Preview
1 Stacy M. Tucker (SBN 218942)
stucker@kantorlaw.net
2 Jaclyn D. Conover (SBN 266749)
jconover@kantorlaw.net
3 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
4 Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
5 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
GARY KOOP
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 GARY KOOP, CASE NO: SCV-266944
12 Assigned to Hon. Judge Oscar A. Pardo
Plaintiffs,
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S
19839 Nordhoff Street
vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(818) 886 2525
14 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
15 FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, BRIAN
HUNSAKER,
16 Date:
Defendants. Time:
17 Dept: 19
18
Action filed: August 24, 2020
19 Trial Date: June 30, 2023
20
21
22 Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 452 and/or 453, Plaintiff Gary Koop hereby
23 requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following declaration filed by Defendant Fire
24 Insurance Exchange in another matter in Sonoma Superior Court:
25
26 Exhibit A: A copy of the August 18, 2021 declaration signed by Jared Schmitz and filed
27 by Fire Insurance Exchange in Ahlers-Scott v Farmers Group, Inc., et al., Case No. SCV-263319,
28 Sonoma County Superior Court.
1
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
2 Judicial notice of the above documents is appropriate under Evidence Code section
3 452(d), which permits a court to take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of [] any court of this state [] or
4 any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States” and under section
5 452(h), which permits a court to take judicial notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not
6 reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort
7 to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” A trial court must take judicial notice of “any
8 matter specified in Section 452” if a party requests it and “(a) [g]ives each adverse party
9 sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party
10 to prepare to meet the request; and (b) [f]urnishes the court with sufficient information to enable
11 it to take judicial notice of the matter.” Evid. Code § 453.
12 For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
Northridge, California 91324
13 documents listed above.
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
(818) 886 2525
14
DATED: March 22, 2023 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
15
16
By: /s/ Stacy Monahan Tucker
17 STACY MONAHAN TUCKER
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gary Koop
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
1 PETER SCHWARTZ (SEN: 109859) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
pscliwartz@grsm.com Superior Court of California
2 DAVID L. JONES (SEN: 112307) County of Sonoma
diones@grsm.com 8/19/2021 12:47 PM
3 CHRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SEN: 162092) Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the Court
cwagner@grsm.com By: Angela Mendia, Deputy Clerk
4 MARGRET G. PARKE (SEN: 126120)
mparke@grsm.com '
5 MARGARET M. DRUGAN (SEN: 175324)
mdrugan@grsm. com
6 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52“<‘ Floor
7 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5000
8 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
9 Attorneys for Defendants
FARMERS GROUP, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE;
10 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION;
and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY
11
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles, CA 90071
13 COUNTY OF SONOMA
14 MATTHEW SCOTT AND JANINE ) CASE NO. SCV-263319
AHLERS-SCOTT, et al.. ) [Assigned to the Hon. Patrick Broderick,
15 ) Dept. 16]
Plaintiffs,
16 1 DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ
V. < IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
17 ( MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO
FARMERS GROUP, INC., et al., j RFPNO.99
18
Defendants. ) [Filed concurrently with Opposition to
19 ) Motion to Compel Response to RFP No. 99;
) Responsive Separate Statement; and
20 ) Declarations of Christopher R. Wagner and
) Paul Hamilton}
21
) Date: September 1,2021
22 ) Time: 3:00 p.m.
) Dept.: 16
23
) Complaint filed: October 9, 2018
24
Trial Date: November 5, 2021
25 / (Bellwether #2)
26 )
)
27 )
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99
1 DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ
2 I, Jared Schmitz, declare;
3 1. I am the Personal Lines Account Underwriting Manager for defendant Farmers
4 Group, Inc. (“FGI”), which provides certain administrative services for defendant Fire Insurance
5 Exchange (“Fire”). I have been working continuously on behalf of FGI and Fire since 2006 in
6 various capacities. In my present managerial position, I have under my control records relating
7 to the underwriting of insurance policies issued by Fire. I have personal knowledge of the
8 matters set forth herein and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify
9 thereto. I submit this declaration in opposition to the motion to compel a response to request for
10 production (“RFP”) No. 99.
11 2. I understand that plaintiffs’ RFP No. 99 asks Fire (which issued the subject
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
12 homeowners’ insurance policy) to produce: “All DOCUMENTS ... that convey any decision by
Los Angeles, CA 90071
13 the Underwriting Department to deny a claim for policy reformation in connection with a loss
14 arising from the 2017 California Wine Country Fires.” In my current position, I am involved in
15 processing requests by insureds that Fire (and other Farmers® insurers) voluntarily reform
16 insurance policies. Accordingly, I have evaluated what would be required in order to obtain
17 copies of the documents requested by plaintiffs in RFP No. 99.
18 3. A request for policy reformation is typically forwarded to the Underwriting
19 Department by a claims adjuster handling a particular claim in which the reformation request has
20 been made. In most instances, an insured is contending that an error has been made in
21 connection with issuance of an insurance policy. After a request for reformation is made, an
22 underwriter will review the factual information underlying the request to assess whether, in the
23 underwriter’s estimation, the should agree to voluntarily reform the insurance policy, post-loss.
24 This evaluation is driven entirely by the facts giving rise to the request for reformation. In most
25 cases, there is no formal decision letter issued by the underwriter in response to a request for
26 reformation. Rather, the claims adjuster will usually inform the insured of the decision regarding
27 reformation.
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99
1 4. Every year there are thousands of requests to reform insurance policies issued by
2 Farmers® insurers throughout the United States. A majority of the requests for reformation are
3 approved for various reasons based upon the specific facts giving rise to the request.
4 5. In my current position, I have available to me summary data relating to
5 reformation decisions by Farmers® insurers in response to reformation requests by insureds. I
6 am able to determine from this summary data the number of requests for reformation that have
7 been submitted to Farmers® insurers in a particular state. I can also filter this data by date of
8 loss, and by whether the request was approved or declined.
9 6. The reformation summary data available to me does not allow me to filter by a
10 particular county in a state or by a particular catastrophe (such as the 2017 Sonoma County
11 wildfires). Therefore, in order to determine what would be required to obtain copies of the
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
12 documents requested in RFP No. 99,1 have filtered the summary reformation data by state
Los Angeles, CA 90071
13 (California) and by date of loss (October 2017). Based on this search, I have determined that
14 Farmers® insurers received 299 requests for reformation of policies in California relating to
15 claims that had a date of loss in October 2017. 150 of these California requests for reformation
16 were approved and 149 were declined.
17 7. In order to produce the documents requested by RFP No. 99, a Company
18 employee would be required to request copies of the claim files for all 149 claims in which the
19 California requests for reformation with October 2017 dates of loss were declined. The
20 employee would then be required to review each of the claim files (which can by thousands of
21 pages long) and locate any documents within the claim files “that convey any decision by the
22 Underwriting Department to deny a claim for policy reformation in connection with a loss
23 arising from the 2017 California Wine Country Fires.” In those instances where documentation
24 in the claim file is lacking or somehow unclear, the employee would be required to contact the
25 claims adjuster who handled the claim for clarification.
26 8. A conservative estimate of the time it would take to review and obtain documents
27 in response to RFP No. 99 is 2.5 hours per declined reformation claim. Based on this estimate, it
28 would take approximately 372.5 hours of Company time to process plaintiffs’ RFP No. 99. One
-3-
DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99
1 employee working full time (40 hours per week) on this projeclXvould be required to spend more
2 than nine weeks reviewing the documents and obtaining die r^juested documents [372.5 (hours)
3 40 (hours per week) = 9.31 (weeks)].
4 I declare under penally of peijuiy under the laws of the State of California that the
5 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 18**’ day of August
6 2021, at Olathe, Kansas. /-
1
8
9
10
11
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
12
Los Angeles, CA 90071
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: M0TI0WdT0^tfaJ^sW^SE"■f6Rf P NO?9r^
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West
3 Fifth Street, 52"‘* floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. On August 19,2021,1 served the within
documents:
4
DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION
5 TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99
6 [5^ VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: by transmitting said document(s) via electronic mail to the
addresses on the attached Service List.
7
8 Michael J. Bidart Stephen G. Larson
Ricardo Echeverria Steven E. Bledsoe
9 SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP John Lee
600 South Indian Hill Boulevard Jennifer C. Cooper
10 Claremont, CA 91711 Troy S. Tessem
Tel.: (909)621-4935 LARSON LLP
11 Fax: (909)625-6915 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
mbidart@shemoff.com Los Angeles, CA 90071
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
12 recheverria@shemQffxom " Tel.:(213) 436-4888/ Fax: (213) 623-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs slarson@tarsonllp.com
Los Angeles, CA 90071
13 sbledsoe@larsonllp.com
j lee@larsQnl tp.cQm
14 icooper@larsonllp.com
ttessem@larsonlip.com
15 a^iohnston@larsonllp,com
vgutierrez@larsonllp.com
16 hpark@larsonllp.com
mmasQn@larsonllp.cQm
17 mvasquez@larsonllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence
19 for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
20 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
22 is true and correct.
23 Executed on August 19,2021 at Los Angeles, California.
24
25 pez
26
27
28
_____ ■ -5-
DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Carolyn Spencer, declare as follows:
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 19839 Nordhoff Street, Northridge,
4 CA 91324.
5 On March 22, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
6 RESPONSES in this action by serving a true copy thereof addressed as follows:
7 Christopher R. Wagner, Esq. cwagner@grsm.com
David Jones, Esq. djones@grsm.com
8 sinouye@grsm.com
Steven Inouye, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP ilopez@grsm.com (assistant)
9 jodell@grsm.com (assistant)
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
10 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Attorneys for Defendant Fire Insurance
11 Exchange, dba Farmers Insurance
Group
12
Albert M. T. Finch, III, Esq. tfinch@fgppr.com
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Jason Deng, Esq. jdeng@fgppr.com
(818) 886 2525
14 FORAN GLENNON kokasaki@fgppr.com (assistant)
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250
15 San Jose, CA 95110
16 Attorneys for Defendant Brian Hunsaker
17
[X] BY E-MAIL SERVICE: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address
18
cspencer@kantorlaw.net to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive,
19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
20
21 [x] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct. Executed on March 22, 2023, Rohnert Park, California.
24
25 /s/Carolyn Spencer
Carolyn Spencer
26
27
28
3
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Preview
1 Stacy M. Tucker (SBN 218942) stucker@kantorlaw.net 2 Jaclyn D. Conover (SBN 266749) jconover@kantorlaw.net 3 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street 4 Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 5 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, GARY KOOP 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 GARY KOOP, CASE NO: SCV-266944 12 Assigned to Hon. Judge Oscar A. Pardo Plaintiffs, Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S 19839 Nordhoff Street vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (818) 886 2525 14 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 15 FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, BRIAN HUNSAKER, 16 Date: Defendants. Time: 17 Dept: 19 18 Action filed: August 24, 2020 19 Trial Date: June 30, 2023 20 21 22 Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 452 and/or 453, Plaintiff Gary Koop hereby 23 requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following declaration filed by Defendant Fire 24 Insurance Exchange in another matter in Sonoma Superior Court: 25 26 Exhibit A: A copy of the August 18, 2021 declaration signed by Jared Schmitz and filed 27 by Fire Insurance Exchange in Ahlers-Scott v Farmers Group, Inc., et al., Case No. SCV-263319, 28 Sonoma County Superior Court. 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 Judicial notice of the above documents is appropriate under Evidence Code section 3 452(d), which permits a court to take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of [] any court of this state [] or 4 any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States” and under section 5 452(h), which permits a court to take judicial notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not 6 reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort 7 to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” A trial court must take judicial notice of “any 8 matter specified in Section 452” if a party requests it and “(a) [g]ives each adverse party 9 sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party 10 to prepare to meet the request; and (b) [f]urnishes the court with sufficient information to enable 11 it to take judicial notice of the matter.” Evid. Code § 453. 12 For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Northridge, California 91324 13 documents listed above. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street (818) 886 2525 14 DATED: March 22, 2023 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 15 16 By: /s/ Stacy Monahan Tucker 17 STACY MONAHAN TUCKER Attorneys for Plaintiff Gary Koop 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A 1 PETER SCHWARTZ (SEN: 109859) ELECTRONICALLY FILED pscliwartz@grsm.com Superior Court of California 2 DAVID L. JONES (SEN: 112307) County of Sonoma diones@grsm.com 8/19/2021 12:47 PM 3 CHRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SEN: 162092) Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the Court cwagner@grsm.com By: Angela Mendia, Deputy Clerk 4 MARGRET G. PARKE (SEN: 126120) mparke@grsm.com ' 5 MARGARET M. DRUGAN (SEN: 175324) mdrugan@grsm. com 6 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52“<‘ Floor 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 8 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 9 Attorneys for Defendants FARMERS GROUP, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; 10 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION; and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY 11 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles, CA 90071 13 COUNTY OF SONOMA 14 MATTHEW SCOTT AND JANINE ) CASE NO. SCV-263319 AHLERS-SCOTT, et al.. ) [Assigned to the Hon. Patrick Broderick, 15 ) Dept. 16] Plaintiffs, 16 1 DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ V. < IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 17 ( MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FARMERS GROUP, INC., et al., j RFPNO.99 18 Defendants. ) [Filed concurrently with Opposition to 19 ) Motion to Compel Response to RFP No. 99; ) Responsive Separate Statement; and 20 ) Declarations of Christopher R. Wagner and ) Paul Hamilton} 21 ) Date: September 1,2021 22 ) Time: 3:00 p.m. ) Dept.: 16 23 ) Complaint filed: October 9, 2018 24 Trial Date: November 5, 2021 25 / (Bellwether #2) 26 ) ) 27 ) 28 -1- DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99 1 DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ 2 I, Jared Schmitz, declare; 3 1. I am the Personal Lines Account Underwriting Manager for defendant Farmers 4 Group, Inc. (“FGI”), which provides certain administrative services for defendant Fire Insurance 5 Exchange (“Fire”). I have been working continuously on behalf of FGI and Fire since 2006 in 6 various capacities. In my present managerial position, I have under my control records relating 7 to the underwriting of insurance policies issued by Fire. I have personal knowledge of the 8 matters set forth herein and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify 9 thereto. I submit this declaration in opposition to the motion to compel a response to request for 10 production (“RFP”) No. 99. 11 2. I understand that plaintiffs’ RFP No. 99 asks Fire (which issued the subject Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 12 homeowners’ insurance policy) to produce: “All DOCUMENTS ... that convey any decision by Los Angeles, CA 90071 13 the Underwriting Department to deny a claim for policy reformation in connection with a loss 14 arising from the 2017 California Wine Country Fires.” In my current position, I am involved in 15 processing requests by insureds that Fire (and other Farmers® insurers) voluntarily reform 16 insurance policies. Accordingly, I have evaluated what would be required in order to obtain 17 copies of the documents requested by plaintiffs in RFP No. 99. 18 3. A request for policy reformation is typically forwarded to the Underwriting 19 Department by a claims adjuster handling a particular claim in which the reformation request has 20 been made. In most instances, an insured is contending that an error has been made in 21 connection with issuance of an insurance policy. After a request for reformation is made, an 22 underwriter will review the factual information underlying the request to assess whether, in the 23 underwriter’s estimation, the should agree to voluntarily reform the insurance policy, post-loss. 24 This evaluation is driven entirely by the facts giving rise to the request for reformation. In most 25 cases, there is no formal decision letter issued by the underwriter in response to a request for 26 reformation. Rather, the claims adjuster will usually inform the insured of the decision regarding 27 reformation. 28 -2- DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99 1 4. Every year there are thousands of requests to reform insurance policies issued by 2 Farmers® insurers throughout the United States. A majority of the requests for reformation are 3 approved for various reasons based upon the specific facts giving rise to the request. 4 5. In my current position, I have available to me summary data relating to 5 reformation decisions by Farmers® insurers in response to reformation requests by insureds. I 6 am able to determine from this summary data the number of requests for reformation that have 7 been submitted to Farmers® insurers in a particular state. I can also filter this data by date of 8 loss, and by whether the request was approved or declined. 9 6. The reformation summary data available to me does not allow me to filter by a 10 particular county in a state or by a particular catastrophe (such as the 2017 Sonoma County 11 wildfires). Therefore, in order to determine what would be required to obtain copies of the Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 12 documents requested in RFP No. 99,1 have filtered the summary reformation data by state Los Angeles, CA 90071 13 (California) and by date of loss (October 2017). Based on this search, I have determined that 14 Farmers® insurers received 299 requests for reformation of policies in California relating to 15 claims that had a date of loss in October 2017. 150 of these California requests for reformation 16 were approved and 149 were declined. 17 7. In order to produce the documents requested by RFP No. 99, a Company 18 employee would be required to request copies of the claim files for all 149 claims in which the 19 California requests for reformation with October 2017 dates of loss were declined. The 20 employee would then be required to review each of the claim files (which can by thousands of 21 pages long) and locate any documents within the claim files “that convey any decision by the 22 Underwriting Department to deny a claim for policy reformation in connection with a loss 23 arising from the 2017 California Wine Country Fires.” In those instances where documentation 24 in the claim file is lacking or somehow unclear, the employee would be required to contact the 25 claims adjuster who handled the claim for clarification. 26 8. A conservative estimate of the time it would take to review and obtain documents 27 in response to RFP No. 99 is 2.5 hours per declined reformation claim. Based on this estimate, it 28 would take approximately 372.5 hours of Company time to process plaintiffs’ RFP No. 99. One -3- DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99 1 employee working full time (40 hours per week) on this projeclXvould be required to spend more 2 than nine weeks reviewing the documents and obtaining die r^juested documents [372.5 (hours) 3 40 (hours per week) = 9.31 (weeks)]. 4 I declare under penally of peijuiy under the laws of the State of California that the 5 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 18**’ day of August 6 2021, at Olathe, Kansas. /- 1 8 9 10 11 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 12 Los Angeles, CA 90071 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: M0TI0WdT0^tfaJ^sW^SE"■f6Rf P NO?9r^ 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West 3 Fifth Street, 52"‘* floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. On August 19,2021,1 served the within documents: 4 DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION 5 TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99 6 [5^ VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: by transmitting said document(s) via electronic mail to the addresses on the attached Service List. 7 8 Michael J. Bidart Stephen G. Larson Ricardo Echeverria Steven E. Bledsoe 9 SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP John Lee 600 South Indian Hill Boulevard Jennifer C. Cooper 10 Claremont, CA 91711 Troy S. Tessem Tel.: (909)621-4935 LARSON LLP 11 Fax: (909)625-6915 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP mbidart@shemoff.com Los Angeles, CA 90071 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 12 recheverria@shemQffxom " Tel.:(213) 436-4888/ Fax: (213) 623-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs slarson@tarsonllp.com Los Angeles, CA 90071 13 sbledsoe@larsonllp.com j lee@larsQnl tp.cQm 14 icooper@larsonllp.com ttessem@larsonlip.com 15 a^iohnston@larsonllp,com vgutierrez@larsonllp.com 16 hpark@larsonllp.com mmasQn@larsonllp.cQm 17 mvasquez@larsonllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18 I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence 19 for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on 20 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 22 is true and correct. 23 Executed on August 19,2021 at Los Angeles, California. 24 25 pez 26 27 28 _____ ■ -5- DECLARATION OF JARED SCHMITZ RE: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 99 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Carolyn Spencer, declare as follows: 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 19839 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, 4 CA 91324. 5 On March 22, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 6 RESPONSES in this action by serving a true copy thereof addressed as follows: 7 Christopher R. Wagner, Esq. cwagner@grsm.com David Jones, Esq. djones@grsm.com 8 sinouye@grsm.com Steven Inouye, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP ilopez@grsm.com (assistant) 9 jodell@grsm.com (assistant) 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor 10 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attorneys for Defendant Fire Insurance 11 Exchange, dba Farmers Insurance Group 12 Albert M. T. Finch, III, Esq. tfinch@fgppr.com Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Jason Deng, Esq. jdeng@fgppr.com (818) 886 2525 14 FORAN GLENNON kokasaki@fgppr.com (assistant) 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250 15 San Jose, CA 95110 16 Attorneys for Defendant Brian Hunsaker 17 [X] BY E-MAIL SERVICE: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address 18 cspencer@kantorlaw.net to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, 19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 21 [x] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 22, 2023, Rohnert Park, California. 24 25 /s/Carolyn Spencer Carolyn Spencer 26 27 28 3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES