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 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
v. DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER
13 FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION
14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE OF DOCUMENTS AT CONTINUED
DEPARTMENT, DEPOSTION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR
15 STEPHEN SCHMID; AND FOR SANCTIONS
Defendant. [CCP § 2025.480; CRC 3.1345]
16
Hearing Date:
17 Time:
Department: 19
18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
Trial Call: TBD
19
20
21 In accordance with Rule of Court 3.1345 Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department,
22 also known as Two Rock Fire Department (“Two Rock Fire”) hereby submits the following
23 Separate Statement in support of it’s Motion to Compel Answers and Production of Documents at
24 Continued Deposition of Plaintiff Frear Stephen Schmid (“Plaintiff”).
25 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c), states as follows:
26 “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery
motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request
27 and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and
complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to
28
-1-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into
1 the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include-for each
discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question,
2 or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-
the following:
3
(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
4 (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses
or answers;
5 (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further
responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;
6 (4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters
required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;
7 (5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the
response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further
8 response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based
on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the
9 response to it must be set forth; and
(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery
10 are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize
each relevant document.”
11
12 As shown in the deposition notice to Plaintiff dated August 4, 2022, in Exhibit 1 to the
13 supporting declaration of William L. Adams, Two Rock Fire specifically requested nine categories
14 of documents for Plaintiff to produce at the deposition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
15 sections 2025.210 and 2025.220. The document demand specified in the deposition notice
16 remained in effect when Plaintiff’s Court-ordered deposition commenced on October 27, 2022.
17 Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.460(e) provides:
18 “If a deponent failures to answer any questions or to produce any documents,
19 electronically stored information, or tangible thing under deponent’s control that is
specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking that
20 answer or production may adjourn the deposition or complete the examination on
other matters without waiving the right at a later time to move for an order
21 compelling that answer or production under Section 2025.480.”
22 CCP § 2025.460(e ) (emphasis added).
23 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DEPOSITION QUESTIONS POSED TO PLAINTIFF
24 The following examples are provided regarding answers to deposition questions and
25 production of documents from Plaintiff’s October 27, 2022, deposition (at which Plaintiff, a
26 California attorney with more than 40 years’ experience, represented himself). Below, please find a
27 transcription of the question asked, objection provided, and further communications between
28
-2-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 Defendants’ Two Rock Fire and County of Sonoma’s counsel, and Plaintiff’, as to each of these
2 questions. Counsel advised Plaintiff, and Plaintiff refused to acknowledges and comply, with the
3 statutory requirement that “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as
4 permitted at trial under the provisions of the Evidence Code.” CCP section 2025.330(d).) As
5 documented in the annotated Certified Transcript of the Deposition of Frear Stephen Schmid
6 attached as Exhibit 4 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, these are highlighted
7 illustrative examples of Plaintiff’s persistent and repeated refusal to testify as if at trial, failure to
8 answer questions and refusal to produce documents that support the Court granting Two Rock
9 Fire’s Motion to Compel. The excerpts are identified by page line (e.g. 39:20 – 42:3)
10
11 QUESTION NO. 1 – Refusal to Produce Documents; 40:3 – 41:6:
12 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Exhibit 1 [the deposition notice to Plaintiff] has nine categories of
13 documents, and were going to talk about the link that was sent yesterday in a
14 little while. But other than the link that was sent yesterday that I represent to
15 you had 97 photographs, 29 screenshots, and one .MP4 file, have you
16 provided any of the documents called for in this deposition subpoena?
17 MR. SCHMID: Yes, we provided all those documents.
18 MR. ADAMS: When were those documents provided, to your understanding?
19 MR. SCHMID: Over the last two-and-a-half years of this litigation.
20 MR. ADAMS: And you are referring to – – because were going to talk about it – – what
21 had been marked as Exhibit 9? We’re going to include in your – – the email
22 at 8:35 yesterday morning that you and your wife sent to Mr. King and I?
23 MR. SCHMID: Me.
24 MR. KING: We went through that yesterday. You’ve got to say “me.”
25 [Brief off-the-record discussion]
26 MR. SCHMID: Yes. This is an email that I along with my wife sent you yesterday morning
27 MR. ADAMS: And those documents that you provided throughout this litigation is
28
-3-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 referred to in the large second paragraph of Exhibit 9 to your wife’s deposition.
2 MR. SCHMID: Correct.
3 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
4 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
5 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
6 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
7 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
8 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
9 State and federal court.
10 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
11 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
12 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
13 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
14 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
15
16 QUESTION NO. 2 – Refusal to Produce Documents: 62:14 – 64:4:
17 MR. ADAMS: So now with the Exhibit 6 entitled “corrected notice of deposition of plaintiff
18 Frear Schmid and request for production of documents.” Have you seen that
19 document before?
20 MR. SCHMID: Yes, I have.
21 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Now, I’ll represent to you similar to the deposition notice that was
22 marked for Exhibit 1, that deposition notice calls for nine categories of
23 documents. Do you see that?
24 MR. SCHMID: Without adopting your language, it lists nine different inspection demands.
25 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And if you look at those, to those quote inspection demands” is that
26 phrase as defined in Exhibit 6 refer to documents or records
27
28
-4-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 MR. SCHMID: Well, it doesn't define an inspection demand; so I'm not sure how to answer
2 your question. Maybe I’m missing it.
3 MR. ADAMS: If you look, for example, under “inspection demand number one” on the first
4 line of that – – it’s page 2, line 14. You see that the word “DOCUMENTS”
5 is in all capital letters?
6 MR. SCHMID: Yes.
7 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And you know, Mr. Schmid, when inspections demands are in a
8 deposition notice, there’s calls for documents. You know that?
9 MR. SCHMID: Yes. Yeah.
10 MR. ADAMS: So my point is: do you see that there are nine categories of inspection
11 demands for documents in Exhibit 6?
12 MR. SCHMID: Yes. That was my answer.
13 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. And other than – – and were going to get to Exhibit 9, your
14 email yesterday – – other than the attached link that you and your wife sent
15 at 8:35 yesterday morning to Mr. King and I – –
16 MR. SCHMID: “Me.”
17 MR. KING: You’re going to get this every time.
18 MR. ADAMS: – – Have you provided any of the documents called for in Exhibit 6?
19 MR. SCHMID: There’s no documents called for to me in Exhibit 6 that are legally
20 cognizable document request.
21 MR. ADAMS: That sounds like an objection. The answer is “yes” or “no”: have you
22 provided any documents other than the link at 8:30 yesterday morning?
23 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
24 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
25 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
26 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
27 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
28
-5-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
2 State and federal court.
3 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
4 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
5 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
6 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
7 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
8
9 QUESTION NO. 3 – Refusal to Produce Documents: 66:14 – 68:15:
10 MR. ADAMS: Okay, thank you. And is it your expectation in sending Exhibit 9 – – and
11 particularly that portion that you read – – that rather than plaintiffs having to
12 demonstrate the evidence that they have to support their claims, defendants
13 have got to sort through, “all documents and discovery produced and/or
14 generated, including all depositions, by all parties, etc., etc.…” – – in the
15 numerous events that you were talking about?
16 MR. SCHMID: I don’t have any expectation of what you guys do. I mean, it’s clear to me
17 that you have not reviewed the documents that are in this file as evidenced
18 by the questioning yesterday. So based on my experience in this litigation, I
19 think that the process of the defendants have – – both sides, all defendants –
20 – in the consolidated actions have routinely ignored documents and
21 correspondence. And therefore I have no expectation that anything that we
22 do is received, reviewed, analyzed, and appreciated.
23 MR. ADAMS: Okay, thank you. Do the Plaintiffs, in your view, have any obligation in
24 good faith discovery to provide documents that support their claims against
25 the Defendants?
26 MR. SCHMID: If timely and proper demand for documents or discovery are made, then per
27 the law, we as Plaintiffs have an obligation to respond. However, the timing
28
-6-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 and the proper form of those demands are incumbent on the propounding
2 party. And when the propounding party does not do as the law commands,
3 then we as Plaintiffs have no obligation to aid or abet the Defendants in their
4 inability to timely and properly request discovery.
5 And this is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the instant fraud
6 case and, in fact, in the original case – – the Defendants have not acted per
7 law, number one, and certainly have not acted timely.
8 And finally, even when objections are received, they do not meet and
9 confer in good faith to address objections. Instead they act indignant and a
10 they act like children and take specious positions and do not timely make
11 motions to the court to have any issues addressed. And the law is very clear
12 as to the time factors that regulate that. And when a party such as your client
13 fails to timely act and seek remedies in court, which generally speaking are
14 45 days from the date of the document response, than they have waived their
15 right to complain about any inadequacies of any particular discovery
16 response.
17 MR. ADAMS: I’m going to stop you there with your narrative response.
18 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
19 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
20 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
21 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
22 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
23 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
24 State and federal court.
25 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
26 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
27 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
28
-7-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
2 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
3
4 QUESTION NO. 4 – Failure to Answer Valuation Questions: 15:6-23:
5 “MR. ADAMS: All right. And what was the purchase price when you purchased the
6 property in July 1996?
7 MR. SCHMID: I really don’t know, frankly. I object on the grounds it’s relevant or even
8 calculated relevant evidence. But I relayed don’t know it off the top of my
9 head.
10 MR. ADAMS: Well, if you’re claiming some diminution in value of your property now
11 and in the last few years because of the red building project – –
12 MR. SCHMID: Mm-hmm.
13 MR. ADAMS: – – the reason I’m asking is to lead to relevant information, is to get a
14 benchmark. Your property is probably worth something now and we need to
15 start with what it was like when you purchased it. That’s why it’s
16 relevant, with that representation.
17 MR. SCHMID: I disagree, but I hear what you said Paul – – I mean Bill. I was looking at
18 Paul when I said that.”
19
DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
20
Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
21
discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
22
discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
23
William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
24
generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
25
State and federal court.
26
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
27
“[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
28
-8-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
2 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
3 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
4
5 QUESTION NO. 5 – Failure to Answer Valuation Questions: 99:4-100:11:
6 MR. ADAMS: Did you actually go on to the red building parcel?
7 MR. SCHMID: No, absolutely not. As you know, I can’t go there.
8 MR. ADAMS: Why can’t you go there?
9 MR. SCHMID: You know why. I’m not going to answer it. I just told you.
10 MR. ADAMS: You had said you couldn’t go in there.
11 MR. SCHMID: Because of lying cheats. How about that?
12 MR. ADAMS: How about a restraining order?
13 MR. SCHMID: How about lying cheats?
14 MR. ADAMS: Is there a restraining order against you?
15 MR. SCHMID: How about lying cheats? How about people that perjure themselves?
16 MR. ADAMS: I’ll move to strike, Mr. Schmid. Record speaks for itself.
17 MR. SCHMID: It certainly does. Because you look at the record. And you see what a lying
18 cheats some people are. All of them.
19 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, I’ll move to strike as nonresponsive.
20 MR. SCHMID: Every one of those declarants are lying cheats.
21 MR. ADAMS: Are you done, sir?
22 MR. SCHMID: And if they want to sue me, I’ll gladly take it on.
23 MR. ADAMS: Are you done, sir?
24 MR. SCHMID: No, I’m not done. We are here until whenever you’re done with the
25 deposition.
26 MR. ADAMS: I’m talking about your narrative nonresponsive – – are you done with those?
27 MR. SCHMID: I don’t know. We’ll see. Depends on what your next question is..
28
-9-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
2 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
3 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
4 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
5 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
6 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
7 State and federal court.
8 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
9 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
10 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
11 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
12 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
13
14 QUESTION NO. 6 – Failure to Answer Property Questions: 109:20-111:10
15 MR. ADAMS: I understand that. What’s the total complete assessor parcel number
16 for the Schmid property, Mr. Schmid:
17 MR. SCHMID: I have no clue. All I know is that the parcel map number – –
18 MR. ADAMS: Could you please stop raising your voice.
19 MR. SCHMID: Well, because you’re aggravating me by asking me things that are contorting
20 what I’m saying. The documents very clear. “parcel map number” – –
21 excuse me, “map parcel number,” okay? That’s what I’m referring. I just
22 explained to you and I presume you knew what a map parcel or a parcel map
23 I s. It’s a document that’s generated by the County and it always says on their
24 under notes certain terms the outline or acreage, whatever, is not
25 But the numbers are numbers that are assigned to a parcel by the County tax
26 assessor. This was not a number I was referring to. When I say “this," I'm
27
28
- 10 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 referring to 7A, where there is assessor's numbers in three or four different
2 spots.
3 MR. ADAMS: So again, when you refer to your property as “Assessor's map parcel number
4 19," is number 19 the complete parcel map number or is in fact a nine digit
5 number?
6 MR. SCHMID: I'm not going to answer again. Either you're trying to intentionally inflame
7 me or your dense. I'm sorry to say it that way. I can't explain my answer any
8 better. I'm sorry to sound insulting, but apparently you've never seen a parcel
9 map.
10 MR. ADAMS: So if we looked at parcel maps, for example, in a part parcel designated with
11 the use permit filings or something with the County of Sonoma County,
12 would they have a two digit number or a nine digit number?
13 MR. SCHMID: I don’t know. They are so screwed up. That’s why we are here today, okay?
14 If they did their job and knew what they were doing, we would not be here
15 today because they would have summarily denied this whole application
16 from the get go. And it’s only because we are suckered into this that they
17 were – – the Two Rock Fire Department was able to fraudulently get it
18 through the system.
19 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
20 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
21 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
22 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
23 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
24 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
25 State and federal court.
26 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
27 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
28
- 11 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
2 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
3 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
4
5 QUESTION NO. 7 – Failure to Answer Property Questions: page 111:11 -112:7:
6 MR. ADAMS: In Exhibit 3, you intended that the 5 foot setback would apply to the parcel
7 where the red building project was being built, yes?
8 MR. SCHMID: No, I did not. Can you not read English? Can you not read black-and-white?
9 It says the 5 foot setback applied to the rear of the proposed building, sir.
10 Read the document. You like to have me read documents? Sir, read it in the
11 record.
12 MR. ADAMS: And were you are referring to the property setback on the red building
13 parcel?
14 MR. SCHMID: Read it. I’m not going to answer it. No further questions.
15 MR. KING: You want to close that? [referring to the deposition room door]
16 (Ryan Thomas [Managing Partner of the Johnson Thomas law firm where the deposition was being
17 taken] enters the deposition room.)
18 Mr. Thomas: [to Mr. Schmid] Is everything okay here, sir?
19 MR. SCHMID: I need to take a break. He’s insulting me. (One Mr. Schmid exits the
20 deposition room.)
21 MR. ADAMS: We’re going to take a break. We’ll note that Mr. Schmid, after shouting, has
22 left the deposition room. Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
23 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
24 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
25 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
26 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
27 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
28
- 12 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
2 State and federal court.
3 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
4 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
5 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
6 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
7 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
8
9 QUESTION NO. 8 – Failure to Answer About Potential Witness: 126:20 -128:3:
10 MR. ADAMS: I’m sorry. For the record, Mr. Nollis is who?
11 MR. SCHMID: I don’t have to explain to you. If you don’t know that, then you are truly
12 unprepared.
13 MR. ADAMS: You’re not going to answer a question on who Mr. Nollis is your referring to
14 MR. SCHMID: You don’t know who he is?
15 MR. ADAMS: I’m asking you.
16 MR. SCHMID: Is this a rhetorical question?
17 MR. ADAMS: No, it’s not, sir.
18 MR. SCHMID: Is this a good faith discovery question?
19 MR. ADAMS: I’m asking you. You referred to “Mr. Nollis.” Who are you referring to?
20 MR. SCHMID: Okay, why don’t we do it this way: Can you get me the notice of people to
21 appear at trial, please? And I’ll point to him on there.
22 MR. ADAMS: No, Mr. Schmid. We are here to have your deposition taken, sir. You
23 mentioned the name. I asked you to clarify who it was. If you’re going to
24 refuse to do so, please continue.
25 MR. SCHMID: No. I want to show you on the document where you specify Mr. Nollis – –
26 you directed the County to have Mr. Nollis appear at the trial in this matter
27 as a witness. And you are asking me sir, to tell you who Mr. Nollis is, an
28
- 13 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 individual that you in essence subpoenaed to appear at trial. Is that a good
2 faith question?
3 MR. ADAMS: Are you going to decline to answer the question?
4 MR. SCHMID: Mr. Nollis is one of the building permit inspectors that conducted
5 inspections as best he could, apparently, despite the fact that he was
6 routinely – – again, I don’t know. I won’t go there.
7 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. You answered my question. I appreciate it.
8 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
9 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct
10 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic
11 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of
12 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery
13 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in
14 State and federal court.
15 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
16 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
17 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
18 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
19 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
20
21 QUESTION NO. 9 – Improper Narrative Response 133:21 -134:16:
22 MR. ADAMS: Can I ask you to pause. You been speaking for 11 minutes straight. I
23 watched up there.
24 MR. SCHMID: I told you. Go to 5:00.
25 MR. ADAMS: I appreciate that. A couple thoughts, sir. I know you are passionate about
26 this. Your voice tone gets louder and louder and louder. I will take
27 exception. You have called them quote rogues.” You have called them quote
28
- 14 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 morons.” You have called them quote dishonorable sheets.” I just wanted to
2 make note of that.
3 MR. SCHMID : If the shoe fits, wear it.
4 MR. ADAMS: So if you could, sir, it would be helpful for our follow-up to try and get some
5 clarity or probably better said, addressing the particulars, quote if you could
6 list an item then pause and see if we have any follow-up on that.
7 MR. SCHMID: No. I'm not going to do it that way you asked for a list. I'm giving you a list.
8 You want to cut me off? Then we can deal with that in court.
9 MR. ADAMS: I don’t want to cut you off. At 11 minutes plus, that was the very last thing
10 from cutting you off.
11 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
12 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the
13 narrative testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections
14 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not
15 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and
16 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s
17 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half
18 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court.
19 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
20 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
21 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
22 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
23 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
24
25 QUESTION NO. 10 – Improper Narrative Response 140:7-17:
26
MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, can I ask you to pause. I might want to follow up with a
27
question about the Air Exchange case.
28
- 15 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 MR. SCHMID: No. I’m not done with my list.
2 MR. ADAMS: I’m not saying that you’re done with your list.
3 MR. SCHMID: I’m not having my response interrupted.
4 MR. ADAMS: Okay. You now have gone on for another 12 minutes, sir.
5 MR. SCHMID: I told you. I’ll go to 5 o’clock on this. You want answer? You’re getting it.
6
7 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
8 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the
9 narrative testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections
10 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not
11 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and
12 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s
13 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half
14 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court.
15 Additionally, Plaintiff has essentially attempted to “kidnap” the deposition and “run out the
16 clock “by failing to comply with the statutory requirement that “[e]xamination and cross-
17 examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the provisions of the
18 Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the sought-after
19 discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense counsel and
20 produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
21
22 QUESTION NO. 11 – Improper Narrative Response 143:9 -144:12:
23 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, I need you to stop. You have testified for 30 minutes on a
24 narrative.
25 MR. SCHMID: It’s not a narrative. Call the judge. Call the judge.
26 MR. ADAMS: Are you walking out your deposition, sir.
27 MR. SCHMID: No. Call the judge. I’m going to take a five minute break.
28
- 16 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 MR. ADAMS: Are you walking out of your deposition, sir?
2 MR. SCHMID: No. Call the judge. I’m taking a break. Call the judge.
3 MR. ADAMS: Are you walking out – –
4 MR. SCHMID: You cannot interrupt my answer.
5 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, I will wait for you to come back. Are you walking out of your
6 deposition?
7 MR. KING: No. He’s just taking a break.
8 MR. ADAMS: Take a break, Mr. Schmid.
9 MR. SCHMID: You call the judge. Call the judge. You call the judge, because if you don’t
10 let me answer this question until I’m done, I will walk out. So you either get
11 some authority that you can cut me off on a response to a question where
12 you said “list everything,” and give me authority and I’ll look at it. But until
13 then, you let me finish my answer.
14 MR. ADAMS: It’s 2:10, Mr. Schmid.
15 MR. SCHMID: I don’t care. You figure out what you want to do.
16 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
17 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the
18 narrative testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections
19 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not
20 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and
21 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s
22 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half
23 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court.
24 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that
25 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the
26 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the
27
28
- 17 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense
2 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
3
4 QUESTION NO. 12 – Improper Narrative Response 148:6-24:
5 MR. ADAMS: So Mr. Schmid, I want you to pause your list and I went to ask you a
6 number of specific questions. You’ve indicated you’re not willing to do that.
7 MR. SCHMID: I have indicated I’m objecting to it. And I’ve indicated an option to go to
8 court. Mr. King, Mike, has correctly pointed out that practically speaking,
9 that is not an option unfortunately due to the court congestion.
10 And I will pause my list over strenuous objections for the very reasons I just
11 stated. I see this is a deliberate attempt to derail my testimony and to cause
12 unnecessary confusion in the transcript. But subject to that objection, you
13 can do what you want to do without me waiving my right to have a
14 complete statement. And I want to be done within my – – in your allotted
15 seven hours; so your running into my time. So to the extent I’m not done
16 with my list within the seven hours, then were done. So think about that.
17 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION:
18 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the
19 narrative testimony. Additionally Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections
20 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not
21 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and
22 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s
23 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half
24 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court.
25 Additionally, Plaintiff has essentially attempted to “kidnap” the deposition and “run out the
26 clock “by failing to comply with the statutory requirement that “[e]xamination and cross-
27 examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the provisions of the
28
- 18 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
1 Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the sought-after
2 discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense counsel and
3 produce all documents called for in the deposition notice.
4
5 DATED: February 10, 2023 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC
6
By:
7 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant
TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID
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 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF v. DEFENDANT TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER 13 FIRE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION 14 TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE OF DOCUMENTS AT CONTINUED DEPARTMENT, DEPOSTION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR 15 STEPHEN SCHMID; AND FOR SANCTIONS Defendant. [CCP § 2025.480; CRC 3.1345] 16 Hearing Date: 17 Time: Department: 19 18 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS Trial Call: TBD 19 20 21 In accordance with Rule of Court 3.1345 Defendant Two Rock Volunteer Fire Department, 22 also known as Two Rock Fire Department (“Two Rock Fire”) hereby submits the following 23 Separate Statement in support of it’s Motion to Compel Answers and Production of Documents at 24 Continued Deposition of Plaintiff Frear Stephen Schmid (“Plaintiff”). 25 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(c), states as follows: 26 “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request 27 and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to 28 -1- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into 1 the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, 2 or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested- the following: 3 (1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand; 4 (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; 5 (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute; 6 (4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it; 7 (5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further 8 response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the 9 response to it must be set forth; and (6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery 10 are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.” 11 12 As shown in the deposition notice to Plaintiff dated August 4, 2022, in Exhibit 1 to the 13 supporting declaration of William L. Adams, Two Rock Fire specifically requested nine categories 14 of documents for Plaintiff to produce at the deposition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 15 sections 2025.210 and 2025.220. The document demand specified in the deposition notice 16 remained in effect when Plaintiff’s Court-ordered deposition commenced on October 27, 2022. 17 Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.460(e) provides: 18 “If a deponent failures to answer any questions or to produce any documents, 19 electronically stored information, or tangible thing under deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking that 20 answer or production may adjourn the deposition or complete the examination on other matters without waiving the right at a later time to move for an order 21 compelling that answer or production under Section 2025.480.” 22 CCP § 2025.460(e ) (emphasis added). 23 STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DEPOSITION QUESTIONS POSED TO PLAINTIFF 24 The following examples are provided regarding answers to deposition questions and 25 production of documents from Plaintiff’s October 27, 2022, deposition (at which Plaintiff, a 26 California attorney with more than 40 years’ experience, represented himself). Below, please find a 27 transcription of the question asked, objection provided, and further communications between 28 -2- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 Defendants’ Two Rock Fire and County of Sonoma’s counsel, and Plaintiff’, as to each of these 2 questions. Counsel advised Plaintiff, and Plaintiff refused to acknowledges and comply, with the 3 statutory requirement that “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as 4 permitted at trial under the provisions of the Evidence Code.” CCP section 2025.330(d).) As 5 documented in the annotated Certified Transcript of the Deposition of Frear Stephen Schmid 6 attached as Exhibit 4 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, these are highlighted 7 illustrative examples of Plaintiff’s persistent and repeated refusal to testify as if at trial, failure to 8 answer questions and refusal to produce documents that support the Court granting Two Rock 9 Fire’s Motion to Compel. The excerpts are identified by page line (e.g. 39:20 – 42:3) 10 11 QUESTION NO. 1 – Refusal to Produce Documents; 40:3 – 41:6: 12 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Exhibit 1 [the deposition notice to Plaintiff] has nine categories of 13 documents, and were going to talk about the link that was sent yesterday in a 14 little while. But other than the link that was sent yesterday that I represent to 15 you had 97 photographs, 29 screenshots, and one .MP4 file, have you 16 provided any of the documents called for in this deposition subpoena? 17 MR. SCHMID: Yes, we provided all those documents. 18 MR. ADAMS: When were those documents provided, to your understanding? 19 MR. SCHMID: Over the last two-and-a-half years of this litigation. 20 MR. ADAMS: And you are referring to – – because were going to talk about it – – what 21 had been marked as Exhibit 9? We’re going to include in your – – the email 22 at 8:35 yesterday morning that you and your wife sent to Mr. King and I? 23 MR. SCHMID: Me. 24 MR. KING: We went through that yesterday. You’ve got to say “me.” 25 [Brief off-the-record discussion] 26 MR. SCHMID: Yes. This is an email that I along with my wife sent you yesterday morning 27 MR. ADAMS: And those documents that you provided throughout this litigation is 28 -3- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 referred to in the large second paragraph of Exhibit 9 to your wife’s deposition. 2 MR. SCHMID: Correct. 3 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 4 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 5 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 6 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 7 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 8 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 9 State and federal court. 10 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 11 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 12 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 13 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 14 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 15 16 QUESTION NO. 2 – Refusal to Produce Documents: 62:14 – 64:4: 17 MR. ADAMS: So now with the Exhibit 6 entitled “corrected notice of deposition of plaintiff 18 Frear Schmid and request for production of documents.” Have you seen that 19 document before? 20 MR. SCHMID: Yes, I have. 21 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Now, I’ll represent to you similar to the deposition notice that was 22 marked for Exhibit 1, that deposition notice calls for nine categories of 23 documents. Do you see that? 24 MR. SCHMID: Without adopting your language, it lists nine different inspection demands. 25 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And if you look at those, to those quote inspection demands” is that 26 phrase as defined in Exhibit 6 refer to documents or records 27 28 -4- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 MR. SCHMID: Well, it doesn't define an inspection demand; so I'm not sure how to answer 2 your question. Maybe I’m missing it. 3 MR. ADAMS: If you look, for example, under “inspection demand number one” on the first 4 line of that – – it’s page 2, line 14. You see that the word “DOCUMENTS” 5 is in all capital letters? 6 MR. SCHMID: Yes. 7 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And you know, Mr. Schmid, when inspections demands are in a 8 deposition notice, there’s calls for documents. You know that? 9 MR. SCHMID: Yes. Yeah. 10 MR. ADAMS: So my point is: do you see that there are nine categories of inspection 11 demands for documents in Exhibit 6? 12 MR. SCHMID: Yes. That was my answer. 13 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. And other than – – and were going to get to Exhibit 9, your 14 email yesterday – – other than the attached link that you and your wife sent 15 at 8:35 yesterday morning to Mr. King and I – – 16 MR. SCHMID: “Me.” 17 MR. KING: You’re going to get this every time. 18 MR. ADAMS: – – Have you provided any of the documents called for in Exhibit 6? 19 MR. SCHMID: There’s no documents called for to me in Exhibit 6 that are legally 20 cognizable document request. 21 MR. ADAMS: That sounds like an objection. The answer is “yes” or “no”: have you 22 provided any documents other than the link at 8:30 yesterday morning? 23 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 24 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 25 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 26 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 27 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 28 -5- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 2 State and federal court. 3 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 4 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 5 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 6 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 7 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 8 9 QUESTION NO. 3 – Refusal to Produce Documents: 66:14 – 68:15: 10 MR. ADAMS: Okay, thank you. And is it your expectation in sending Exhibit 9 – – and 11 particularly that portion that you read – – that rather than plaintiffs having to 12 demonstrate the evidence that they have to support their claims, defendants 13 have got to sort through, “all documents and discovery produced and/or 14 generated, including all depositions, by all parties, etc., etc.…” – – in the 15 numerous events that you were talking about? 16 MR. SCHMID: I don’t have any expectation of what you guys do. I mean, it’s clear to me 17 that you have not reviewed the documents that are in this file as evidenced 18 by the questioning yesterday. So based on my experience in this litigation, I 19 think that the process of the defendants have – – both sides, all defendants – 20 – in the consolidated actions have routinely ignored documents and 21 correspondence. And therefore I have no expectation that anything that we 22 do is received, reviewed, analyzed, and appreciated. 23 MR. ADAMS: Okay, thank you. Do the Plaintiffs, in your view, have any obligation in 24 good faith discovery to provide documents that support their claims against 25 the Defendants? 26 MR. SCHMID: If timely and proper demand for documents or discovery are made, then per 27 the law, we as Plaintiffs have an obligation to respond. However, the timing 28 -6- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 and the proper form of those demands are incumbent on the propounding 2 party. And when the propounding party does not do as the law commands, 3 then we as Plaintiffs have no obligation to aid or abet the Defendants in their 4 inability to timely and properly request discovery. 5 And this is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the instant fraud 6 case and, in fact, in the original case – – the Defendants have not acted per 7 law, number one, and certainly have not acted timely. 8 And finally, even when objections are received, they do not meet and 9 confer in good faith to address objections. Instead they act indignant and a 10 they act like children and take specious positions and do not timely make 11 motions to the court to have any issues addressed. And the law is very clear 12 as to the time factors that regulate that. And when a party such as your client 13 fails to timely act and seek remedies in court, which generally speaking are 14 45 days from the date of the document response, than they have waived their 15 right to complain about any inadequacies of any particular discovery 16 response. 17 MR. ADAMS: I’m going to stop you there with your narrative response. 18 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 19 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 20 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 21 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 22 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 23 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 24 State and federal court. 25 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 26 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 27 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 28 -7- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 2 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 3 4 QUESTION NO. 4 – Failure to Answer Valuation Questions: 15:6-23: 5 “MR. ADAMS: All right. And what was the purchase price when you purchased the 6 property in July 1996? 7 MR. SCHMID: I really don’t know, frankly. I object on the grounds it’s relevant or even 8 calculated relevant evidence. But I relayed don’t know it off the top of my 9 head. 10 MR. ADAMS: Well, if you’re claiming some diminution in value of your property now 11 and in the last few years because of the red building project – – 12 MR. SCHMID: Mm-hmm. 13 MR. ADAMS: – – the reason I’m asking is to lead to relevant information, is to get a 14 benchmark. Your property is probably worth something now and we need to 15 start with what it was like when you purchased it. That’s why it’s 16 relevant, with that representation. 17 MR. SCHMID: I disagree, but I hear what you said Paul – – I mean Bill. I was looking at 18 Paul when I said that.” 19 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 20 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 21 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 22 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 23 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 24 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 25 State and federal court. 26 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 27 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 28 -8- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 2 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 3 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 4 5 QUESTION NO. 5 – Failure to Answer Valuation Questions: 99:4-100:11: 6 MR. ADAMS: Did you actually go on to the red building parcel? 7 MR. SCHMID: No, absolutely not. As you know, I can’t go there. 8 MR. ADAMS: Why can’t you go there? 9 MR. SCHMID: You know why. I’m not going to answer it. I just told you. 10 MR. ADAMS: You had said you couldn’t go in there. 11 MR. SCHMID: Because of lying cheats. How about that? 12 MR. ADAMS: How about a restraining order? 13 MR. SCHMID: How about lying cheats? 14 MR. ADAMS: Is there a restraining order against you? 15 MR. SCHMID: How about lying cheats? How about people that perjure themselves? 16 MR. ADAMS: I’ll move to strike, Mr. Schmid. Record speaks for itself. 17 MR. SCHMID: It certainly does. Because you look at the record. And you see what a lying 18 cheats some people are. All of them. 19 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, I’ll move to strike as nonresponsive. 20 MR. SCHMID: Every one of those declarants are lying cheats. 21 MR. ADAMS: Are you done, sir? 22 MR. SCHMID: And if they want to sue me, I’ll gladly take it on. 23 MR. ADAMS: Are you done, sir? 24 MR. SCHMID: No, I’m not done. We are here until whenever you’re done with the 25 deposition. 26 MR. ADAMS: I’m talking about your narrative nonresponsive – – are you done with those? 27 MR. SCHMID: I don’t know. We’ll see. Depends on what your next question is.. 28 -9- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 2 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 3 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 4 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 5 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 6 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 7 State and federal court. 8 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 9 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 10 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 11 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 12 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 13 14 QUESTION NO. 6 – Failure to Answer Property Questions: 109:20-111:10 15 MR. ADAMS: I understand that. What’s the total complete assessor parcel number 16 for the Schmid property, Mr. Schmid: 17 MR. SCHMID: I have no clue. All I know is that the parcel map number – – 18 MR. ADAMS: Could you please stop raising your voice. 19 MR. SCHMID: Well, because you’re aggravating me by asking me things that are contorting 20 what I’m saying. The documents very clear. “parcel map number” – – 21 excuse me, “map parcel number,” okay? That’s what I’m referring. I just 22 explained to you and I presume you knew what a map parcel or a parcel map 23 I s. It’s a document that’s generated by the County and it always says on their 24 under notes certain terms the outline or acreage, whatever, is not 25 But the numbers are numbers that are assigned to a parcel by the County tax 26 assessor. This was not a number I was referring to. When I say “this," I'm 27 28 - 10 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 referring to 7A, where there is assessor's numbers in three or four different 2 spots. 3 MR. ADAMS: So again, when you refer to your property as “Assessor's map parcel number 4 19," is number 19 the complete parcel map number or is in fact a nine digit 5 number? 6 MR. SCHMID: I'm not going to answer again. Either you're trying to intentionally inflame 7 me or your dense. I'm sorry to say it that way. I can't explain my answer any 8 better. I'm sorry to sound insulting, but apparently you've never seen a parcel 9 map. 10 MR. ADAMS: So if we looked at parcel maps, for example, in a part parcel designated with 11 the use permit filings or something with the County of Sonoma County, 12 would they have a two digit number or a nine digit number? 13 MR. SCHMID: I don’t know. They are so screwed up. That’s why we are here today, okay? 14 If they did their job and knew what they were doing, we would not be here 15 today because they would have summarily denied this whole application 16 from the get go. And it’s only because we are suckered into this that they 17 were – – the Two Rock Fire Department was able to fraudulently get it 18 through the system. 19 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 20 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 21 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 22 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 23 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 24 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 25 State and federal court. 26 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 27 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 28 - 11 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 2 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 3 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 4 5 QUESTION NO. 7 – Failure to Answer Property Questions: page 111:11 -112:7: 6 MR. ADAMS: In Exhibit 3, you intended that the 5 foot setback would apply to the parcel 7 where the red building project was being built, yes? 8 MR. SCHMID: No, I did not. Can you not read English? Can you not read black-and-white? 9 It says the 5 foot setback applied to the rear of the proposed building, sir. 10 Read the document. You like to have me read documents? Sir, read it in the 11 record. 12 MR. ADAMS: And were you are referring to the property setback on the red building 13 parcel? 14 MR. SCHMID: Read it. I’m not going to answer it. No further questions. 15 MR. KING: You want to close that? [referring to the deposition room door] 16 (Ryan Thomas [Managing Partner of the Johnson Thomas law firm where the deposition was being 17 taken] enters the deposition room.) 18 Mr. Thomas: [to Mr. Schmid] Is everything okay here, sir? 19 MR. SCHMID: I need to take a break. He’s insulting me. (One Mr. Schmid exits the 20 deposition room.) 21 MR. ADAMS: We’re going to take a break. We’ll note that Mr. Schmid, after shouting, has 22 left the deposition room. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. 23 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 24 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 25 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 26 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 27 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 28 - 12 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 2 State and federal court. 3 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 4 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 5 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 6 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 7 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 8 9 QUESTION NO. 8 – Failure to Answer About Potential Witness: 126:20 -128:3: 10 MR. ADAMS: I’m sorry. For the record, Mr. Nollis is who? 11 MR. SCHMID: I don’t have to explain to you. If you don’t know that, then you are truly 12 unprepared. 13 MR. ADAMS: You’re not going to answer a question on who Mr. Nollis is your referring to 14 MR. SCHMID: You don’t know who he is? 15 MR. ADAMS: I’m asking you. 16 MR. SCHMID: Is this a rhetorical question? 17 MR. ADAMS: No, it’s not, sir. 18 MR. SCHMID: Is this a good faith discovery question? 19 MR. ADAMS: I’m asking you. You referred to “Mr. Nollis.” Who are you referring to? 20 MR. SCHMID: Okay, why don’t we do it this way: Can you get me the notice of people to 21 appear at trial, please? And I’ll point to him on there. 22 MR. ADAMS: No, Mr. Schmid. We are here to have your deposition taken, sir. You 23 mentioned the name. I asked you to clarify who it was. If you’re going to 24 refuse to do so, please continue. 25 MR. SCHMID: No. I want to show you on the document where you specify Mr. Nollis – – 26 you directed the County to have Mr. Nollis appear at the trial in this matter 27 as a witness. And you are asking me sir, to tell you who Mr. Nollis is, an 28 - 13 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 individual that you in essence subpoenaed to appear at trial. Is that a good 2 faith question? 3 MR. ADAMS: Are you going to decline to answer the question? 4 MR. SCHMID: Mr. Nollis is one of the building permit inspectors that conducted 5 inspections as best he could, apparently, despite the fact that he was 6 routinely – – again, I don’t know. I won’t go there. 7 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. You answered my question. I appreciate it. 8 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 9 Plaintiff asserts boilerplate objections clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct 10 discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic 11 discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of 12 William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery 13 generated” from the past two-and-a-half years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in 14 State and federal court. 15 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 16 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 17 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 18 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 19 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 20 21 QUESTION NO. 9 – Improper Narrative Response 133:21 -134:16: 22 MR. ADAMS: Can I ask you to pause. You been speaking for 11 minutes straight. I 23 watched up there. 24 MR. SCHMID: I told you. Go to 5:00. 25 MR. ADAMS: I appreciate that. A couple thoughts, sir. I know you are passionate about 26 this. Your voice tone gets louder and louder and louder. I will take 27 exception. You have called them quote rogues.” You have called them quote 28 - 14 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 morons.” You have called them quote dishonorable sheets.” I just wanted to 2 make note of that. 3 MR. SCHMID : If the shoe fits, wear it. 4 MR. ADAMS: So if you could, sir, it would be helpful for our follow-up to try and get some 5 clarity or probably better said, addressing the particulars, quote if you could 6 list an item then pause and see if we have any follow-up on that. 7 MR. SCHMID: No. I'm not going to do it that way you asked for a list. I'm giving you a list. 8 You want to cut me off? Then we can deal with that in court. 9 MR. ADAMS: I don’t want to cut you off. At 11 minutes plus, that was the very last thing 10 from cutting you off. 11 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 12 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the 13 narrative testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections 14 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not 15 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 16 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s 17 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half 18 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court. 19 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 20 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 21 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 22 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 23 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 24 25 QUESTION NO. 10 – Improper Narrative Response 140:7-17: 26 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, can I ask you to pause. I might want to follow up with a 27 question about the Air Exchange case. 28 - 15 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 MR. SCHMID: No. I’m not done with my list. 2 MR. ADAMS: I’m not saying that you’re done with your list. 3 MR. SCHMID: I’m not having my response interrupted. 4 MR. ADAMS: Okay. You now have gone on for another 12 minutes, sir. 5 MR. SCHMID: I told you. I’ll go to 5 o’clock on this. You want answer? You’re getting it. 6 7 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 8 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the 9 narrative testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections 10 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not 11 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 12 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s 13 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half 14 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court. 15 Additionally, Plaintiff has essentially attempted to “kidnap” the deposition and “run out the 16 clock “by failing to comply with the statutory requirement that “[e]xamination and cross- 17 examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the provisions of the 18 Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the sought-after 19 discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense counsel and 20 produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 21 22 QUESTION NO. 11 – Improper Narrative Response 143:9 -144:12: 23 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, I need you to stop. You have testified for 30 minutes on a 24 narrative. 25 MR. SCHMID: It’s not a narrative. Call the judge. Call the judge. 26 MR. ADAMS: Are you walking out your deposition, sir. 27 MR. SCHMID: No. Call the judge. I’m going to take a five minute break. 28 - 16 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 MR. ADAMS: Are you walking out of your deposition, sir? 2 MR. SCHMID: No. Call the judge. I’m taking a break. Call the judge. 3 MR. ADAMS: Are you walking out – – 4 MR. SCHMID: You cannot interrupt my answer. 5 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Schmid, I will wait for you to come back. Are you walking out of your 6 deposition? 7 MR. KING: No. He’s just taking a break. 8 MR. ADAMS: Take a break, Mr. Schmid. 9 MR. SCHMID: You call the judge. Call the judge. You call the judge, because if you don’t 10 let me answer this question until I’m done, I will walk out. So you either get 11 some authority that you can cut me off on a response to a question where 12 you said “list everything,” and give me authority and I’ll look at it. But until 13 then, you let me finish my answer. 14 MR. ADAMS: It’s 2:10, Mr. Schmid. 15 MR. SCHMID: I don’t care. You figure out what you want to do. 16 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 17 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the 18 narrative testimony. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections 19 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not 20 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 21 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s 22 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half 23 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court. 24 Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory requirement that 25 “[e]xamination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the 26 provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the 27 28 - 17 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 sought-after discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense 2 counsel and produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 3 4 QUESTION NO. 12 – Improper Narrative Response 148:6-24: 5 MR. ADAMS: So Mr. Schmid, I want you to pause your list and I went to ask you a 6 number of specific questions. You’ve indicated you’re not willing to do that. 7 MR. SCHMID: I have indicated I’m objecting to it. And I’ve indicated an option to go to 8 court. Mr. King, Mike, has correctly pointed out that practically speaking, 9 that is not an option unfortunately due to the court congestion. 10 And I will pause my list over strenuous objections for the very reasons I just 11 stated. I see this is a deliberate attempt to derail my testimony and to cause 12 unnecessary confusion in the transcript. But subject to that objection, you 13 can do what you want to do without me waiving my right to have a 14 complete statement. And I want to be done within my – – in your allotted 15 seven hours; so your running into my time. So to the extent I’m not done 16 with my list within the seven hours, then were done. So think about that. 17 DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 18 Plaintiff provides no documents called for in the deposition notice to support any of the 19 narrative testimony. Additionally Plaintiff asserts ad hominem attacks and boilerplate objections 20 clearly intended for no other purpose than to obstruct discovery. Plaintiff’s objections are not 21 meritorious, and Defendant is entitled to such basic discovery. See sections 2025.450 and 22 2025.480; see also Exhibit 5 to the supporting declaration of William L. Adams, which Plaintiff’s 23 boilerplate references to “all documents and discovery generated” from the past two-and-a-half 24 years in the entirety of six related legal proceedings in State and federal court. 25 Additionally, Plaintiff has essentially attempted to “kidnap” the deposition and “run out the 26 clock “by failing to comply with the statutory requirement that “[e]xamination and cross- 27 examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the provisions of the 28 - 18 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID 1 Evidence Code.” (Section 2025.330(e).) As a result, Defendant is entitled to the sought-after 2 discovery. Plaintiff should be directed to answer all questions posed by defense counsel and 3 produce all documents called for in the deposition notice. 4 5 DATED: February 10, 2023 WILLIAM L. ADAMS, PC 6 By: 7 William L. Adams, Counsel for Defendant TWO ROCK VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 19 - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TWO ROCK FIRE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID