exhibit 8 Verified Complaint for Declaratory and.........114 Injunctive Relief for Encforcement of County 18 Ordinances, Nuisances and Tresspass 19 Exhibit 9 10/26/22 Schmid e-mail, "Schmid v. TRFD........116 pictures documents" 20 Exhibit 10 Phone screenshot..............................128 21 Exhibit 11 Photograph, swale.............................131 22 Exhibit 12 Photograph, red building project..............142 23 Exhibit 13 Dft TRFD's Form Interrogatories to Plf........187 24 Astrid Schmid, Set 1 25 Exhibit 14 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Form..........188 Interrogatories Page 4 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 E X H I B I T S (CONT.) 2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 Exhibit 15 Dft TRVFD's Special Interrogatories to........192 Plf Astrid Schmid, Set 1 4 Exhibit 16 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Special.......193 5 Interrogatories 6 Exhibit 17 Dft TRVFD's Request for Production of.........197 Documents to Pft Astrid Schmid, Set 1 7 Exhibit 18 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Requests......197 8 for Production of Documents 9 Exhibit 19 Dft TRVFD's Request for Admission of..........201 Genuineness of Documents to Plf Astrid Schmid, 10 Set 1 11 Exhibit 20 Plfs' Responses to First Set of Requests......201 for Admissions 12 Exhibit 21 Demand for Inspection of Real Property........206 13 Exhibit 22 Plfs' Objection to Inspection Demand..........206 14 15 16 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS: 17 PAGE LINE 18 10 1 32 23 19 43 13 57 16 20 72 11 89 11 21 90 9 90 22 22 95 24 194 22 23 195 18 196 13 24 197 6 203 16 25 Page 5 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 4 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2022, 9:32 AM 5 6 ASTRID SCHMID, 7 having first been duly sworn, was 8 examined and testified as follows: 9 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. ADAMS: 12 Q. Well, good morning, Mrs. Schmid. As you 13 know, my name is Bill Adams. I represent the Two Rock 14 Fire Department. Seated to my right is Paul Martin, 15 who you know. He's on the Board. At the end of 16 the table is Mike King. Mr. King is a Deputy County 17 Counsel. He represents the Defendant County of Sonoma. 18 And we're here for your deposition today. Thank you 19 for being here. 20 Have you ever had your deposition taken 21 before? 22 MR. SCHMID: If I could make a couple 23 statements before we go on. 24 First of all, I'm going to be representing 25 Astrid today for the purposes of this deposition. Page 6 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 And secondly, since Paul Martin's here, 2 obviously that would require him to be the sole and 3 exclusive representative at trial in this matter. 4 MR. KING: I'm going to disagree with your 5 representation. But that's what it is. 6 MR. ADAMS: Yeah. As I will also disagree. 7 But your comments are noted for the record. Thank you. 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 BY MR. ADAMS: 10 Q. Thank you. So I'm going to give you briefly 11 what are called "admonitions." They're kind of the 12 ground rules for a deposition. Have you had the -- 13 and again, sitting next to you is Frear Schmid. 14 He's also a Plaintiff in this case and he's your 15 husband; is that correct? 16 A. Oh. I thought that was an instruction. 17 That was question. 18 Q. No, that was a question. 19 A. Yes, that is correct. 20 Q. Have you had the opportunity to speak with 21 Mr. Schmid about the nature and purpose of a deposition 22 generally? I don't want to know what you talked about, 23 but have you spoken to him about -- 24 A. No, not really. 25 Q. Okay. Have you had the opportunity to review Page 7 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 your amended deposition notice, which was sent out after 2 Judge Zuniga set the deposition for today? 3 A. Can I see that? 4 Q. Sure. We marked that as Exhibit 1 before the 5 deposition started. 6 (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.) 7 MR. SCHMID: For the record, I'm going to 8 object. That notice is meaningless, void on its face, 9 and irregular on its face. And we previously lodged 10 an objection. It's completely specious in view of 11 Judge Zuniga's order. You cannot re-notice a deposition 12 after it's been brought to the court and the court has 13 ordered the deposition. So that's the rule -- 14 We're going by the Court's order, not by your 15 notice. It's absolutely fascially defective and without 16 any merit whatsoever. 17 MR. ADAMS: And you have some authority for 18 that? 19 MR. SCHMID: Yeah. The judge's order. 20 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And I know you sent 21 an objection that appeared to transpose the dates. 22 MR. SCHMID: That might be true. 23 I don't know. 24 MR. ADAMS: Okay, fine. 25 MR. SCHMID: You mean that dates of mine Page 8 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 versus Astrid's? 2 MR. ADAMS: Yes. That's what your objection 3 said; that you did not like Ms. Schmid's being today 4 and yours tomorrow. There was a different order. 5 MR. SCHMID: Whatever. I -- 6 MR. ADAMS: So I don't need to have a dialogue 7 with you. You've made your objection. Thank you, sir. 8 MR. SCHMID: If you want to attach my 9 objection to the record, that's fine. I didn't bring it 10 with me. 11 BY MR. ADAMS: 12 Q. So have you seen -- 13 A. I don't think I have seen this in particular 14 before. I have -- 15 MR. SCHMID: You've answered the question. 16 BY MR. ADAMS: 17 Q. Okay. Have you ever been a deposition notice 18 to you in this case? 19 A. I -- have I ever seen a deposition notice to 20 me in this case? I think I did, yes. 21 Q. Okay. Your deposition was noticed previously 22 for August 26th. And do you recall now that I've said 23 that date, that you got a deposition notice during the 24 month of August for your deposition? 25 A. Yes. Page 9 Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company (818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com Astrid Schmid October 26, 2022 1 *Q. Okay. The deposition notice for your 2 deposition on August 26th and this deposition notice 3 which was served on you on October 17th of the amended 4 deposition notice, identified nine categories of 5 documents that you were requested to bring. 6 I'd like you to look at those. 7 Have you brought any documents with you today? 8 MR. SCHMID: Objection. Instruct not to 9 answer. Not calculated to lead to admissible evidence 10 at this deposition. You never sought an order to compel 11 production of documents. Defendants have waived any 12 and all rights to seek compulsion of it and therefore 13 there's no merit to your question. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. I will not. 15 MR. ADAMS: Are you instructing the witness 16 not to answer? 17 MR. SCHMID: Could you read it back, please. 18 (Record read.) 19 MR. SCHMID: Instruct not to answer one the 20 foregoing basis. 21 MR. ADAMS: Let me ask you a different way. 22 So we'll come back to that Exhibit 1. 23 (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.) 24 BY MR. ADAMS: 25 Q. Exhibit 2, also pre-marked, i