Preview
1 JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690)
ibriscoe@mavallaw.com
2 MAYALL H U R L E Y P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
3
Stockton, California 95207-8253
4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR T H E COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual. Case No.: 34-2019-00265393
10 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
11 AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
vs. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
12 FURTHER DEPOSITION OF
THE CALIFORNLA HIGHWAY PATROL; PLAINTIFF, AND FOR 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
20 Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge") submits the following memorandum of points and
21 authorities in opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for
22 Sanctions, filed by Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol ("CHP" or "Defendant").
23 I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
24 Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol ("Defendant") has already deposed Ridge over
25 three da-ys,for nearly eighteen hours. In a relatively simple discrimination case such as this, that
26 should be more than enough time—^and indeed it is. However, Defendant demands to continue
27 Ridge's deposition so it can continue to question him on the demise of his marriage and his
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Page 1 of 6
1 counseling sessions with his marriage and family therapist. (See Memo. Of Points and
2 Authorities ISO CHP's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff ["Motion"], 2:11-13.)
3 Though there is no statutory time limit for depositions in employment cases, the time already
4 spent deposing Ridge, in a relatively simple case such as this, is just plain excessive and, in the
5 undersigned's experience, unheard of. Accordingly—and after attempting to meet and confer
6 with counsel for Defendant, and after informing him expressly and well in advance that the third
7 session of deposition would terminate after four additional hours of active questioning—Ridge,
8 as was his express right under the Civil Discovery Act, adjoumed the proceedings and moved
9 promptly for a protective order. The earliest possible hearing for that motion was in January
10 2023; however, before that motion could be heard. Defendant filed this motion, and also filed an
11 application ex parte to have the motion heard on shortened notice and before Ridge's motion
12 would be heard.
13 Defendant has already had more than enough time to take a complete and effective
14 plaintiffs deposition, especially in a fairly unremarkable disability discrimination case. It
15 certainly does not need additional time to further rummage through troubles in Ridge's personal
16 life or his sessions with his marriage and family therapist. Thus, the motion to compel further
17 deposition should be denied.
18 II. FACTUAL HISTORY
19 In this matter. Ridge alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his physical
20 disability and denied reasonable accommodations. Accordingly, Ridge alleges, he was denied the
21 opportunity to earn overtime and was forced to retire medically, resulting in further economic
22 damages. This matter was filed in September 2019, but it was not until 2022 that Defendant
23 sought to depose Ridge.
24 On July 25, 2022—and subsequent to coordination between counsel—Defendant served
25 the Second Amended Notice of Deposition of David Ridge. It was set forth in the notice that the
26 deposition would last at least two days. (Declaration of John P. Briscoe, 2.)
27
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Page 2 of 6
1 Ridge's deposition commenced on August 7, 2022. Inclusive of recesses, it lasted about
2 7.5 hours. (Briscoe Deck, | 3.) The deposition resumed on August 14, 2022 and also, inclusive
3 of recesses, lasted about 7.5 hours. {Id., T| 4.)
4 On August 24, 2022, counsel for Defendant requested dates for a third session of Ridge's
5 deposition. Counsel for Ridge replied, pointed out that Ridge had already been deposed for about
6 fourteen hours, and asked which topics for examination remained and how long further
7 deposition would take. Mr. Curran replied: " I do not owe you a list of topics on which I will
8 question your clienf', and that he predicted he would need "one or two more sessions, depending
9 on a variety of factors." He also wrote that:
10 "Of course we will need to obtain Ms. Williams' records before the conclusion of
11 Officer Ridge's deposition, subject to the court's ruling on the motion to compel
12 your client to sign the authorization form,' because I will ask him about topics he
13 discussed with Ms. Williams during their therapy sessions. Depositions lasting
14 three to six sessions, and sometimes more, are quite common in employment
15 cases, especially where, as here, communications about reasonable
16 accommodation and the medical history relevant to the plaintiffs impairments
17 span so many years."
18 (Briscoe Deck, Exhibit A.)
19 Counsel for Ridge responded that Ridge would sit for a resumed deposition, but for no
20 more than four hours; he also stated that it was hardly his experience that plaintiffs depositions
21 in discrimination cases (such as this) last up to six days. (Briscoe Deck, Exhibit A.)
22 On September 9, 2022, Defendant served the Notice of Continued Deposition of Plaintiff
23 David Ridge, which asserted Ridge would be deposed on both October 7 and 14, 2022 and
24 "continuing, if necessary, on subsequent dates." (Briscoe Deck, 1| 6.) On September 30, 2022,
25
26
' Defendant previously moved this Court for an order compelling Ridge to authorize the release of records from his
27 marriage and family therapist, whom Ridge consulted for, in overwhelming part, marital issues. On September 26,
2022, the Court denied that motion.
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Page 3 of 6
Ridge served his Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition, which stated that Ridge would
2 submit to no more than four additional hours of deposition. {Id., f 7, Exhibit B.) Counsel for
3 Ridge later confirmed this to opposing counsel, stated his intention to file this motion after four
4 additional hours of questioning, and pointed out counsel's threat of sanctions "is not conducive
5 to resolving this dispute." {Id., Exhibit A.) Opposing counsel never provided any evidence or
6 authority for his proposition that six-day depositions were "quite common" in cases such as this,
7 nor did he call the undersigned (as invited) to meet and confer further. {Id., \ 7.)
8 Ridge, as promised, appeared for deposition on October 7, 2022, and adjoumed
9 proceedings after more than four hours of examination {excluding recesses) had elapsed.
10 (Briscoe Deck, If 8.)
11 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
12 Defendant has not demonstrated a compelling need to continue on with Ridge's
13 deposition, and it is apparent that further deposition would only cause Ridge unwarranted
14 embarrassment, oppression, and annoyance, as well as undue burden and expense. Typically, in
15 the undersigned's experience, the plaintiffs deposition in a case such as this is usually concluded
16 within one day, with a two-day deposition being the outlier. (Briscoe Deck, Tf 9.) Defendant has
17 been afforded two-and-a-half days to take Ridge's deposition. It spent an inordinate amount of
18 time deposing Ridge on, inter alia, his marital problems and subsequent divorce, as well as his
19 relationships with his adult children, and has been relentless in seeking all of Ridge's records
20 from his marriage and family therapist and to question Ridge on the same. Defendant has had an
21 adequate opportunity to take a proper, focused, and efficient deposition on topics relevant, and it
22 is apparent that it wants to continue to obtain sordid details about the unraveling of his marriage,
23 his strained relationships with his adult children, etc. Defendant should not be given such
24 leeway.
25 Contrary to Defendant's assertions. Ridge did not "unilaterally cut the deposition short"
26 so as to obstruct discovery. Ridge adjourned the deposition after four additional hours of
27 questioning (just as CHP was advised, in advance) and then promptly moved for a protective
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Page 4 of 6
1 order. This is precisely what Ridge, having a good faith contention that CHP had attempted to
2 exceed the bounds of discovery, and requiring the intervention of the trial court, should have
3 done. (See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 CaI.App.4th 261, 317 ["The
4 trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties
5 affected by discovery"].) Before Ridge's motion could be heard. Defendant filed this motion and
6 attempted to have it heard before the Court would entertain Ridge's duly- and promptly-filed
7 motion for a protective order.
8 Should CHP's motion to compel be granted, sanctions would be unnecessary and
9 inappropriate. In the undersigned's professional judgment and experience, CHP had no
10 legitimate reason to take a long and meandering deposition lasting three full sessions or more
11 (counsel for CHP asserts that six-session depositions are "quite common"). The undersigned
12 attempted to meet and confer on this issue but counsel for Defendant, despite being given the
13 invitation, did not (1) disclose any supporting evidence or authority that depositions up to six
14 days were common in like discrimination cases, or (2) call the undersigned to discuss the matter.
15 Accordingly, and given his attomeys' good faith belief that further deposition was inappropriate.
16 Ridge followed the statutory procedure of moving for a protective order. Had said motion been
17 denied. Ridge would have duly agreed to appear for further questioning. However, before that
18 motion could be heard. Defendant filed its motion to compel and, via ex parte application, had
19 hearing on said motion moved so that, presumably. Ridge's motion would not have even been
20 heard before Defendant's motion was heard. Ridge adjoumed his deposition and promptly
21 moved for a protective order, in eminent good faith—if this Court grants Defendant's motion to
22 compel, monetary sanctions would be unduly punitive and unnecessary to effectuate the
23 purposes of the Civil Discovery Act.^
24 ///
25
26
^ See Electronic Funds Solutions v. Mtirpiiy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4"' 1161, 1183 ["discovery sanctions exist 'not to
27 provide a weapon for punishment for past violations or penalty for past conduct but to secure compliance with
orders of the court"].)
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Page 5 of 6
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 Defendant has already been afforded a generous and adequate amount of time to take
3 Ridge's deposition. It has not demonstrated a compelling need to continue deposition, and to do
4 so (not least because it is clear that Defendant wants to continue prying into Ridge's private life)
5 would only cause unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, as well as undue
6 burden and expense. This Court should order that Ridge's deposition is deemed terminated.
7 Should the Court grant Defendant's motion and order Ridge's deposition to continue, he will
8 abide by said order and no sanctions are necessary.
9 ///
10 DATED: November 15, 2022 MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
11
12 By_
JOHN P. BRISCOE
13 Attomeys for Plaintiff
14 DAVID RIDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Page 6 of 6
Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al. '
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, certify 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, 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF
7 PLAINTIFF, AND FOR SANCTIONS
8 addressed to:
9 James F. Curran
Deputy Attomey General
10 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
11 James.Curran@doi.ca.eov
Christopher Irby
12 Christopher. irbv(a),doi .ca. gov
13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: I 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
EI BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified
18 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,
19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
20
I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia 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 - 1
28
Preview
1 JOHN P. BRISCOE (SBN: 273690) ibriscoe@mavallaw.com 2 MAYALL H U R L E Y P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard 3 Stockton, California 95207-8253 4 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff David Ridge 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF T H E STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR T H E COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 9 DAVID RIDGE, an individual. Case No.: 34-2019-00265393 10 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 11 AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO vs. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL 12 FURTHER DEPOSITION OF THE CALIFORNLA HIGHWAY PATROL; PLAINTIFF, AND FOR 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 20 Plaintiff David Ridge ("Ridge") submits the following memorandum of points and 21 authorities in opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for 22 Sanctions, filed by Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol ("CHP" or "Defendant"). 23 I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 24 Defendant Caiifomia Highway Patrol ("Defendant") has already deposed Ridge over 25 three da-ys,for nearly eighteen hours. In a relatively simple discrimination case such as this, that 26 should be more than enough time—^and indeed it is. However, Defendant demands to continue 27 Ridge's deposition so it can continue to question him on the demise of his marriage and his 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 1 of 6 1 counseling sessions with his marriage and family therapist. (See Memo. Of Points and 2 Authorities ISO CHP's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff ["Motion"], 2:11-13.) 3 Though there is no statutory time limit for depositions in employment cases, the time already 4 spent deposing Ridge, in a relatively simple case such as this, is just plain excessive and, in the 5 undersigned's experience, unheard of. Accordingly—and after attempting to meet and confer 6 with counsel for Defendant, and after informing him expressly and well in advance that the third 7 session of deposition would terminate after four additional hours of active questioning—Ridge, 8 as was his express right under the Civil Discovery Act, adjoumed the proceedings and moved 9 promptly for a protective order. The earliest possible hearing for that motion was in January 10 2023; however, before that motion could be heard. Defendant filed this motion, and also filed an 11 application ex parte to have the motion heard on shortened notice and before Ridge's motion 12 would be heard. 13 Defendant has already had more than enough time to take a complete and effective 14 plaintiffs deposition, especially in a fairly unremarkable disability discrimination case. It 15 certainly does not need additional time to further rummage through troubles in Ridge's personal 16 life or his sessions with his marriage and family therapist. Thus, the motion to compel further 17 deposition should be denied. 18 II. FACTUAL HISTORY 19 In this matter. Ridge alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his physical 20 disability and denied reasonable accommodations. Accordingly, Ridge alleges, he was denied the 21 opportunity to earn overtime and was forced to retire medically, resulting in further economic 22 damages. This matter was filed in September 2019, but it was not until 2022 that Defendant 23 sought to depose Ridge. 24 On July 25, 2022—and subsequent to coordination between counsel—Defendant served 25 the Second Amended Notice of Deposition of David Ridge. It was set forth in the notice that the 26 deposition would last at least two days. (Declaration of John P. Briscoe, 2.) 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 2 of 6 1 Ridge's deposition commenced on August 7, 2022. Inclusive of recesses, it lasted about 2 7.5 hours. (Briscoe Deck, | 3.) The deposition resumed on August 14, 2022 and also, inclusive 3 of recesses, lasted about 7.5 hours. {Id., T| 4.) 4 On August 24, 2022, counsel for Defendant requested dates for a third session of Ridge's 5 deposition. Counsel for Ridge replied, pointed out that Ridge had already been deposed for about 6 fourteen hours, and asked which topics for examination remained and how long further 7 deposition would take. Mr. Curran replied: " I do not owe you a list of topics on which I will 8 question your clienf', and that he predicted he would need "one or two more sessions, depending 9 on a variety of factors." He also wrote that: 10 "Of course we will need to obtain Ms. Williams' records before the conclusion of 11 Officer Ridge's deposition, subject to the court's ruling on the motion to compel 12 your client to sign the authorization form,' because I will ask him about topics he 13 discussed with Ms. Williams during their therapy sessions. Depositions lasting 14 three to six sessions, and sometimes more, are quite common in employment 15 cases, especially where, as here, communications about reasonable 16 accommodation and the medical history relevant to the plaintiffs impairments 17 span so many years." 18 (Briscoe Deck, Exhibit A.) 19 Counsel for Ridge responded that Ridge would sit for a resumed deposition, but for no 20 more than four hours; he also stated that it was hardly his experience that plaintiffs depositions 21 in discrimination cases (such as this) last up to six days. (Briscoe Deck, Exhibit A.) 22 On September 9, 2022, Defendant served the Notice of Continued Deposition of Plaintiff 23 David Ridge, which asserted Ridge would be deposed on both October 7 and 14, 2022 and 24 "continuing, if necessary, on subsequent dates." (Briscoe Deck, 1| 6.) On September 30, 2022, 25 26 ' Defendant previously moved this Court for an order compelling Ridge to authorize the release of records from his 27 marriage and family therapist, whom Ridge consulted for, in overwhelming part, marital issues. On September 26, 2022, the Court denied that motion. 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 3 of 6 Ridge served his Objection to Notice of Continued Deposition, which stated that Ridge would 2 submit to no more than four additional hours of deposition. {Id., f 7, Exhibit B.) Counsel for 3 Ridge later confirmed this to opposing counsel, stated his intention to file this motion after four 4 additional hours of questioning, and pointed out counsel's threat of sanctions "is not conducive 5 to resolving this dispute." {Id., Exhibit A.) Opposing counsel never provided any evidence or 6 authority for his proposition that six-day depositions were "quite common" in cases such as this, 7 nor did he call the undersigned (as invited) to meet and confer further. {Id., \ 7.) 8 Ridge, as promised, appeared for deposition on October 7, 2022, and adjoumed 9 proceedings after more than four hours of examination {excluding recesses) had elapsed. 10 (Briscoe Deck, If 8.) 11 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT 12 Defendant has not demonstrated a compelling need to continue on with Ridge's 13 deposition, and it is apparent that further deposition would only cause Ridge unwarranted 14 embarrassment, oppression, and annoyance, as well as undue burden and expense. Typically, in 15 the undersigned's experience, the plaintiffs deposition in a case such as this is usually concluded 16 within one day, with a two-day deposition being the outlier. (Briscoe Deck, Tf 9.) Defendant has 17 been afforded two-and-a-half days to take Ridge's deposition. It spent an inordinate amount of 18 time deposing Ridge on, inter alia, his marital problems and subsequent divorce, as well as his 19 relationships with his adult children, and has been relentless in seeking all of Ridge's records 20 from his marriage and family therapist and to question Ridge on the same. Defendant has had an 21 adequate opportunity to take a proper, focused, and efficient deposition on topics relevant, and it 22 is apparent that it wants to continue to obtain sordid details about the unraveling of his marriage, 23 his strained relationships with his adult children, etc. Defendant should not be given such 24 leeway. 25 Contrary to Defendant's assertions. Ridge did not "unilaterally cut the deposition short" 26 so as to obstruct discovery. Ridge adjourned the deposition after four additional hours of 27 questioning (just as CHP was advised, in advance) and then promptly moved for a protective 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 4 of 6 1 order. This is precisely what Ridge, having a good faith contention that CHP had attempted to 2 exceed the bounds of discovery, and requiring the intervention of the trial court, should have 3 done. (See Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 CaI.App.4th 261, 317 ["The 4 trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties 5 affected by discovery"].) Before Ridge's motion could be heard. Defendant filed this motion and 6 attempted to have it heard before the Court would entertain Ridge's duly- and promptly-filed 7 motion for a protective order. 8 Should CHP's motion to compel be granted, sanctions would be unnecessary and 9 inappropriate. In the undersigned's professional judgment and experience, CHP had no 10 legitimate reason to take a long and meandering deposition lasting three full sessions or more 11 (counsel for CHP asserts that six-session depositions are "quite common"). The undersigned 12 attempted to meet and confer on this issue but counsel for Defendant, despite being given the 13 invitation, did not (1) disclose any supporting evidence or authority that depositions up to six 14 days were common in like discrimination cases, or (2) call the undersigned to discuss the matter. 15 Accordingly, and given his attomeys' good faith belief that further deposition was inappropriate. 16 Ridge followed the statutory procedure of moving for a protective order. Had said motion been 17 denied. Ridge would have duly agreed to appear for further questioning. However, before that 18 motion could be heard. Defendant filed its motion to compel and, via ex parte application, had 19 hearing on said motion moved so that, presumably. Ridge's motion would not have even been 20 heard before Defendant's motion was heard. Ridge adjoumed his deposition and promptly 21 moved for a protective order, in eminent good faith—if this Court grants Defendant's motion to 22 compel, monetary sanctions would be unduly punitive and unnecessary to effectuate the 23 purposes of the Civil Discovery Act.^ 24 /// 25 26 ^ See Electronic Funds Solutions v. Mtirpiiy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4"' 1161, 1183 ["discovery sanctions exist 'not to 27 provide a weapon for punishment for past violations or penalty for past conduct but to secure compliance with orders of the court"].) 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 5 of 6 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Defendant has already been afforded a generous and adequate amount of time to take 3 Ridge's deposition. It has not demonstrated a compelling need to continue deposition, and to do 4 so (not least because it is clear that Defendant wants to continue prying into Ridge's private life) 5 would only cause unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, as well as undue 6 burden and expense. This Court should order that Ridge's deposition is deemed terminated. 7 Should the Court grant Defendant's motion and order Ridge's deposition to continue, he will 8 abide by said order and no sanctions are necessary. 9 /// 10 DATED: November 15, 2022 MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 11 12 By_ JOHN P. BRISCOE 13 Attomeys for Plaintiff 14 DAVID RIDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Deposition of Plaintiff, and for Sanctions Page 6 of 6 Ridge V. California Highway Patrol, et al. ' Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-00265393 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, the undersigned, certify 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, 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION OF 7 PLAINTIFF, AND FOR SANCTIONS 8 addressed to: 9 James F. Curran Deputy Attomey General 10 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 11 James.Curran@doi.ca.eov Christopher Irby 12 Christopher. irbv(a),doi .ca. gov 13 • BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: I 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 EI BY EMAIL: In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1010.6, on the date specified 18 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, 19 within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiifomia 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 - 1 28