Preview
1 JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690)
ibriscoe@niavallaw.com
2 M A Y A L L H U R L E Y P.C. FILEO/EiOORSE
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
3
Stockton, Caiifornia 95207-8253 NOV 1 6 2022
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 By: E. IVIacdnnaIri
'5 Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual. Case No.: 34-2019-00265393
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOHN P. BRISCOE
11 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
12 DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; SANCTIONS
13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive.
Date: December 1, 2022
14 Defendants. Time: 1:30 p.m.
15 Dept.: 53
Res.: 2690038
16
17
18
19
I, John P. Briscoe, declare,
20
1. I am an attomey authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a
21
shareholder with Mayall Hurley P.C, counsel for Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge"). I have
1
22
personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would
23
competently testify thereto.
24
2. On July 25, 2022, and after coordinating with opposing counsel, I received the
25
Second Amended Notice of Deposition of David Ridge. It was contemplated by this notice (and
26
agreed between the parties) that Ridge would be deposed over the course of two days—^August 7
27
and 14, 2022.
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and
for Sanctions
Page 1 of3
3. Ridge appeared for deposition on August 7, 2022. The deposition, inclusive of
2 recesses, went from 9:39 a.m. to 5:05 p.m.
3 4. Ridge appeared for the second session of his deposition on August 14, 2022. This
4 session, inclusive of recesses, went from 9:39 a.m. to 5:01 p.m.
5 5. On August 24, 2022, James Curran, counsel for Defendant Caiifomia Highway
6 Patrol ("Defendant") emailed me: "Please communicate dates on which Mr. Ridge and you are
7 available between now and the end of October for the next sessions of his deposition." I replied
8 to Mr. Curran, pointed out that Ridge had already been deposed for about fourteen hours, and
9 asked for an offer of proof as to the subjects for further deposition, and the anticipated amount of
10 time on each subject." Mr. Curran wrote back and said " I do not owe you a list of topics on
11 which I will question your client", but that he anticipated he would complete the deposition in
12 "one or two more sessions, depending on a variety of factors." On September 8, 2022,1 emailed
13 Mr. Curran and advised that Ridge would sit for no more than four additional hours of
14 deposition; I also provided available dates. A true and correct copy of this entire email chain is
15 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
16 6. On September 9, 2022,1 received the Notice of Continued Deposition of Plaintiff
17 David Ridge; the notice asserted that Ridge would be deposed on both October 7 and 14, 2022
18 and "continuing, if necessary, on subsequent dates".
19 7. On September 30, 2022,1 prepared and caused to be served Plaintiffs Objection
20 to Notice of Continued Deposition, a tme and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
21 Exhibit B. The objection stated, inter alia, that "Defendant has already been afforded in excess
22 of fourteen hours to take and complete Plaintiffs deposition. Plaintiff will appear and submit to
23 no more than four additional hours of deposition." As demonstrated by the email chain attached
24 hereto as Exhibit D, supra, I reiterated to Mr. Curran that Ridge would submit to only four
25 additional hours of deposition; he did not, despite my invitation to do so, (1) submit any
26 supporting evidence or authority that depositions up to six days were common in discrimination
27 cases such as this, or (2) call me to discuss the matter.
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and
for Sanctions
Page 2 of3
1 8. Ridge appeared for his third session of deposition on October 7, 2022. My
2 associate, Ali Hashemi, represented Ridge at deposition. He made clear (at p. 408:15-18) that
3 Ridge would submit to only four additional hours of examination. As demonstrated by the
4 timestamps on the transcript, and as confirmed by the court reporter and counsel for Defendant,
5 Ridge was deposed (exclusive of recesses) for over four hours. The deposition was then
6 terminated.
7 9. This is the first instance that I have ever encountered a purported need to depose a
8 plaintiff for more than eighteen hours. In my experience, and even in a discrimination case such
9 as this, the plaintiffs deposition is usually concluded within one full session, with two sessions
10 being the anomaly.
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Caiifomia that the
12 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed this fifteenth day of December, 2022, in Lodi, Caiifomia.
13
14
JOHN P. BRISCOE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and
for Sanctions
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Lindsay Riley
From: John Briscoe
Sent: ' Thursday, October 6, 2022 5:17 PM
To: James Curran; Ali Hashemi
Subject: Re: Ridge, David v. CHP
Jim:
Per our written objections, Officer Ridge will appear tomorrow for four hours of examination. We will then move for a
protective order, as Is our right. Threatening sanctions in this context Is not conducive to resolving this dispute.
I have no Idea what It is you think I'm trying to "delay." You may have the wherewithal to take a leisurely, meandering,
32-plus-hour deposition in a simple FEHA case but I disagree that you have the right or need to do so. This Is not a
complex case. You had no right to all my client's psychiatric and medical records, and you similarly have no need to
intrude on my client's marital problems. You say that depositions lasting six days are common In FEHA cases, but that Is
hardly my experience and you haven't presented any supporting evidence or authority. I direct you to CCP sec.
2025.420, which provides for a protective order In the face of, Inter alia, unwarranted annoyance or undue burden. I a m
willing t o meet and confer w i t h you f u r t h e r and you can reach me at 209.331.9399.
John
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: James Curran
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:46:33 PM
To: John Briscoe
Subject: FW: Ridge, David v. CHP
John,
Please reply and confirm tomorrow's deposition of Officer Ridge will go forward via Zoom as scheduled at 9:30
a.m. Below is my email of September 9 requesting legal authority for your position that Officer Ridge will only agree
only to four more hours of additional questioning. You have provided none. Therefore, if you insist on cutting off the
deposition before the usual ending time of approximately 5:00 p.m., CHP will move to compel the further deposition and
will seek fees and will seek to move the trial date because of your delay tactics, as I stated on September 9.
Accordingly, please confirm we will proceed for a flill day tomorrow.
The Zoom link is below.
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://imaginereporting.zooiTi.us/i/96066842605?pwd=MHgvdGlqNFRxVXN0ME5GdmJ2SkVOZz09
Respectfully,
James F. Curran
Deputy Attorney General IV
Employment and Administrative Mandate Section
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 1 Street, 16'^ Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mobile: (916)712-4042
Direct: (916)210-6113
James.Curran@doj.ca.gov
(he/him/his)
From: James Curran
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:27 PM
To: 'John Briscoe'
Subject: Ridge, David v. CHP
John,
Please convey the legal basis and authority for your belief that you can unilaterally select the length of the deposition CHP
takes of your client. This is an attempt to meet and confer about the length and scheduling of Plaintiff s deposition.
Please send me citations to the written transcript conceming every question you believe was inappropriate. In any
deposition, you have the right to object to a question as seeking information that is outside the scope of discovery, or
because the question has been asked and answered, but you do not have the right to unilaterally end the deposition. So I
am interested in all the questions you think covered "subjects not apparently relevant," or that were asked more than once,
as you assert in your email, below, of August 25.
As 1 stated in my email, below, of August 26,1 believe I can complete your client's deposition in one or two more
sessions. This estimate does not include time needed to question Officer Ridge about Kay Williams' therapy and records
if the court permits copying of those records, or similar questions about other psychological or psychiatric treatment
Plaintiff received, if you object to such questions on the basis of a therapist-patient or doctor-patient privilege.
As 1 stated earlier, there is still much to cover concerning your client's background information, communications relevant
to his reasonable accommodation request and the response thereto, other liability issues, and damages claims, including
his claims for emotional distress. Your client's workers' compensation claims, treatment for physical injuries, and
treatment for psychological and emotional distress, generated hundreds of pages of records.
Also, Plaintiff just revealed during his deposition that he is newly divorced, so 1 will question him about that.
Additionally, Plaintiffhas made, during his deposition, some new factual claims, not revealed in responses to employment
law form interrogatories. He now claims he is aware of several officers being allowed to wear altered trouser or duty belts
that are almost as large as a weightlifter's belt, and that individual area commanders allowed this to
happen. Additionally, he now claims he requires periodic treatment by chiropractors in Orange County who
attach electrodes to his head, in order to keep his emotional distress symptoms at bay. 1 need to follow up in
detail about these and other new factual claims
Your position is contrary to law and practice and common sense. We will notice the continued deposition proceeding for
full days on both October 7 and 14 (1 have a deposition in a different case on September 23). Please confirm Plaintiff can
testify from 9:30 to approximately 5:00 p.m. on both those dates, with the usual breaks. If you decide unilaterally to end
the deposition after the first four hours, 1 will move to compel Plaintiffs further deposition, seek fees, and seek to move
the trial date based on your delay tactics.
1 look forward to resolving this discovery dispute without having to move to compel your client's further deposition.
Respectfully,
James F. Curran
Deputy Attomey General IV
Employment and Administrative Mandate Section
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 1 Street, 16* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mobile: (916)712-4042
Direct: (916)210-6113
James.Curran@,doi.ca.gov
(he/him/his)
From: John Briscoe
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:30 PM
To: James Curran
Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious.
Jim:
At this point, we can produce Officer Ridge for four more hours of questioning. I disagree completely with your assertion
that It's perfectly common for a FEHA-plaintiff's deposition to go up to six days. Usually they're done within one day and
this Is not an unusual case.
We can make ourselves available on September 23, October 7, or October 14.
John
From: James Curran
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:47 PM
To: John Briscoe
Subject: FW: Ridge, David v. FTB
Following up on this. Thank you.
James F. Curran
Deputy Attomey General IV
Employment and Administrative Mandate Section
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I Street, 16* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mobile: (916)712-4042
Direct: (916)210-6113
James.Curran@doi.ca.gov
(he/him/his)
From: John Briscoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:59 AM
To: James Curran
Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious.
Jim:
Pardon my delay. I will get back to you shortly.
Best,
John
From: James Curran
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:20 PM
To: John Briscoe
Subject: FW: Ridge, David v. FTB
John,
I am following up on my request, below, for dates on which Officer Ridge and you are available between now and the end
of October for the next sessions of his deposition. Also, please send dates in that time frame that would work for you for
the deposition of Kay Williams, subject to the court's ruling on the motion to compel your client's signature on the
authorization form, and for completion of Officer Mallory's deposition.
Respectfully,
James F. Curran
Deputy Attorney General IV
Employment and Administrative Mandate Section
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I Street, 16* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mobile: (916)712-4042
Direct: (916)210-6113
James.Curran@.doi.ca.gov
(he/him/his)
From: James Curran
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 2:05 PM
To: 'John Briscoe'
Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB
John,
1 predict 1 will be able to finish Plaintiff Ridge's deposition in one or two more sessions, depending on a variety of
factors. I do not owe you a list of topics on which I will question your client. I can tell you, however, that there is still
much to cover concerning your client's background information, communications relevant to his reasonable
accommodation request and the response thereto, other liability issues, and damages claims, including his claims for
emotional distress. Your client's workers' compensation claims, treatment for physical injuries, and treatment for
psychological and emotional distress, generated hundreds of pages of records. Of course we will need to obtain Ms.
Williams' records before the conclusion of Officer Ridge's deposition, subject to the court's ruling on the motion to
compel your client to sign the authorization form, because 1 will ask him about topics he discussed with Ms. Williams
during their therapy sessions. Depositions lasting three to six sessions, and sometimes more, are quite common in
employment cases, especially where, as here, communications about reasonable accommodation and the medical history
relevant to the plaintiffs impairments span so many years.
So please communicate dates on which Mr. Ridge and you are available between now and the end of October for the next
sessions of his deposition.
Respectfully,
James F. Curran
Deputy Attorney General IV
Employment and Administrative Mandate Section
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 1 Street, 16* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mobile: (916)712-4042
Direct: (916)210-6113
James.Curran@,doi.ca.gov
(he/him/his)
From: John Briscoe
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 4:27 PM
To: James Curran
Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious.
Jim:
I don't have the precise figures at the moment, but I believe you've already deposed Officer Ridge for something like 14
hours. That is a lot In a FEHA case such as this. I honestly cannot recall a FEHA-plaintiff's deposition going longer than
one full day. Respectfully, you consumed a considerable amount of time asking questions on subjects not apparently
relevant, and—while I did not personally defend the first day of deposition—It sounds like you've asked the same
questions more than once.
At this time, I would ask for an offer of proof as to the subjects on which you still need to depose Officer Ridge, and the
anticipated amount of time on each subject.
Best,
John
From: James Curran
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 5:10 PM
To: John Briscoe
Subject: Ridge, David v. FTB
John,
Please communicate dates on which Mr. Ridge and you are available between now and the end of October for the next
sessions of his deposition.
Thank you.
Jim Curran
James F. Curran
Deputy Attorney General IV
Employment and Administrative Mandate Section
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I Street, 16* Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mobile: (916)712-4042
Direct: (916)210-6113
James.Curran(a>doi.ca.gov
(he/him/his)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely forthe use ofthe intended reclplent(s). Unauthorized Interception, review, use or disclosure Is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws Including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe communication.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with Its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
Information. It Is solely for the use of the Intended reclplent(s). Unauthorized Interception, review, use or disclosure Is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with Its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
Information. It Is solely forthe use ofthe Intended recipient(s). Unauthorized Interception, review, use or disclosure Is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws Including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
Intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe communication.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
Information. It Is solely forthe use ofthe intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws Including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe communication.
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
1 MAYALL H U R L E Y P.C.
JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690)
2 ibriscoe(S),mavallaw.com
3 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, California 95207-8253
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR T H E COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 DAVID RIDGE, an individual, Case No.: 34-2019-00265393
11
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO NOTICE
12 OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
vs.
13
T H E CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; Date: October 7 and 14, 2022
14 and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Imagine Court Reporting
15 Via Zoom
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff David Ridge hereby objects to the Notice of Continued Deposition of Plaintiff
19 David Ridge, served by Defendant The Caiifomia Highway Patrol.
20 Plaintiff objects that Defendant has already been afforded in excess of fourteen hours to
21 take and complete Plaintiffs deposition. Plaintiff will appear and submit to no more than four
22 additional hours of examination.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
24 All WRITFNGS setting forth or pertaining to any treatment YOU have received since
25 January 1, 2021 for the emotional distress for which YOU are claiming damages in this lawsuit,
26 including any communications between YOU and Bud's Odyssey, the entity Plaintiffhas
27 testified paid for some of his treatment costs at DiSiena and Irvine Chiropractic.
28 ///
Plaintiffs Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition
Page 1 of3
1 Objection to Request No. 4:
2 Plaintiff objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, and seeks
3 documents which are protected by the attomey-client privilege.
4 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5;
5 All medical or treatment records arising out of describing or pertaining to the consultation,
6 therapy or treatment Plaintiff received from the following health care providers: Kay Williams, MFT;
7 NMCI Medial Clinic; Roderick Sanden, M.D.; Ambrose Chiropractic; Marshall Medical Center; UC
8 Davis Medical Center or any of its providers; Beth Bathgate M.D.; Douglas A.DiSiena, D.C; Irvine
9 Chiropractic; Bud's Odyssey; and Newport Orthopedic Institute.
10 Objection to Request No. 5:
11 Plaintiff objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
12 harassing, and seeks documents which are protected by the right to privacy, the physician-patient
13 privilege, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Plaintiff further objects that this request
14 seeks documents which are not relevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
15 admissible evidence.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
17 All WRITINGS setting forth public information about the resolution (e.g., any judgment
18 entered by the court) of any dissolution action (divorce lawsuit) you or your spouse/former
19 spouse filed.
20 Objection to Request No. 10:
21 Plaintiff objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
22 and harassing. Plaintiff further objects that this request seeks documents which are not relevant,
23 and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further
24 objects that this request seeks documents equally available to Defendant.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
26 A court-endorsed copy of the complaint or other document that initiated the dissolution
27 action you or your spouse/former spouse filed, with the filing date completely legible.
28 ///
Plaintiffs Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition
Page 2 of 3
1 Objection to Request No. 11;
2 Plaintiff further objects that this request seeks documents which are not relevant, and is
3 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects
4 that this request seeks documents equally available to Defendant.
5 ///
6 DATED: September 30, 2022 M A Y A L L H U R L E Y P.C.
7
By_
8 JOHN P. BRISCOE
9 Attomeys for Plaintiff
DAVID RIDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition
Page 3 of 3
Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
1, the undersigned, certily and declare as follows:
3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453
Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, Caiifomia 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing
4 and/or delivery below took place.
5 On September 30, 2022,1 served the following document:
6 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
7 addressed to:
8 James F. Curran
Deputy Attomey General
9 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
10 James.Curran(3),doi.ca.gov
Christopher Irby
11 Christopher.irbvfgjdoj.ca.gov
12 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: 1 am readily familiar with
the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for
13 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
14 On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Caiifomia a copy of the document
described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope,
15 with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that
envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice.
16
0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified
17 below, 1 caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail
address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is lrilev@mavallaw.com. 1 did not receive,
18 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
19
1 certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 30, 2022, at Lodi, Caiifomia.
21
22 L I N D S ^ ( Y RILEfY SHIELDS
LINDSAY
23
24
25
26
27
PROOF OF SERVICE - 1
28
Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
1, the undersigned, certify and declare as follows:
3 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453
Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, California 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing
4 and/or delivery below took place.
5 On November 15, 2022,1 served the following document:
6 DECLARATION OF JOHN P. BRISCOE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR
7 SANCTIONS
8 addressed to:
9 James F. Curran
Deputy Attomey General
10 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
11 James.Curran(3).doi .ca.gov
Christopher Irby
12 Christopher.irby@doi.ca.gov
13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: 1 am readily familiar with
the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for
14 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
15 On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Caiifomia a copy of the document
described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope,
16 with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that
envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice.
17
0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified
18 below, I caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail
address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is Irilev(5),mavallaw.com. 1 did not receive,
19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
20
1 certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 Executed on November 15, 2022, at Lodi, California.
23
24
25
26
27
PROOF OF SERVICE
28
Preview
1 JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) ibriscoe@niavallaw.com 2 M A Y A L L H U R L E Y P.C. FILEO/EiOORSE 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 3 Stockton, Caiifornia 95207-8253 NOV 1 6 2022 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 By: E. IVIacdnnaIri '5 Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual. Case No.: 34-2019-00265393 10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOHN P. BRISCOE 11 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 12 DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; SANCTIONS 13 and DOES 1-100, inclusive. Date: December 1, 2022 14 Defendants. Time: 1:30 p.m. 15 Dept.: 53 Res.: 2690038 16 17 18 19 I, John P. Briscoe, declare, 20 1. I am an attomey authorized to practice before all the courts of this state, and am a 21 shareholder with Mayall Hurley P.C, counsel for Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge"). I have 1 22 personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would 23 competently testify thereto. 24 2. On July 25, 2022, and after coordinating with opposing counsel, I received the 25 Second Amended Notice of Deposition of David Ridge. It was contemplated by this notice (and 26 agreed between the parties) that Ridge would be deposed over the course of two days—^August 7 27 and 14, 2022. 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 1 of3 3. Ridge appeared for deposition on August 7, 2022. The deposition, inclusive of 2 recesses, went from 9:39 a.m. to 5:05 p.m. 3 4. Ridge appeared for the second session of his deposition on August 14, 2022. This 4 session, inclusive of recesses, went from 9:39 a.m. to 5:01 p.m. 5 5. On August 24, 2022, James Curran, counsel for Defendant Caiifomia Highway 6 Patrol ("Defendant") emailed me: "Please communicate dates on which Mr. Ridge and you are 7 available between now and the end of October for the next sessions of his deposition." I replied 8 to Mr. Curran, pointed out that Ridge had already been deposed for about fourteen hours, and 9 asked for an offer of proof as to the subjects for further deposition, and the anticipated amount of 10 time on each subject." Mr. Curran wrote back and said " I do not owe you a list of topics on 11 which I will question your client", but that he anticipated he would complete the deposition in 12 "one or two more sessions, depending on a variety of factors." On September 8, 2022,1 emailed 13 Mr. Curran and advised that Ridge would sit for no more than four additional hours of 14 deposition; I also provided available dates. A true and correct copy of this entire email chain is 15 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 16 6. On September 9, 2022,1 received the Notice of Continued Deposition of Plaintiff 17 David Ridge; the notice asserted that Ridge would be deposed on both October 7 and 14, 2022 18 and "continuing, if necessary, on subsequent dates". 19 7. On September 30, 2022,1 prepared and caused to be served Plaintiffs Objection 20 to Notice of Continued Deposition, a tme and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 21 Exhibit B. The objection stated, inter alia, that "Defendant has already been afforded in excess 22 of fourteen hours to take and complete Plaintiffs deposition. Plaintiff will appear and submit to 23 no more than four additional hours of deposition." As demonstrated by the email chain attached 24 hereto as Exhibit D, supra, I reiterated to Mr. Curran that Ridge would submit to only four 25 additional hours of deposition; he did not, despite my invitation to do so, (1) submit any 26 supporting evidence or authority that depositions up to six days were common in discrimination 27 cases such as this, or (2) call me to discuss the matter. 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 2 of3 1 8. Ridge appeared for his third session of deposition on October 7, 2022. My 2 associate, Ali Hashemi, represented Ridge at deposition. He made clear (at p. 408:15-18) that 3 Ridge would submit to only four additional hours of examination. As demonstrated by the 4 timestamps on the transcript, and as confirmed by the court reporter and counsel for Defendant, 5 Ridge was deposed (exclusive of recesses) for over four hours. The deposition was then 6 terminated. 7 9. This is the first instance that I have ever encountered a purported need to depose a 8 plaintiff for more than eighteen hours. In my experience, and even in a discrimination case such 9 as this, the plaintiffs deposition is usually concluded within one full session, with two sessions 10 being the anomaly. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of Caiifomia that the 12 foregoing is tme and correct. Executed this fifteenth day of December, 2022, in Lodi, Caiifomia. 13 14 JOHN P. BRISCOE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration of John P. Briscoe in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A Lindsay Riley From: John Briscoe Sent: ' Thursday, October 6, 2022 5:17 PM To: James Curran; Ali Hashemi Subject: Re: Ridge, David v. CHP Jim: Per our written objections, Officer Ridge will appear tomorrow for four hours of examination. We will then move for a protective order, as Is our right. Threatening sanctions in this context Is not conducive to resolving this dispute. I have no Idea what It is you think I'm trying to "delay." You may have the wherewithal to take a leisurely, meandering, 32-plus-hour deposition in a simple FEHA case but I disagree that you have the right or need to do so. This Is not a complex case. You had no right to all my client's psychiatric and medical records, and you similarly have no need to intrude on my client's marital problems. You say that depositions lasting six days are common In FEHA cases, but that Is hardly my experience and you haven't presented any supporting evidence or authority. I direct you to CCP sec. 2025.420, which provides for a protective order In the face of, Inter alia, unwarranted annoyance or undue burden. I a m willing t o meet and confer w i t h you f u r t h e r and you can reach me at 209.331.9399. John Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: James Curran Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 2:46:33 PM To: John Briscoe Subject: FW: Ridge, David v. CHP John, Please reply and confirm tomorrow's deposition of Officer Ridge will go forward via Zoom as scheduled at 9:30 a.m. Below is my email of September 9 requesting legal authority for your position that Officer Ridge will only agree only to four more hours of additional questioning. You have provided none. Therefore, if you insist on cutting off the deposition before the usual ending time of approximately 5:00 p.m., CHP will move to compel the further deposition and will seek fees and will seek to move the trial date because of your delay tactics, as I stated on September 9. Accordingly, please confirm we will proceed for a flill day tomorrow. The Zoom link is below. Join Zoom Meeting: https://imaginereporting.zooiTi.us/i/96066842605?pwd=MHgvdGlqNFRxVXN0ME5GdmJ2SkVOZz09 Respectfully, James F. Curran Deputy Attorney General IV Employment and Administrative Mandate Section CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 1 Street, 16'^ Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mobile: (916)712-4042 Direct: (916)210-6113 James.Curran@doj.ca.gov (he/him/his) From: James Curran Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:27 PM To: 'John Briscoe' Subject: Ridge, David v. CHP John, Please convey the legal basis and authority for your belief that you can unilaterally select the length of the deposition CHP takes of your client. This is an attempt to meet and confer about the length and scheduling of Plaintiff s deposition. Please send me citations to the written transcript conceming every question you believe was inappropriate. In any deposition, you have the right to object to a question as seeking information that is outside the scope of discovery, or because the question has been asked and answered, but you do not have the right to unilaterally end the deposition. So I am interested in all the questions you think covered "subjects not apparently relevant," or that were asked more than once, as you assert in your email, below, of August 25. As 1 stated in my email, below, of August 26,1 believe I can complete your client's deposition in one or two more sessions. This estimate does not include time needed to question Officer Ridge about Kay Williams' therapy and records if the court permits copying of those records, or similar questions about other psychological or psychiatric treatment Plaintiff received, if you object to such questions on the basis of a therapist-patient or doctor-patient privilege. As 1 stated earlier, there is still much to cover concerning your client's background information, communications relevant to his reasonable accommodation request and the response thereto, other liability issues, and damages claims, including his claims for emotional distress. Your client's workers' compensation claims, treatment for physical injuries, and treatment for psychological and emotional distress, generated hundreds of pages of records. Also, Plaintiff just revealed during his deposition that he is newly divorced, so 1 will question him about that. Additionally, Plaintiffhas made, during his deposition, some new factual claims, not revealed in responses to employment law form interrogatories. He now claims he is aware of several officers being allowed to wear altered trouser or duty belts that are almost as large as a weightlifter's belt, and that individual area commanders allowed this to happen. Additionally, he now claims he requires periodic treatment by chiropractors in Orange County who attach electrodes to his head, in order to keep his emotional distress symptoms at bay. 1 need to follow up in detail about these and other new factual claims Your position is contrary to law and practice and common sense. We will notice the continued deposition proceeding for full days on both October 7 and 14 (1 have a deposition in a different case on September 23). Please confirm Plaintiff can testify from 9:30 to approximately 5:00 p.m. on both those dates, with the usual breaks. If you decide unilaterally to end the deposition after the first four hours, 1 will move to compel Plaintiffs further deposition, seek fees, and seek to move the trial date based on your delay tactics. 1 look forward to resolving this discovery dispute without having to move to compel your client's further deposition. Respectfully, James F. Curran Deputy Attomey General IV Employment and Administrative Mandate Section CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 1 Street, 16* Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mobile: (916)712-4042 Direct: (916)210-6113 James.Curran@,doi.ca.gov (he/him/his) From: John Briscoe Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:30 PM To: James Curran Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious. Jim: At this point, we can produce Officer Ridge for four more hours of questioning. I disagree completely with your assertion that It's perfectly common for a FEHA-plaintiff's deposition to go up to six days. Usually they're done within one day and this Is not an unusual case. We can make ourselves available on September 23, October 7, or October 14. John From: James Curran Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:47 PM To: John Briscoe Subject: FW: Ridge, David v. FTB Following up on this. Thank you. James F. Curran Deputy Attomey General IV Employment and Administrative Mandate Section CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I Street, 16* Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mobile: (916)712-4042 Direct: (916)210-6113 James.Curran@doi.ca.gov (he/him/his) From: John Briscoe Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:59 AM To: James Curran Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious. Jim: Pardon my delay. I will get back to you shortly. Best, John From: James Curran Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:20 PM To: John Briscoe Subject: FW: Ridge, David v. FTB John, I am following up on my request, below, for dates on which Officer Ridge and you are available between now and the end of October for the next sessions of his deposition. Also, please send dates in that time frame that would work for you for the deposition of Kay Williams, subject to the court's ruling on the motion to compel your client's signature on the authorization form, and for completion of Officer Mallory's deposition. Respectfully, James F. Curran Deputy Attorney General IV Employment and Administrative Mandate Section CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I Street, 16* Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mobile: (916)712-4042 Direct: (916)210-6113 James.Curran@.doi.ca.gov (he/him/his) From: James Curran Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 2:05 PM To: 'John Briscoe' Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB John, 1 predict 1 will be able to finish Plaintiff Ridge's deposition in one or two more sessions, depending on a variety of factors. I do not owe you a list of topics on which I will question your client. I can tell you, however, that there is still much to cover concerning your client's background information, communications relevant to his reasonable accommodation request and the response thereto, other liability issues, and damages claims, including his claims for emotional distress. Your client's workers' compensation claims, treatment for physical injuries, and treatment for psychological and emotional distress, generated hundreds of pages of records. Of course we will need to obtain Ms. Williams' records before the conclusion of Officer Ridge's deposition, subject to the court's ruling on the motion to compel your client to sign the authorization form, because 1 will ask him about topics he discussed with Ms. Williams during their therapy sessions. Depositions lasting three to six sessions, and sometimes more, are quite common in employment cases, especially where, as here, communications about reasonable accommodation and the medical history relevant to the plaintiffs impairments span so many years. So please communicate dates on which Mr. Ridge and you are available between now and the end of October for the next sessions of his deposition. Respectfully, James F. Curran Deputy Attorney General IV Employment and Administrative Mandate Section CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 1 Street, 16* Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mobile: (916)712-4042 Direct: (916)210-6113 James.Curran@,doi.ca.gov (he/him/his) From: John Briscoe Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 4:27 PM To: James Curran Subject: RE: Ridge, David v. FTB EXTERNAL EMAIL: This message was sent from outside DOJ. Please do not click links or open attachments that appear suspicious. Jim: I don't have the precise figures at the moment, but I believe you've already deposed Officer Ridge for something like 14 hours. That is a lot In a FEHA case such as this. I honestly cannot recall a FEHA-plaintiff's deposition going longer than one full day. Respectfully, you consumed a considerable amount of time asking questions on subjects not apparently relevant, and—while I did not personally defend the first day of deposition—It sounds like you've asked the same questions more than once. At this time, I would ask for an offer of proof as to the subjects on which you still need to depose Officer Ridge, and the anticipated amount of time on each subject. Best, John From: James Curran Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 5:10 PM To: John Briscoe Subject: Ridge, David v. FTB John, Please communicate dates on which Mr. Ridge and you are available between now and the end of October for the next sessions of his deposition. Thank you. Jim Curran James F. Curran Deputy Attorney General IV Employment and Administrative Mandate Section CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I Street, 16* Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Mobile: (916)712-4042 Direct: (916)210-6113 James.Curran(a>doi.ca.gov (he/him/his) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely forthe use ofthe intended reclplent(s). Unauthorized Interception, review, use or disclosure Is prohibited and may violate applicable laws Including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe communication. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with Its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged Information. It Is solely for the use of the Intended reclplent(s). Unauthorized Interception, review, use or disclosure Is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with Its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged Information. It Is solely forthe use ofthe Intended recipient(s). Unauthorized Interception, review, use or disclosure Is prohibited and may violate applicable laws Including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the Intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe communication. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged Information. It Is solely forthe use ofthe intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws Including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies ofthe communication. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B 1 MAYALL H U R L E Y P.C. JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) 2 ibriscoe(S),mavallaw.com 3 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, California 95207-8253 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR T H E COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 DAVID RIDGE, an individual, Case No.: 34-2019-00265393 11 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO NOTICE 12 OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION vs. 13 T H E CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; Date: October 7 and 14, 2022 14 and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Imagine Court Reporting 15 Via Zoom Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Ridge hereby objects to the Notice of Continued Deposition of Plaintiff 19 David Ridge, served by Defendant The Caiifomia Highway Patrol. 20 Plaintiff objects that Defendant has already been afforded in excess of fourteen hours to 21 take and complete Plaintiffs deposition. Plaintiff will appear and submit to no more than four 22 additional hours of examination. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 24 All WRITFNGS setting forth or pertaining to any treatment YOU have received since 25 January 1, 2021 for the emotional distress for which YOU are claiming damages in this lawsuit, 26 including any communications between YOU and Bud's Odyssey, the entity Plaintiffhas 27 testified paid for some of his treatment costs at DiSiena and Irvine Chiropractic. 28 /// Plaintiffs Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition Page 1 of3 1 Objection to Request No. 4: 2 Plaintiff objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, and seeks 3 documents which are protected by the attomey-client privilege. 4 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5; 5 All medical or treatment records arising out of describing or pertaining to the consultation, 6 therapy or treatment Plaintiff received from the following health care providers: Kay Williams, MFT; 7 NMCI Medial Clinic; Roderick Sanden, M.D.; Ambrose Chiropractic; Marshall Medical Center; UC 8 Davis Medical Center or any of its providers; Beth Bathgate M.D.; Douglas A.DiSiena, D.C; Irvine 9 Chiropractic; Bud's Odyssey; and Newport Orthopedic Institute. 10 Objection to Request No. 5: 11 Plaintiff objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, 12 harassing, and seeks documents which are protected by the right to privacy, the physician-patient 13 privilege, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Plaintiff further objects that this request 14 seeks documents which are not relevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of 15 admissible evidence. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 17 All WRITINGS setting forth public information about the resolution (e.g., any judgment 18 entered by the court) of any dissolution action (divorce lawsuit) you or your spouse/former 19 spouse filed. 20 Objection to Request No. 10: 21 Plaintiff objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, 22 and harassing. Plaintiff further objects that this request seeks documents which are not relevant, 23 and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further 24 objects that this request seeks documents equally available to Defendant. 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 26 A court-endorsed copy of the complaint or other document that initiated the dissolution 27 action you or your spouse/former spouse filed, with the filing date completely legible. 28 /// Plaintiffs Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition Page 2 of 3 1 Objection to Request No. 11; 2 Plaintiff further objects that this request seeks documents which are not relevant, and is 3 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects 4 that this request seeks documents equally available to Defendant. 5 /// 6 DATED: September 30, 2022 M A Y A L L H U R L E Y P.C. 7 By_ 8 JOHN P. BRISCOE 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID RIDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition Page 3 of 3 Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 1, the undersigned, certily and declare as follows: 3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, Caiifomia 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing 4 and/or delivery below took place. 5 On September 30, 2022,1 served the following document: 6 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 7 addressed to: 8 James F. Curran Deputy Attomey General 9 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 10 James.Curran(3),doi.ca.gov Christopher Irby 11 Christopher.irbvfgjdoj.ca.gov 12 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: 1 am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for 13 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. 14 On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Caiifomia a copy of the document described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, 15 with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice. 16 0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified 17 below, 1 caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is lrilev@mavallaw.com. 1 did not receive, 18 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 19 1 certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 30, 2022, at Lodi, Caiifomia. 21 22 L I N D S ^ ( Y RILEfY SHIELDS LINDSAY 23 24 25 26 27 PROOF OF SERVICE - 1 28 Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 1, the undersigned, certify and declare as follows: 3 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard, Stockton, California 95207 that is located in the county where the mailing 4 and/or delivery below took place. 5 On November 15, 2022,1 served the following document: 6 DECLARATION OF JOHN P. BRISCOE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR 7 SANCTIONS 8 addressed to: 9 James F. Curran Deputy Attomey General 10 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 11 James.Curran(3).doi .ca.gov Christopher Irby 12 Christopher.irby@doi.ca.gov 13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: 1 am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for 14 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. 15 On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, Caiifomia a copy of the document described above was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, 16 with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or entities mentioned above; and that envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice. 17 0 BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified 18 below, I caused a copy of the document(s) described above to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. My business e-mail address is Irilev(5),mavallaw.com. 1 did not receive, 19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 1 certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed on November 15, 2022, at Lodi, California. 23 24 25 26 27 PROOF OF SERVICE 28