Preview
1 ROB BONTA
2
Attomey General of California
KRISTIN M . DAILY
FiLEO/Ef\!DORSED
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 JAMES F. CURRAN
Deputy Attomey General
NOV - 9 2022
4 State Bar No. 142041
1300 I Street, Suite 125 By: S. Csd?
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916)210-6113
Fax: (916)324-5567
7 E-mail: James.Curran(§doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
8 California Highway Patrol
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13
DAVID RIDGE, Case No. 34-2019-00265393
14
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CHP'S OPPOSITION TO
15 PLAINTIFF'S E X P A R T E APPLICATION
V. FOR ORDER RESCHEDULING
16 HEARINGS ON (1) PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
17 THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; (2) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF
18 PLAINTIFF, AND (3) DEFENDANT'S
Defendants. MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S
19 SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION
FOR AND COMPLIANCE WITH
20 SUBPOENA
21 Date: November 10, 2022
Time: 9:15 AM
22 Dept: 53
Judge: Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi
23 Trial Date: April 3, 2023
Action Filed: September 23, 2019
24
25 Defendant California Highway Patrol hereby opposes Plaintiff David Ridge's ex parte
26 application to have CHP's motion to compel Plaintiffs further deposition and motion to compel
27 signature on the Kay Williams release, and his motion for a protective order, heard on or after
28 November 30, 2022. This court has recognized the need for both of CHP's motions to be heard
I
Defendant's Opposition to Plaitniff s Ex Parte Appiication for Order Rescheduling Hearings (34-2019-00265393)
u.^rNOV -9 PM 19
1 prior to January, and the court has scheduled both hearings for November 23, 2022. Plaintiff now
2 seeks to delay the hearings because he fiied a motion for protective order terminating Plaintiffs
3 deposition prior to when CHP filed its motion to compel Plaintiffs further deposition.
4 Plaintiff provides no justification for why the hearing on CHP's motion to compel signature
5 on the release of Kay Williams' treatment records should be further delayed. He provides no
6 evidence or argument refuting the reasons CHP cited in seeking an earlier hearing date on the
7 Kay Williams motion. The application therefore should be denied on that basis with respect to
8 the Williams motion.
9 Plaintiffs motion for a protective order will be moot if the court grants CHP's motion to
10 compel the further deposition of Plaintiff The issues in those two motions are identical: should
11 Plaintiffs counsel be allowed unilaterally and arbitrarily to dictate how long his client's
12 deposition should last, and would additional questioning of Plaintiff be oppressive or harassing.
13 Plaintiff can raise whatever arguments he deems appropriate in his opposition to CHP's motion to
14 compel Plaintiffs further deposition.
15 Plaintiffs counsel's declaration in support of the application, and the proof of service
16 thereof that I have received, do not indicate he provided notice to Ms. Williams of the application.
17 CHP opposes this application on that basis, also.
18 DECLARATION OF JAMES F. CURRAN
19 I, James F. Curran, declare as follows:
20 1. I am counsel of record for CHP in this action and have filed the motions described above
21 and conferred with opposing counsel about the issues pertinent to both. I therefore could testify
22 to the tmth of the following matters if called upon to do so.
23 2. I did not inform John Briscoe that I would not oppose this ex parte application. As can
24 be seen by the relevant email exchange, included as an exhibit to the Briscoe declaration in
25 support of Plaintiff s ex parte application, I notified him that I would not attempt to appear in
26 person or virtually to oppose the motion. 1 also informed him, however, that I would participate
27 in any telephone conversation with the Court should the Court have any questions about the ex
28 parte application. I also called Department 53 this morning and communicated my mobile phone
2
Defendant's Opposition to Plaitniffs Ex Parte Application for Order Rescheduling Hearings (34-2019-00265393)
1 number to the clerk so that the court could reach me via telephone if the court wanted to discuss
2 Plaintiffs ex parte application with counsel
3 3. CHP hereby incorporates here, by reference, all arguments in its ex parte applications
4 concerning the two motions that Plaintiff seeks to reschedule, and in those motions, themselves.
5 Those arguments make clear CHP will be prejudiced by delay of the hearings. The court granted
6 both applications and issued its order on both on November 4, 2022. Plaintiffs counsel has been
7 aware since the latter date that the motions were scheduled for hearing on November 23, 2022.
8 4. The ex parte application filed today by Plaintiffhas apparently not been served on Kay
9 Williams, MFT, whose records are the subject of CHP's motion to compel signature, and who
10 should be served with all pleadings and papers related to the latter motion. The Proof of Service I
received this afternoon reflects only that this application was served on me. Plaintiffs counsel's
12 declaration in support of the application does not indicate he provided notice to Ms. Williams of
13 the application. CHP opposes this application on that basis, also.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
15 foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 9"^ day of November 2022 in Sacramento, Califomia.
16
17
SA20I9106238
18 36707862.docx
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 „
Defendant's Opposition to PiaitnifTs Ex Parte Application for Order Rescheduling Hearings (34-2019-00265393)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
Case Name: David Ridge v. CHP
No.: 34-2019-00265393
I declare:
I am employed in the Office ofthe Attomey General, which is the office of a member of the
Califomia State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the intemal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fiilly prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On November 9. 2022.1 served the attached DEFENDANT CHP'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER RESCHEDULING HEARINGS
ON (1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, (2) DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, AND (3)
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S SIGNATURE ON
AUTHORIZATION FOR AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA by transmitting a tme
copy via electronic mail addressed as follows:
John P. Briscoe Kay Williams, MA, MFT
Mayall Hurley P.C. E-mail Address:
E-mail Address: pvheronfajgmail.com
ibriscoe(a),iTiayal law.com
lrilev@mavallaw.com
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Califomia and the United States
of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November
9, 2022, at Sacramento, California.
Christopher R. Irby S/ Christopher R. Irby
Declarant Signature
SA2019106238
36708013.docx
Preview
1 ROB BONTA 2 Attomey General of California KRISTIN M . DAILY FiLEO/Ef\!DORSED Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 JAMES F. CURRAN Deputy Attomey General NOV - 9 2022 4 State Bar No. 142041 1300 I Street, Suite 125 By: S. Csd? 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916)210-6113 Fax: (916)324-5567 7 E-mail: James.Curran(§doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant 8 California Highway Patrol 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 DAVID RIDGE, Case No. 34-2019-00265393 14 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CHP'S OPPOSITION TO 15 PLAINTIFF'S E X P A R T E APPLICATION V. FOR ORDER RESCHEDULING 16 HEARINGS ON (1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, 17 THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; (2) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO and DOES 1-100, inclusive, COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF 18 PLAINTIFF, AND (3) DEFENDANT'S Defendants. MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S 19 SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FOR AND COMPLIANCE WITH 20 SUBPOENA 21 Date: November 10, 2022 Time: 9:15 AM 22 Dept: 53 Judge: Hon. Richard K. Sueyoshi 23 Trial Date: April 3, 2023 Action Filed: September 23, 2019 24 25 Defendant California Highway Patrol hereby opposes Plaintiff David Ridge's ex parte 26 application to have CHP's motion to compel Plaintiffs further deposition and motion to compel 27 signature on the Kay Williams release, and his motion for a protective order, heard on or after 28 November 30, 2022. This court has recognized the need for both of CHP's motions to be heard I Defendant's Opposition to Plaitniff s Ex Parte Appiication for Order Rescheduling Hearings (34-2019-00265393) u.^rNOV -9 PM 19 1 prior to January, and the court has scheduled both hearings for November 23, 2022. Plaintiff now 2 seeks to delay the hearings because he fiied a motion for protective order terminating Plaintiffs 3 deposition prior to when CHP filed its motion to compel Plaintiffs further deposition. 4 Plaintiff provides no justification for why the hearing on CHP's motion to compel signature 5 on the release of Kay Williams' treatment records should be further delayed. He provides no 6 evidence or argument refuting the reasons CHP cited in seeking an earlier hearing date on the 7 Kay Williams motion. The application therefore should be denied on that basis with respect to 8 the Williams motion. 9 Plaintiffs motion for a protective order will be moot if the court grants CHP's motion to 10 compel the further deposition of Plaintiff The issues in those two motions are identical: should 11 Plaintiffs counsel be allowed unilaterally and arbitrarily to dictate how long his client's 12 deposition should last, and would additional questioning of Plaintiff be oppressive or harassing. 13 Plaintiff can raise whatever arguments he deems appropriate in his opposition to CHP's motion to 14 compel Plaintiffs further deposition. 15 Plaintiffs counsel's declaration in support of the application, and the proof of service 16 thereof that I have received, do not indicate he provided notice to Ms. Williams of the application. 17 CHP opposes this application on that basis, also. 18 DECLARATION OF JAMES F. CURRAN 19 I, James F. Curran, declare as follows: 20 1. I am counsel of record for CHP in this action and have filed the motions described above 21 and conferred with opposing counsel about the issues pertinent to both. I therefore could testify 22 to the tmth of the following matters if called upon to do so. 23 2. I did not inform John Briscoe that I would not oppose this ex parte application. As can 24 be seen by the relevant email exchange, included as an exhibit to the Briscoe declaration in 25 support of Plaintiff s ex parte application, I notified him that I would not attempt to appear in 26 person or virtually to oppose the motion. 1 also informed him, however, that I would participate 27 in any telephone conversation with the Court should the Court have any questions about the ex 28 parte application. I also called Department 53 this morning and communicated my mobile phone 2 Defendant's Opposition to Plaitniffs Ex Parte Application for Order Rescheduling Hearings (34-2019-00265393) 1 number to the clerk so that the court could reach me via telephone if the court wanted to discuss 2 Plaintiffs ex parte application with counsel 3 3. CHP hereby incorporates here, by reference, all arguments in its ex parte applications 4 concerning the two motions that Plaintiff seeks to reschedule, and in those motions, themselves. 5 Those arguments make clear CHP will be prejudiced by delay of the hearings. The court granted 6 both applications and issued its order on both on November 4, 2022. Plaintiffs counsel has been 7 aware since the latter date that the motions were scheduled for hearing on November 23, 2022. 8 4. The ex parte application filed today by Plaintiffhas apparently not been served on Kay 9 Williams, MFT, whose records are the subject of CHP's motion to compel signature, and who 10 should be served with all pleadings and papers related to the latter motion. The Proof of Service I received this afternoon reflects only that this application was served on me. Plaintiffs counsel's 12 declaration in support of the application does not indicate he provided notice to Ms. Williams of 13 the application. CHP opposes this application on that basis, also. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the 15 foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 9"^ day of November 2022 in Sacramento, Califomia. 16 17 SA20I9106238 18 36707862.docx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 „ Defendant's Opposition to PiaitnifTs Ex Parte Application for Order Rescheduling Hearings (34-2019-00265393) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL Case Name: David Ridge v. CHP No.: 34-2019-00265393 I declare: I am employed in the Office ofthe Attomey General, which is the office of a member of the Califomia State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the intemal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fiilly prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On November 9. 2022.1 served the attached DEFENDANT CHP'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER RESCHEDULING HEARINGS ON (1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, (2) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, AND (3) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S SIGNATURE ON AUTHORIZATION FOR AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA by transmitting a tme copy via electronic mail addressed as follows: John P. Briscoe Kay Williams, MA, MFT Mayall Hurley P.C. E-mail Address: E-mail Address: pvheronfajgmail.com ibriscoe(a),iTiayal law.com lrilev@mavallaw.com I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of Califomia and the United States of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 9, 2022, at Sacramento, California. Christopher R. Irby S/ Christopher R. Irby Declarant Signature SA2019106238 36708013.docx