Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (BarNo. 198024)
Gregoty K. Federico (Bar No. 242184)
2 ARCHER NORRIS
A Professional Law Corporation
3 301 University Avenue, Suite 110
Sacramento, Caiifomia 95825
4 Telephone: 916.646.2480
Facsimile: 916 646.5696
5
Attomeys for Defendants
6 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and
dba CA CONSTRUCTION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450
ABBOTT,
12 DECLARATION OF GREGORY
Plaintiffs, FEDERICO IN SUPPORT OF
13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT
14 TESTIMONY
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.,
15 Action Filed: September 24, 2007
Defendants.
16 Hearing Date: January 7, 2011
Trial Date January 18, 2011
17^ Time: 8:30 a.m.
Location; Department 43
18
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
19
20
I, Gregory K. Federico, hereby declare as follows;
21
1. At all times relevant, I have been an attomey licensed to practice law in the State
22
ofCalifomia and I am an associate wdth the law firm of Archer Norris, counsel of record for
23
Defendants RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION
24
(heremafter "CA CONSTRUCTION"). As such, I am personally familiar with the files in tiiis
25
matter and all the documents contained therein. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters stated
26
herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
27
2. Mrs. Finelli substituted mto the case in November 2008, and she is Plaintiffs'
28
DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
1 third attomey in this matter.
2 3. On November 15, 2007, Plaintiffs' first attomey, John Britton wrote Todd Jones,
3 counsel for CA CONSTRUCTION, and proposed that the parties conduct informal discovery
4 involving among other things, an inspection ofthe property.
5 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a tme and correct copy of Mr. Britton's
6 November 15, 2007 letter to Todd Jones.
7 5, On November 26, 2007, Mr. Jones proposed a meeting at the site with Plaintiffs,
8 coimsel for all parties, and experts to discuss the issues.
9 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a tme and correct copy ofthe Mr Jones
10 November 26,2007 letter to Mr. Britton.
11 7. On November 28, 2007, CA CONSTRUCTION retained expert Dave Hetyet.
12 8. On November 29, 2007, Mr. Britton agreed to the inspection protocol
13 recommended by Mr. Jones. He also indicated that due to a family crisis. Plaintiffs were not
14 available for the inspection for some time.
15 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a hue and correct copy of Mr. Bntton's
16 November 29, 2007 letter to Mr. Jones.
17 10. Mr. Britton substituted out on December 20, 2007 and gave CA
18 CONSTRUCTION permission to coordinate the inspection directiy with Plaintiffs.
19 11. On March 3, 2008, counsel for CA CONSTRUCTION, CA CONSTRUCTION'S
20 expert Dave Heryet, and Plaintiffs' met at the property, discussed the issues, and Mr. Heryet
21 conducted an inspection.
22 12. On March 23, 2009, Plaintiffs disclosed their experts. CA CONSTRUCTION
23 timely noticed the depositions ofeach of Plaintiffs' three (3) experts - Weahunt, Lee and
24 Dillingham. The depositions took place on April 24, and April 27,2009, respectively, before the
25 expert cut-off date. On April 17, 2009, Defendant BRITSCHGI tunely noticed tiie deposition of
26 Plaintiffs' expert Molinari.
27 N1C549/I067041-1 2
2^ DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO I TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
1 13. On March 26,2009 and April 10, 2009, CA CONSTRUCTION timely disclosed
2 its expert witnesses.
3 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a tiue and correct copy of CA
4 CONSTRUCTION'S expert witness disclosure.
5 15 Thereafter, no party issued a notice ofdeposition of CA CONSTRUCTION'S
6 expert Heryet prior to the deadline to notice expert depositions.
7 16. On April 15, 2009, CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. (hereinafter "CADRE"),
8 timely noticed the deposition of expert Newlin only. The notice was withdrawn on Apnl 18,
9 2009. Plaintiffs failed to join in the deposition noticeof expert Newlin.
10 17. On April 21, 2009, Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of various defense experts,
11 including Heryet. Plaintiffs' noticed the deposition for April 28, 2009 and it was served on April
12 21, 2009 via facsimile. Plaintiffs did not notice the depositton of expert Newlin
13 18. On April 23,2009, CA CONSTRUCTION objected to Plaintiffs' deposition notice
14 of Heryet because it was served in violation of Code ofCivil Procedure §2025.270(a).
15 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a tme and correct copy of the objection to
16 Plaintiffs' Deposition of expert Heryet
17 20. Plaintiffs' counsel failed to respond to the April 17, 2009 email cham between all
18 coimsel suggesting a stipulation to extend expert discovery.
19 21. After Plaintiffs' counsel April 23, 2009 email regarding whether she will be
20 required to file a motion to compel expert deposition ofthe defense experts. Plaintiffs did not file
21 a motion to compel.
22 22. The parties appeared for trial call on May 11, 2009, at which time the tiial date
23 was continued. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint,
24 which was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs were pernutted to file an amended
25 complaint. The Court also granted a request to re-open discovery for CA CONSTRUCTION only
26 and for the limited purpose of conducting discovery on new issues raised by the amended
27 NIC549/I06704i-l 3
28 DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO I TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
1 complaint. The Court's July 20, 2009, minute order also states "As discovery remains closed
2 otherwise, plaintiff may not take the depositions of defendant's experts without obtaining leave of
3 court to re-open discovery for that purpose "
4 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is a tme and correct copy ofthe Court's July 20,
5 2009 minute order.
6 24. Since the Court issued its order on July 20, 2009, Plaintiffs have not sought leave
7 of court to re-open discovery to depose the defense experts
8 I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the
9 foregoing is tme and correct and that this declaration was executed in Sacramento, Caiifomia, on
10 December 23, 2010
^
12 Gregory K. Federico
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 NIC549/I06704I-
28 DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et al. v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al.
Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450
3
I, Cindy A. Ingland, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this
4 action or proceeding. My business address is 301 University Avenue, Suite 110, Sacramento,
Califomia 95825. On December 23,2010,1 caused the following document(s) to be served:
5
DECLARATION OF GREGORY FEDERICO INSUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
6 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
7 I I By placing a tme copy of the documents listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business
8 address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
9
mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope
10 is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness
with the United States Postal Service with postage fiilly prepaid.
11
I I By having a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above tiansmitted by facsimile to the
12 person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5-00 p.m. The transmission
was reported as complete without error by a report issued by the fransmitting facsimile
13
machine.
14
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL by placmg a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above, in a
15
HI box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS, an express service carrier, or
delivered to a courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive
16 documents, in an envelope designated by the express service carrier, with delivety fees
paid or provided for, addressed as set forth below.
17
18 r - | by having personal delivery by FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES a tme copy of
the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the
19 address(es) set forth below.
20
[SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST]
21
I declare under penalty ofperjury that tiie foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on
22 December 23,2010, at Sacramento, Califomia.
23
24
INDY A. INGLAND
25
26
27
28
NIC341/608293-1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Service List
2
Stephanie Finelli PLAINTIFFS
3 Law Offices of Stephanie J Finelli
1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Tel: (916) 443-2144
4 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax:(916)443-1511
E-mail: sfinelli700@yahoo.com
5
Richard D Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
6 Wheatley Sopp LLP
1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel (916)988-3857
7 Folsom, CA 95630 Fax:(916)988-5296
Email rds@mwsblaw com
8
Mark Smith in Pro Per
9 8549 Willow Valley Place
Granite Bay, CA 95746
10
Richard W Freeman Counsel for R4C0RP
11 Scott S. Brooks
WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP Tel (925)356-8200
12 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Fax:(925)356-8250
Concord, CA 94520-7982
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC34I/608293-I
SERVICE LIST
EXHIBIT «"AAM
WRIGHT & BRITTON
AN ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS
3741 DOUGLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 380 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 TELEPHONE (916) 781-2050 FACSIMILE (916) 782-7560
Harold C Wright
John A, Britton, Ino.
November 15, 2007
Todd A. Jones
Archer • Norris
655 University Avenue, Suite 225
Sacramento, CA 95825
RE: Abbott v. Britschgl/Ruybalid
Settlement Discussions
Dear Todd:
I have the answer and cross-complaint that you filed on behalf of Mr. Ruybalid. Before
we all start the standard voluminous discovety that we know we have in these cases, I wanted
to talk to you for a moment about the possibility of doing some informal discovety. Naturally, any
such informal discovety will in no form or fashion preclude you from doing formal discovety. I
want to discuss with you about doing something tiiat 1 try and do when I defend these
constmction cases.
As you probably have already seen from the pleadings, this is not the standard
"construction defect" case in which we have leaky windows, plumbing that does not work, a roof
that leaks, faulty electrical, HVAC problems, etc. I do not see us getting any other part'es
involved in this case other than the plaintiffs and two defendant contractors. Further, if Ronald
Britschgi retains an attorney and has insurance coverage, I would be inclined to also dismiss his
bonding company from this lawsuit. With that In mind, let's talk about dong some informal
discovery.
As stated, we do not have the standard "construction defect" case. We are essentially
talking about a different form of "negligent construction". As such, i want to setup a time where
you and I can meet at the Abbott residence. I will have Mrs. Abbott with me. Together, you/we
can interview her so that she can better explain to you on site why she believes your client was
negligent in his work.
In many of my construction cases, I like to get onsite with the plaintiff and his counsel as
soon as possible so that I can "see and feel" the construction problems. I want fo give you the
opportunity to do that. By such a meeting, you will naturally not be precluded from taking the
depositions of either of the plaintiffs.
At this meeting, I think it best that we probably not have your client present. I do not want
our clients "having words" with, each other at the site. However, if at some later date you would
Todd A. Jones
November 15, 2007
Page 2
like to bring your client to the house to walk the site, then I will be more than happy to set that
up. You and your client would naturally have that right anyway through a fonnal notice to inspect
the house.
Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, I met with two experts at the Abbott property. By way of
an informal disclosure (not a formal expert disclosure), be advised that one ofthe experts is Alan
Phillips. I have used fiim in many cases over the last 25+ years in both plaintiff and defense
cases. He is knowledgeable, honest and straightforward in his opinions.
Todd, you will note that in the reference of fhis letter I stated the terms "Settlement
Discussions". I wanted our discussion to be essentially "off the record". It is my goal to give you,
Mr. Ruybalid and his insurance cameras much information and documentation as possible, both
by way of informal and formal discovety. By doing that, my goal is not just to help better educate
you and your client, but al the same time seek any possible "education" of me by you about this
case, Put another way, while yes, I expect that we will dump on each other the standard written
discovery. If there is any "discovety" that we can do informally so that we can better educate
each other, then let me know. I "preach to the choir" when I state that we can spend thousands
of dollars defending and prosecuting this case. I would like to see that money first go towards
cooperation between the attorneys and possible resolution of this case after all sides have
whatever information/documentation they need to better assess Uiis case.
Defendant Britschgi was served on October 24, 2007, We have not yet received
responsive pleadings. It will be interesting to see if he files an answer and by what counsel. I
am going to make the same offer to his counsel as I make to you.
Defendant Surety Company of the Pacific was served on October 18,2007. It has served
responsive pleadings and Initiated discovety. I will share with you a copy of that answer and
discovety as soon as I have an opportunity to better review the same.
Let me know your thoughts on my proposals.
^ Vety-tfvuly yours,
a.
W H N A. BRITTON
JABImc
cc Client
EXHIBIT UTI99
"B
ARCHER-NORRIS
A PROFESSlOMOt LAW CORPORATION
6SS University Avenue, Suite 225 TODD A. JONES
Saaamento, CA 9S825 t30nes@ani1en10ms.com
916.646.2'?80 916 6'J6.2i!82
915,646.5696 (Fax)
www arclien)on1s.com
November 26,2007
John Britton
I WRIGHT &BRrrTON
I
3741 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 380
Roseville, CA 95661
Re; Rodney and Florentine Abbott v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS0445Q
Our File No.: NIC-341 _ _ ^ _ _ ^ _
Dear John:
I am in receipt of your correspondence ofNovember 15,2007 inquiring about performir^
informal discovery in lieu of immediately stampeding down the standard discovery route. In
short, your letter is well received. As this case appears to involve fairly limited issues and a
limited number of parties, I believe it would be prudent and cost effective for all our clients to
work out an informal discovery process that allows the parties to obtain the bulk ofthe
information they need without waiving any party's right to conduct formal discovery at a later
date.
With regard to your proposal to conduct an informal site inspection, you have invited me
to conduct such an inspection but believe it would be best not to have my client present ifl were
to meet with you and your client in an informal setting. I would propose that we set up a two-
stage site inspection that would occur at a mutually agreeable time and date. For the first stage
ofthe site inspection (probably taking no more than an hour), I would meet with you and your
clients at the residence so that your clients can explain their issues and position. Immediately
after this meeting, I would have my client (and possibly my expert) come to the residence so that
I could perform a walk-through ofthe property with them. During the second phase ofthe
inspection, it may be appropriate to have your expert(s) also in attendance to explain the issues to
my client and my expert. By setting up the site inspection this way, we avoid the potential for
our respective clients' "having words" with each other at the site, yet we axe ali able to convey
and/or obtain the inittal information we need for our investigation. I believe that the entire two-
phased site inspection process would take no more than two hours. Please let me know if setting
up a site inspection along these lines wouid be agreeable to you and your client.
W A L N U T CREEK « SACRAMENTO B NEWPORT B E A C H S LOS A N G E L E S
John Britton
I WRIGHT & BRITTON
' November 26,2007
Page 2
Additionally, let's plan on speaking in the next week to discuss an informal discovery
process. Knowing that defendant Britschgi was served last month, it may be pmdent to wait for
his counsel to appear in this action so that we can coordinate such an informal discovery with all
jjarties at the same time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and your willingness to work toward an early
resolution ofthis mattei.
Very truly yours,
ARCHER NORRIS
^(/S
Todd A, Joniest
TAJ/jce
cc: Lourdes Vaquerano, iSlavigatOTs Insurance Company (Claim No CGLl57579)
(Via E-Mail: Ivaquerano@navg.com)
Richard Ruybalid, CA Construction
NIC341/61U97-1
EXHIBIT "C"
cV
Y
WRIGHT & BRITTON
AN ASSOCIATION 0 5 ATTORNEYS
3741 DOUGLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 380 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 TELEPHONE (916) 781-2050 FACSIMILE (916) 782-7560
Harold C. Wright
John A, Britton, Inc
November 29, 2007
Todd A. Jones
Archer • Norris
655 University Avenue, suite 225
Sacramento, CA 95825
RE: Rodney Abbott and Florentine Abbott v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et a.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS04450
Your File Number NIC-341
Dear Todd:
I have your letter of November 26,2007. Your proposal makes good sense. I will
recommend the same to Mr. and Mrs. Abbott.
I have the Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Western Surety Company as prepared
by your office. Enclosed is your copy of my letter to the court indicating that the Dismissal
should be filed. I will return to you an endorsed copy as soon as the same is available
Defendant Bntschgi has been served. He has retained Craig Lundgren as his counsel.
Enclosed is a copy of Mr, Lungren's fax to me of November 26, 2007, which includes my note
back to Craig. Craig and I are working together to see if we can gather together enough facts
so as to see if we can show Mr. Britschgi's insurance company that Mr. Britschgi did, in fact,
work on the project during the limited time of the Insurance policy in question.
I was informed late yesterday evening that Mr. and Mrs. Abbott have had a terrible family
cnsis within their immediate family A crisis that is going to take up a considerable amount of
their time in the immediate future. I will need to get back to you as to when we can have the
informal inspection at the Abbott residence.
JObSN A. BRITTON
JAB:lmc
Enclosures
EXHIBIT "D"
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024)
Gregory K. Federico (Bar No. 242184)
2 ARCHER NORRIS
A Professional Law Corporation
3 655 University Avenue, Suite 225
Sacramento, Califomia 95825-6747
4 Telephone: 916.646.2480
Facsunile: 916.646.5696
5
Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Defendants
6 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individualty, and
dba CA CONSTRUCTION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450
ABBOIT,
12 RICHARD K. RUYBALID DBA CA
Plaintiffs, CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS
13 DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WTTNESS
V. DECLARATION OF GREGORY K.
14 FEDERICO
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al..
15 Action Filed: September 24, 2007
Defendants. TrialDate: May 11,2009
16
17 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
18
19
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
20 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedvu-e § 2034.260, Defendant and Cross-Defendant
21 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION (hereinafter "CA
22 CONS'! RUCTION") hereby discloses and designates the foilowing expert wimesses:
23
A. RETAINED EXPERTS
24
1. David T. Heryet
25 Govan Associates
333 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 950
Cameron Park, CA 95682
26 Telephone: (530) 672-6070
27
28
NIC341/772399-1 1
RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTR! 'CTION'S EXPERT WITNESS
DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION
1 2. Other expert wimesses who may be called to testify at trial ofthis matter by CA
2 CONSTRUCTION inciude any other expert witnesses disclosed by any ofthe other parties to this
3 action.
4 3. CA CONSTRUCTION also reserves the right to call any person whose deposition
5 was taken m this action, who qualifies as an expert.
6 B. NON-RETAINED EXPERTS
7 1 Donn C. Marinovich
8 (209)533-3663
9 Mailing Address:
10 P. O. Box 1782
Columbia, Califomia 95370-172
11 Office Address:
12 10232 N. Hwy 49
Sonora, Califomia 95370
13
CA CONSTRUCTION herein expressly reserves the right to call any expert witaesses in
14
its case in chief or in rebuttal required to refute the testimony of expert witnesses which are called
15
by plaintiffs or cross-complainants or by defendants or cross-defendants.
16
CA CONSTRUCTION herein reserves the right to call as expert witoesses any person
17
whose testimony is needed to present an adequate defense and rebuttal to the allegations and
18
contentions of plaintiffs or cross-complainants or by defendants or cross-defendants. Additional
19
expert witnesses may be retamed to testify. If this occurs, their identities will be disclosed
20
immediately pursuant to the procedures set forth in Code ofCivil Procedure § 2034.310.
21
22
Dated: March I-? _, 2009 ARCHER NORRIS
23
24
4 , k.-^
25 Gregory K. Federico
Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-
26 Defendants RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID,
individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION
27
28
N1C341/772399-1
RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID PEA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS
DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION
1 I EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION
2 I, Gregory K. Federico, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attomey at law licensed to practice before ail the courts ofthe State of
4 Califomia and I am an associate with the law firm of Archer Norris, and I am coxmsel of record in
5 this action for Defendant and Cross-Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and
6 dba CA CONSTRUCTION (hereinafter "CA CONSTRUCTION'). I make tius Expert
7 Declaration as required by Califomia Code ofCivil Procedure § 2034.260(c).
8 A. RETAINED EXPERTS
9 1. Dave Heryet
]0 As to this expert, I am informed and believe that the following is tme:
11 (a) Qualifications: Mr. Heryet is a Califomia licensed general conttactor and is also
12 a licensed attomey. (See attached curriculum vitae.)
13 (b) The general substance of the testimony this expert is expected to give:
14 This expert is expected to give testimony regarding all liabihty, causation, standard of
15 care, and damage aspects ofthis case, including but not limited to: (1) the work performed by CA
16 CONSTRUCTION; (2) the work and design of all other trades and contiactors, including the
17 Ovmer/Builder, who worked on Plaintiff FLORENTINE and RODNEY ABBOTT's home
18 located at 8601 Rolling Green Way in Fair Oaks, Califomia (hereinafter "SUBJECT PROJECT");
19 (3) the design ofthe SUBJECT PROJECT; and (4) the appropriate scope and cost of repairing the
20 SUBJECT PROJECT, which are at issue in this case. The general description of Mr. Heryet's
21 testimony is not intended to limit such testimony, but is merely an indication ofthe broad area in
22 which he may render an opiruon if called to testify at tiial.
23 (c) Dave Heryet has agreed to testify at the tiial ofthis matter.
24 (d) Dave Heryet will be sufficientiy familiar with the pending action to submit to a
25 meaningful oral deposition concerning his specific testimony, including any opinions and their
26 basis that he is expected to give at tiial.
27 (e) Deposition and trial testimony:
28 Mr. Heryet's rate for deposition and trial testimony is $350 per hour.
NIC341/772399-1 3
RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS
DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION
1 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia that the
2 foregoing is tme and correct and that this Declaration was executed on March 13,2009 in
3 Sacramento, Califomia.
4
5
4^ i&
Gregory K. Federico
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC341/772399-1
RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS
DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et aL v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al.
Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450
3
I, Suzanne Hamois, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action
4 or proceeding. My business address is 655 University Avenue, Suite 225, Sacramento, Califomia
95825. On March 13, 2009,1 caused the following document(s) to be served:
5
RICHARD K. RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS
6 DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION OF GREGORY K.
FEDERICO
I I
7
by placing a tme copy ofthe documents listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
8 addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business
9 address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily famihar
with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
10 mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope
is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business
11 with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
12 I j by having a tme copy of the document(s) listed above tiansmitted by facsimile to the
person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The transmission
13 was reported as complete without error by a report issued by thetiansrruttingfacsimile
14 machine.
by placing a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility
15 D regularly mamtained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or
16 driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope
designated by the express service carrier, -with delivery fees paid or provided for,
17 addressed as set forth below.
18
[SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST]
19
20
I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on
21 March 13, 2009, at Sacramento, Califomia,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC341/608293-1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Service List
2
3 Stephanie Finelli Plaintiffs
Law Offices of Stephanie J. Finelli
4 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Tel: (916) 443-2144
Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax. (916)443-1511
5
Craig N Lundgren Counsel for RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI,
6 Law Offices of Craig N. Lundgren INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA BRITSCHGI
424 Second Street, Suite A CORPORATION
7 Davis, CA 95616
Tel: (530)792-8800
8 Fax: (530) 297-5077
9 Richard D. Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Maloney, Wheatley, Sopp & Brooks
10 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel: (916) 988-3857
Folsom, CA 95630 Fax:(916)988-5296
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N1C341/608293-1
SERVICE LIST
EXHIBIT "E"
e)
^^
-.V
C^s
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024)
Gregoty K. Federico (Bar No. 242184)
2 ARCHER NORRIS
A Professional Law Corporation
3 655 University Avenue, Suite 225
Sacramento, Cahfomia 95825-6747
4 Telephone: 916.646.2480
Facsunile: 916.646.5696
5
Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Defendants
6 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually, and
dba CA CONSTRUCTION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450
ABBOTT,
12 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE
Plaintiffs, OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS
13 DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET
V.
14 Action Filed: September 24, 2007
RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.. TrialDate: May 11,2009
15 Deposition Date: April 28,2009
Defendants. Deposition Time: 10:00 a.m
16
17 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
18
19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure §2025.410(a) and (h).
21 Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION
22 (hereinafter "CA CONSTRUCTION") hereby objects to the Notice of Taking of Expert Witaess
23 Deposition (hereinafter "Notice") served via facsimile by Plaintiffe RODNEY and
24 FLORENTINE ABBOTT (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") on April 21, 2009 for DAVE HERYET. CA
25 CONSTRUCTION objects to the Notice on tiie follovwng grounds:
26 1. The Notice was served via facsimile tiansmission in violation of Code ofCivil
27 Procedure §1013(e) and Califomia Rules ofCourt. Rule 2.306(1). CA CONSTRUCTION has
28 not agreed to this manner ofservice.
• NIC341/789125-1 1
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET
1 2. The Notice was served in violation of Code ofCivil Procedure §2025.270(a).
2 Pursuant to this section, a deposition must be scheduled for a date at least 10 daj^ after proper
3 service ofthe deposition notice. The deposition was scheduled for April 28,2009 and the Notice
4 -was served on April 21, 2009 via facsunile. The Notice does not comply with the statatorily
5 prescribed notice period of at least 10 days. ,
6 3. The Notice was served in violation of Code ofCivil Procedure §2024.030. First,
7 Plaintiffs' Notice was served beyond the deadline for the parties to personally serve deposition
8 notices by hand, which was April 17, 2009. The Notice was served via facsimile on April 21,
9 2009. Second, pursuant to the Code, expert discovery cuts off" on the 15th day prior to the date
10 imtially set for trial. The trial of this matter is set for May 11,2009, and thus the expert discovery
11 cut off date is April 27, 2009. Plaintiffs' noticed tae deposition for April 28,2009, which is
12 beyond tae statutorily prescribed cut off date.
13 OBJECTION TO DOCUMENT REOUESTS
14 Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION fiuther objects to Plaintiffs' Notice and Request for
15 Documents on the following grounds:
16 1 CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to
17 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to tae discovery of
18 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
19 tae terms "reports, vratings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
20 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
21 2. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on tiie grounds it is overbroad as to
22 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to tae discovery of
23 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
24 tae terms "reports, writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing tae
25 amoimt deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
26 3. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to
27 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
28 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
NIC341/789I25-1 2
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET
1 tiie terms "reports, writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
2 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
3 4. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to
4 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
5 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
6 the terms "reports, writings, documents, tieattses, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
7 amount deponent has hilled defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
8 5. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request onfliegrounds it is overbroad as to
9 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovety of
10 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
11 the terms "reports, writings, documents, treatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
12 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
13 6. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to
14 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
15 admissible evidence. This request is further objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
16 the terms "reports, writings, documents, treatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
17 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
18 7. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to
19 time and subject matter, and taat it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
20 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
21 the terms "reports, -writings, documents, treatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
22 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
23 8. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on tiie grounds it is overbroad as to
24 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
25 admissible evidence. This request is finther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
26 the terms "reports, -writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the
27 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
28
NIC34]/789)25-] 3
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET
1 9. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on tiie grounds it is overbroad as to
2 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
3 admissible e-vidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to
4 the terms "reports, writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the'
5 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers."
6
7 Based on the foregoing objections, CA CONSTRUCTION will not agree to produce its
8 expert witaess DAVE HERYET at tae time and location specified in Plaintiffs' Notice.
9
Dated: April 23,2009 ARCHER NORRIi
10
11
12 Gregory K. Federico
Attomeys for Defendants/Cross-Defendants
13 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually
and dba CA CONSTRUCTION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC341/789125-1
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et al. v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al.
Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450
3
I, Suzanne Michaud, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this
4 action or proceeding. My business address is 655 University Avenue, Suite 225, Sacramento,
Califomia 95825. On April 23,2009,1 caused the folio-wing document(s) to be served:
5
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS
6 DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET
7
by placing a tme copy ofthe documents listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
8 addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business
9 address shown above following our ordinaty business practices. I am readily familiar
mth this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
10 mailing vwth the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope
is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness
11 -wita the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
12 by ha-vdng a tme copy of tae document(s) listed abovetiansmittedby facsimile to the
person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The tiansmission
13 was reported as complete without error by a report issued by thefransmittingfacsimile
14 machine.
15 D by placing a trae copy ofthe document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or
16 driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope
designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for,
17 addressed as set forth below.
18
[SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST]
19
20
I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on April
21 23, 2009, at Sacramento, Califomia.
22
23 JAitcWL
24 Suzanne Michaud
25
26
.27
28
Nia41/608293-1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Service List
2
Craig N. Lundgren Counsel for RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI,
3 LUNDGREN & REYNOLDS, LLP INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA BRITSCHGI
424 Second Street, Suite A CORPORATION
4 Davis, CA 95616
Tel: (530)297-5030
5 Fax: (530) 297-5077
6 Richard D Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Maloney, Wheatley, Sopp & Brooks
7 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel: (916) 988-3857
Folsom, CA 95630 Fax:(916)988-5296
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NIC341/608293-1
SERVICE LIST
BROADCAST REPORT
TIME : 04/23/2009 12:00
NAME : ARCHER NORRIS
FAX : 19166465696
TEL : 19166462480
SER.S : BRDD5J253330
PAGE(S> 05
DATE TINE FAX NO./N^E DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT COMMENT
04/23 11:57 15302975077 52 06 ok ECM
04/23 11:58 9885296 01:46 06 OK ECM
BUSY: BUSV/NO RESPONSE
NG : POOR LINE CONDITION
CV : COVERPAGE
PC : PC-FAX
EXHIBIT "F"
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
Date: 07/20/2009 Time; 09-00:00 AM
Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (BarNo. 198024) Gregoty K. Federico (Bar No. 242184) 2 ARCHER NORRIS A Professional Law Corporation 3 301 University Avenue, Suite 110 Sacramento, Caiifomia 95825 4 Telephone: 916.646.2480 Facsimile: 916 646.5696 5 Attomeys for Defendants 6 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450 ABBOTT, 12 DECLARATION OF GREGORY Plaintiffs, FEDERICO IN SUPPORT OF 13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 14 TESTIMONY RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al., 15 Action Filed: September 24, 2007 Defendants. 16 Hearing Date: January 7, 2011 Trial Date January 18, 2011 17^ Time: 8:30 a.m. Location; Department 43 18 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 19 20 I, Gregory K. Federico, hereby declare as follows; 21 1. At all times relevant, I have been an attomey licensed to practice law in the State 22 ofCalifomia and I am an associate wdth the law firm of Archer Norris, counsel of record for 23 Defendants RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 24 (heremafter "CA CONSTRUCTION"). As such, I am personally familiar with the files in tiiis 25 matter and all the documents contained therein. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters stated 26 herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. 27 2. Mrs. Finelli substituted mto the case in November 2008, and she is Plaintiffs' 28 DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 1 third attomey in this matter. 2 3. On November 15, 2007, Plaintiffs' first attomey, John Britton wrote Todd Jones, 3 counsel for CA CONSTRUCTION, and proposed that the parties conduct informal discovery 4 involving among other things, an inspection ofthe property. 5 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a tme and correct copy of Mr. Britton's 6 November 15, 2007 letter to Todd Jones. 7 5, On November 26, 2007, Mr. Jones proposed a meeting at the site with Plaintiffs, 8 coimsel for all parties, and experts to discuss the issues. 9 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a tme and correct copy ofthe Mr Jones 10 November 26,2007 letter to Mr. Britton. 11 7. On November 28, 2007, CA CONSTRUCTION retained expert Dave Hetyet. 12 8. On November 29, 2007, Mr. Britton agreed to the inspection protocol 13 recommended by Mr. Jones. He also indicated that due to a family crisis. Plaintiffs were not 14 available for the inspection for some time. 15 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a hue and correct copy of Mr. Bntton's 16 November 29, 2007 letter to Mr. Jones. 17 10. Mr. Britton substituted out on December 20, 2007 and gave CA 18 CONSTRUCTION permission to coordinate the inspection directiy with Plaintiffs. 19 11. On March 3, 2008, counsel for CA CONSTRUCTION, CA CONSTRUCTION'S 20 expert Dave Heryet, and Plaintiffs' met at the property, discussed the issues, and Mr. Heryet 21 conducted an inspection. 22 12. On March 23, 2009, Plaintiffs disclosed their experts. CA CONSTRUCTION 23 timely noticed the depositions ofeach of Plaintiffs' three (3) experts - Weahunt, Lee and 24 Dillingham. The depositions took place on April 24, and April 27,2009, respectively, before the 25 expert cut-off date. On April 17, 2009, Defendant BRITSCHGI tunely noticed tiie deposition of 26 Plaintiffs' expert Molinari. 27 N1C549/I067041-1 2 2^ DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO I TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 1 13. On March 26,2009 and April 10, 2009, CA CONSTRUCTION timely disclosed 2 its expert witnesses. 3 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a tiue and correct copy of CA 4 CONSTRUCTION'S expert witness disclosure. 5 15 Thereafter, no party issued a notice ofdeposition of CA CONSTRUCTION'S 6 expert Heryet prior to the deadline to notice expert depositions. 7 16. On April 15, 2009, CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. (hereinafter "CADRE"), 8 timely noticed the deposition of expert Newlin only. The notice was withdrawn on Apnl 18, 9 2009. Plaintiffs failed to join in the deposition noticeof expert Newlin. 10 17. On April 21, 2009, Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of various defense experts, 11 including Heryet. Plaintiffs' noticed the deposition for April 28, 2009 and it was served on April 12 21, 2009 via facsimile. Plaintiffs did not notice the depositton of expert Newlin 13 18. On April 23,2009, CA CONSTRUCTION objected to Plaintiffs' deposition notice 14 of Heryet because it was served in violation of Code ofCivil Procedure §2025.270(a). 15 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a tme and correct copy of the objection to 16 Plaintiffs' Deposition of expert Heryet 17 20. Plaintiffs' counsel failed to respond to the April 17, 2009 email cham between all 18 coimsel suggesting a stipulation to extend expert discovery. 19 21. After Plaintiffs' counsel April 23, 2009 email regarding whether she will be 20 required to file a motion to compel expert deposition ofthe defense experts. Plaintiffs did not file 21 a motion to compel. 22 22. The parties appeared for trial call on May 11, 2009, at which time the tiial date 23 was continued. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, 24 which was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs were pernutted to file an amended 25 complaint. The Court also granted a request to re-open discovery for CA CONSTRUCTION only 26 and for the limited purpose of conducting discovery on new issues raised by the amended 27 NIC549/I06704i-l 3 28 DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO I TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 1 complaint. The Court's July 20, 2009, minute order also states "As discovery remains closed 2 otherwise, plaintiff may not take the depositions of defendant's experts without obtaining leave of 3 court to re-open discovery for that purpose " 4 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is a tme and correct copy ofthe Court's July 20, 5 2009 minute order. 6 24. Since the Court issued its order on July 20, 2009, Plaintiffs have not sought leave 7 of court to re-open discovery to depose the defense experts 8 I declare under penalty of perjury imder the laws of the State of Califomia that the 9 foregoing is tme and correct and that this declaration was executed in Sacramento, Caiifomia, on 10 December 23, 2010 ^ 12 Gregory K. Federico 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NIC549/I06704I- 28 DECLARATION OF GKF IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et al. v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al. Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450 3 I, Cindy A. Ingland, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this 4 action or proceeding. My business address is 301 University Avenue, Suite 110, Sacramento, Califomia 95825. On December 23,2010,1 caused the following document(s) to be served: 5 DECLARATION OF GREGORY FEDERICO INSUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 6 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 7 I I By placing a tme copy of the documents listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business 8 address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for 9 mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope 10 is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service with postage fiilly prepaid. 11 I I By having a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above tiansmitted by facsimile to the 12 person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5-00 p.m. The transmission was reported as complete without error by a report issued by the fransmitting facsimile 13 machine. 14 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL by placmg a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above, in a 15 HI box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive 16 documents, in an envelope designated by the express service carrier, with delivety fees paid or provided for, addressed as set forth below. 17 18 r - | by having personal delivery by FIRST LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES a tme copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the 19 address(es) set forth below. 20 [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] 21 I declare under penalty ofperjury that tiie foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on 22 December 23,2010, at Sacramento, Califomia. 23 24 INDY A. INGLAND 25 26 27 28 NIC341/608293-1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Service List 2 Stephanie Finelli PLAINTIFFS 3 Law Offices of Stephanie J Finelli 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Tel: (916) 443-2144 4 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax:(916)443-1511 E-mail: sfinelli700@yahoo.com 5 Richard D Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. 6 Wheatley Sopp LLP 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel (916)988-3857 7 Folsom, CA 95630 Fax:(916)988-5296 Email rds@mwsblaw com 8 Mark Smith in Pro Per 9 8549 Willow Valley Place Granite Bay, CA 95746 10 Richard W Freeman Counsel for R4C0RP 11 Scott S. Brooks WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP Tel (925)356-8200 12 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Fax:(925)356-8250 Concord, CA 94520-7982 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC34I/608293-I SERVICE LIST EXHIBIT «"AAM WRIGHT & BRITTON AN ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS 3741 DOUGLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 380 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 TELEPHONE (916) 781-2050 FACSIMILE (916) 782-7560 Harold C Wright John A, Britton, Ino. November 15, 2007 Todd A. Jones Archer • Norris 655 University Avenue, Suite 225 Sacramento, CA 95825 RE: Abbott v. Britschgl/Ruybalid Settlement Discussions Dear Todd: I have the answer and cross-complaint that you filed on behalf of Mr. Ruybalid. Before we all start the standard voluminous discovety that we know we have in these cases, I wanted to talk to you for a moment about the possibility of doing some informal discovety. Naturally, any such informal discovety will in no form or fashion preclude you from doing formal discovety. I want to discuss with you about doing something tiiat 1 try and do when I defend these constmction cases. As you probably have already seen from the pleadings, this is not the standard "construction defect" case in which we have leaky windows, plumbing that does not work, a roof that leaks, faulty electrical, HVAC problems, etc. I do not see us getting any other part'es involved in this case other than the plaintiffs and two defendant contractors. Further, if Ronald Britschgi retains an attorney and has insurance coverage, I would be inclined to also dismiss his bonding company from this lawsuit. With that In mind, let's talk about dong some informal discovery. As stated, we do not have the standard "construction defect" case. We are essentially talking about a different form of "negligent construction". As such, i want to setup a time where you and I can meet at the Abbott residence. I will have Mrs. Abbott with me. Together, you/we can interview her so that she can better explain to you on site why she believes your client was negligent in his work. In many of my construction cases, I like to get onsite with the plaintiff and his counsel as soon as possible so that I can "see and feel" the construction problems. I want fo give you the opportunity to do that. By such a meeting, you will naturally not be precluded from taking the depositions of either of the plaintiffs. At this meeting, I think it best that we probably not have your client present. I do not want our clients "having words" with, each other at the site. However, if at some later date you would Todd A. Jones November 15, 2007 Page 2 like to bring your client to the house to walk the site, then I will be more than happy to set that up. You and your client would naturally have that right anyway through a fonnal notice to inspect the house. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, I met with two experts at the Abbott property. By way of an informal disclosure (not a formal expert disclosure), be advised that one ofthe experts is Alan Phillips. I have used fiim in many cases over the last 25+ years in both plaintiff and defense cases. He is knowledgeable, honest and straightforward in his opinions. Todd, you will note that in the reference of fhis letter I stated the terms "Settlement Discussions". I wanted our discussion to be essentially "off the record". It is my goal to give you, Mr. Ruybalid and his insurance cameras much information and documentation as possible, both by way of informal and formal discovety. By doing that, my goal is not just to help better educate you and your client, but al the same time seek any possible "education" of me by you about this case, Put another way, while yes, I expect that we will dump on each other the standard written discovery. If there is any "discovety" that we can do informally so that we can better educate each other, then let me know. I "preach to the choir" when I state that we can spend thousands of dollars defending and prosecuting this case. I would like to see that money first go towards cooperation between the attorneys and possible resolution of this case after all sides have whatever information/documentation they need to better assess Uiis case. Defendant Britschgi was served on October 24, 2007, We have not yet received responsive pleadings. It will be interesting to see if he files an answer and by what counsel. I am going to make the same offer to his counsel as I make to you. Defendant Surety Company of the Pacific was served on October 18,2007. It has served responsive pleadings and Initiated discovety. I will share with you a copy of that answer and discovety as soon as I have an opportunity to better review the same. Let me know your thoughts on my proposals. ^ Vety-tfvuly yours, a. W H N A. BRITTON JABImc cc Client EXHIBIT UTI99 "B ARCHER-NORRIS A PROFESSlOMOt LAW CORPORATION 6SS University Avenue, Suite 225 TODD A. JONES Saaamento, CA 9S825 t30nes@ani1en10ms.com 916.646.2'?80 916 6'J6.2i!82 915,646.5696 (Fax) www arclien)on1s.com November 26,2007 John Britton I WRIGHT &BRrrTON I 3741 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 380 Roseville, CA 95661 Re; Rodney and Florentine Abbott v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS0445Q Our File No.: NIC-341 _ _ ^ _ _ ^ _ Dear John: I am in receipt of your correspondence ofNovember 15,2007 inquiring about performir^ informal discovery in lieu of immediately stampeding down the standard discovery route. In short, your letter is well received. As this case appears to involve fairly limited issues and a limited number of parties, I believe it would be prudent and cost effective for all our clients to work out an informal discovery process that allows the parties to obtain the bulk ofthe information they need without waiving any party's right to conduct formal discovery at a later date. With regard to your proposal to conduct an informal site inspection, you have invited me to conduct such an inspection but believe it would be best not to have my client present ifl were to meet with you and your client in an informal setting. I would propose that we set up a two- stage site inspection that would occur at a mutually agreeable time and date. For the first stage ofthe site inspection (probably taking no more than an hour), I would meet with you and your clients at the residence so that your clients can explain their issues and position. Immediately after this meeting, I would have my client (and possibly my expert) come to the residence so that I could perform a walk-through ofthe property with them. During the second phase ofthe inspection, it may be appropriate to have your expert(s) also in attendance to explain the issues to my client and my expert. By setting up the site inspection this way, we avoid the potential for our respective clients' "having words" with each other at the site, yet we axe ali able to convey and/or obtain the inittal information we need for our investigation. I believe that the entire two- phased site inspection process would take no more than two hours. Please let me know if setting up a site inspection along these lines wouid be agreeable to you and your client. W A L N U T CREEK « SACRAMENTO B NEWPORT B E A C H S LOS A N G E L E S John Britton I WRIGHT & BRITTON ' November 26,2007 Page 2 Additionally, let's plan on speaking in the next week to discuss an informal discovery process. Knowing that defendant Britschgi was served last month, it may be pmdent to wait for his counsel to appear in this action so that we can coordinate such an informal discovery with all jjarties at the same time. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and your willingness to work toward an early resolution ofthis mattei. Very truly yours, ARCHER NORRIS ^(/S Todd A, Joniest TAJ/jce cc: Lourdes Vaquerano, iSlavigatOTs Insurance Company (Claim No CGLl57579) (Via E-Mail: Ivaquerano@navg.com) Richard Ruybalid, CA Construction NIC341/61U97-1 EXHIBIT "C" cV Y WRIGHT & BRITTON AN ASSOCIATION 0 5 ATTORNEYS 3741 DOUGLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 380 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 TELEPHONE (916) 781-2050 FACSIMILE (916) 782-7560 Harold C. Wright John A, Britton, Inc November 29, 2007 Todd A. Jones Archer • Norris 655 University Avenue, suite 225 Sacramento, CA 95825 RE: Rodney Abbott and Florentine Abbott v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et a. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 07AS04450 Your File Number NIC-341 Dear Todd: I have your letter of November 26,2007. Your proposal makes good sense. I will recommend the same to Mr. and Mrs. Abbott. I have the Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Western Surety Company as prepared by your office. Enclosed is your copy of my letter to the court indicating that the Dismissal should be filed. I will return to you an endorsed copy as soon as the same is available Defendant Bntschgi has been served. He has retained Craig Lundgren as his counsel. Enclosed is a copy of Mr, Lungren's fax to me of November 26, 2007, which includes my note back to Craig. Craig and I are working together to see if we can gather together enough facts so as to see if we can show Mr. Britschgi's insurance company that Mr. Britschgi did, in fact, work on the project during the limited time of the Insurance policy in question. I was informed late yesterday evening that Mr. and Mrs. Abbott have had a terrible family cnsis within their immediate family A crisis that is going to take up a considerable amount of their time in the immediate future. I will need to get back to you as to when we can have the informal inspection at the Abbott residence. JObSN A. BRITTON JAB:lmc Enclosures EXHIBIT "D" 1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024) Gregory K. Federico (Bar No. 242184) 2 ARCHER NORRIS A Professional Law Corporation 3 655 University Avenue, Suite 225 Sacramento, Califomia 95825-6747 4 Telephone: 916.646.2480 Facsunile: 916.646.5696 5 Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Defendants 6 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individualty, and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450 ABBOIT, 12 RICHARD K. RUYBALID DBA CA Plaintiffs, CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS 13 DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WTTNESS V. DECLARATION OF GREGORY K. 14 FEDERICO RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.. 15 Action Filed: September 24, 2007 Defendants. TrialDate: May 11,2009 16 17 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 18 19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 20 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedvu-e § 2034.260, Defendant and Cross-Defendant 21 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION (hereinafter "CA 22 CONS'! RUCTION") hereby discloses and designates the foilowing expert wimesses: 23 A. RETAINED EXPERTS 24 1. David T. Heryet 25 Govan Associates 333 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 950 Cameron Park, CA 95682 26 Telephone: (530) 672-6070 27 28 NIC341/772399-1 1 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTR! 'CTION'S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION 1 2. Other expert wimesses who may be called to testify at trial ofthis matter by CA 2 CONSTRUCTION inciude any other expert witnesses disclosed by any ofthe other parties to this 3 action. 4 3. CA CONSTRUCTION also reserves the right to call any person whose deposition 5 was taken m this action, who qualifies as an expert. 6 B. NON-RETAINED EXPERTS 7 1 Donn C. Marinovich 8 (209)533-3663 9 Mailing Address: 10 P. O. Box 1782 Columbia, Califomia 95370-172 11 Office Address: 12 10232 N. Hwy 49 Sonora, Califomia 95370 13 CA CONSTRUCTION herein expressly reserves the right to call any expert witaesses in 14 its case in chief or in rebuttal required to refute the testimony of expert witnesses which are called 15 by plaintiffs or cross-complainants or by defendants or cross-defendants. 16 CA CONSTRUCTION herein reserves the right to call as expert witoesses any person 17 whose testimony is needed to present an adequate defense and rebuttal to the allegations and 18 contentions of plaintiffs or cross-complainants or by defendants or cross-defendants. Additional 19 expert witnesses may be retamed to testify. If this occurs, their identities will be disclosed 20 immediately pursuant to the procedures set forth in Code ofCivil Procedure § 2034.310. 21 22 Dated: March I-? _, 2009 ARCHER NORRIS 23 24 4 , k.-^ 25 Gregory K. Federico Attomeys for Defendants and Cross- 26 Defendants RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 27 28 N1C341/772399-1 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID PEA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION 1 I EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION 2 I, Gregory K. Federico, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attomey at law licensed to practice before ail the courts ofthe State of 4 Califomia and I am an associate with the law firm of Archer Norris, and I am coxmsel of record in 5 this action for Defendant and Cross-Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and 6 dba CA CONSTRUCTION (hereinafter "CA CONSTRUCTION'). I make tius Expert 7 Declaration as required by Califomia Code ofCivil Procedure § 2034.260(c). 8 A. RETAINED EXPERTS 9 1. Dave Heryet ]0 As to this expert, I am informed and believe that the following is tme: 11 (a) Qualifications: Mr. Heryet is a Califomia licensed general conttactor and is also 12 a licensed attomey. (See attached curriculum vitae.) 13 (b) The general substance of the testimony this expert is expected to give: 14 This expert is expected to give testimony regarding all liabihty, causation, standard of 15 care, and damage aspects ofthis case, including but not limited to: (1) the work performed by CA 16 CONSTRUCTION; (2) the work and design of all other trades and contiactors, including the 17 Ovmer/Builder, who worked on Plaintiff FLORENTINE and RODNEY ABBOTT's home 18 located at 8601 Rolling Green Way in Fair Oaks, Califomia (hereinafter "SUBJECT PROJECT"); 19 (3) the design ofthe SUBJECT PROJECT; and (4) the appropriate scope and cost of repairing the 20 SUBJECT PROJECT, which are at issue in this case. The general description of Mr. Heryet's 21 testimony is not intended to limit such testimony, but is merely an indication ofthe broad area in 22 which he may render an opiruon if called to testify at tiial. 23 (c) Dave Heryet has agreed to testify at the tiial ofthis matter. 24 (d) Dave Heryet will be sufficientiy familiar with the pending action to submit to a 25 meaningful oral deposition concerning his specific testimony, including any opinions and their 26 basis that he is expected to give at tiial. 27 (e) Deposition and trial testimony: 28 Mr. Heryet's rate for deposition and trial testimony is $350 per hour. NIC341/772399-1 3 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION 1 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia that the 2 foregoing is tme and correct and that this Declaration was executed on March 13,2009 in 3 Sacramento, Califomia. 4 5 4^ i& Gregory K. Federico 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC341/772399-1 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et aL v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al. Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450 3 I, Suzanne Hamois, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action 4 or proceeding. My business address is 655 University Avenue, Suite 225, Sacramento, Califomia 95825. On March 13, 2009,1 caused the following document(s) to be served: 5 RICHARD K. RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION'S EXPERT WITNESS 6 DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION OF GREGORY K. FEDERICO I I 7 by placing a tme copy ofthe documents listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, 8 addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business 9 address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily famihar with this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for 10 mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business 11 with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. 12 I j by having a tme copy of the document(s) listed above tiansmitted by facsimile to the person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The transmission 13 was reported as complete without error by a report issued by thetiansrruttingfacsimile 14 machine. by placing a tme copy ofthe document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility 15 D regularly mamtained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or 16 driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope designated by the express service carrier, -with delivery fees paid or provided for, 17 addressed as set forth below. 18 [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] 19 20 I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on 21 March 13, 2009, at Sacramento, Califomia, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC341/608293-1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Service List 2 3 Stephanie Finelli Plaintiffs Law Offices of Stephanie J. Finelli 4 1007 Seventh Street, Suite 500 Tel: (916) 443-2144 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax. (916)443-1511 5 Craig N Lundgren Counsel for RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, 6 Law Offices of Craig N. Lundgren INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA BRITSCHGI 424 Second Street, Suite A CORPORATION 7 Davis, CA 95616 Tel: (530)792-8800 8 Fax: (530) 297-5077 9 Richard D. Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. Maloney, Wheatley, Sopp & Brooks 10 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel: (916) 988-3857 Folsom, CA 95630 Fax:(916)988-5296 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N1C341/608293-1 SERVICE LIST EXHIBIT "E" e) ^^ -.V C^s 1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024) Gregoty K. Federico (Bar No. 242184) 2 ARCHER NORRIS A Professional Law Corporation 3 655 University Avenue, Suite 225 Sacramento, Cahfomia 95825-6747 4 Telephone: 916.646.2480 Facsunile: 916.646.5696 5 Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Defendants 6 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually, and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE CaseNo. 07AS04450 ABBOTT, 12 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE Plaintiffs, OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS 13 DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET V. 14 Action Filed: September 24, 2007 RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, et al.. TrialDate: May 11,2009 15 Deposition Date: April 28,2009 Defendants. Deposition Time: 10:00 a.m 16 17 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 18 19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure §2025.410(a) and (h). 21 Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 22 (hereinafter "CA CONSTRUCTION") hereby objects to the Notice of Taking of Expert Witaess 23 Deposition (hereinafter "Notice") served via facsimile by Plaintiffe RODNEY and 24 FLORENTINE ABBOTT (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") on April 21, 2009 for DAVE HERYET. CA 25 CONSTRUCTION objects to the Notice on tiie follovwng grounds: 26 1. The Notice was served via facsimile tiansmission in violation of Code ofCivil 27 Procedure §1013(e) and Califomia Rules ofCourt. Rule 2.306(1). CA CONSTRUCTION has 28 not agreed to this manner ofservice. • NIC341/789125-1 1 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET 1 2. The Notice was served in violation of Code ofCivil Procedure §2025.270(a). 2 Pursuant to this section, a deposition must be scheduled for a date at least 10 daj^ after proper 3 service ofthe deposition notice. The deposition was scheduled for April 28,2009 and the Notice 4 -was served on April 21, 2009 via facsunile. The Notice does not comply with the statatorily 5 prescribed notice period of at least 10 days. , 6 3. The Notice was served in violation of Code ofCivil Procedure §2024.030. First, 7 Plaintiffs' Notice was served beyond the deadline for the parties to personally serve deposition 8 notices by hand, which was April 17, 2009. The Notice was served via facsimile on April 21, 9 2009. Second, pursuant to the Code, expert discovery cuts off" on the 15th day prior to the date 10 imtially set for trial. The trial of this matter is set for May 11,2009, and thus the expert discovery 11 cut off date is April 27, 2009. Plaintiffs' noticed tae deposition for April 28,2009, which is 12 beyond tae statutorily prescribed cut off date. 13 OBJECTION TO DOCUMENT REOUESTS 14 Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION fiuther objects to Plaintiffs' Notice and Request for 15 Documents on the following grounds: 16 1 CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to 17 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to tae discovery of 18 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 19 tae terms "reports, vratings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 20 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 21 2. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on tiie grounds it is overbroad as to 22 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to tae discovery of 23 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 24 tae terms "reports, writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing tae 25 amoimt deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 26 3. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to 27 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 28 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to NIC341/789I25-1 2 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET 1 tiie terms "reports, writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 2 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 3 4. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to 4 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 5 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 6 the terms "reports, writings, documents, tieattses, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 7 amount deponent has hilled defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 8 5. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request onfliegrounds it is overbroad as to 9 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovety of 10 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 11 the terms "reports, writings, documents, treatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 12 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 13 6. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to 14 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 15 admissible evidence. This request is further objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 16 the terms "reports, writings, documents, treatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 17 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 18 7. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on the grounds it is overbroad as to 19 time and subject matter, and taat it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 20 admissible evidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 21 the terms "reports, -writings, documents, treatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 22 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 23 8. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to this Request on tiie grounds it is overbroad as to 24 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 25 admissible evidence. This request is finther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 26 the terms "reports, -writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the 27 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 28 NIC34]/789)25-] 3 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET 1 9. CA CONSTRUCTION objects to tiiis Request on tiie grounds it is overbroad as to 2 time and subject matter, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 3 admissible e-vidence. This request is fiirther objectionable as being vague and ambiguous as to 4 the terms "reports, writings, documents, tieatises, correspondence, agent, 'documents showing the' 5 amount deponent has billed defendants for his services', notes, and working papers." 6 7 Based on the foregoing objections, CA CONSTRUCTION will not agree to produce its 8 expert witaess DAVE HERYET at tae time and location specified in Plaintiffs' Notice. 9 Dated: April 23,2009 ARCHER NORRIi 10 11 12 Gregory K. Federico Attomeys for Defendants/Cross-Defendants 13 RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, individually and dba CA CONSTRUCTION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC341/789125-1 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Name of Action: Rodney Abbott, et al. v. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al. Court and Action No: Sacramento County Superior No. 07AS04450 3 I, Suzanne Michaud, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this 4 action or proceeding. My business address is 655 University Avenue, Suite 225, Sacramento, Califomia 95825. On April 23,2009,1 caused the folio-wing document(s) to be served: 5 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF TAKING EXPERT WITNESS 6 DEPOSITION OF DAVE HERYET 7 by placing a tme copy ofthe documents listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, 8 addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business 9 address shown above following our ordinaty business practices. I am readily familiar mth this business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence for 10 mailing vwth the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness 11 -wita the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. 12 by ha-vdng a tme copy of tae document(s) listed abovetiansmittedby facsimile to the person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The tiansmission 13 was reported as complete without error by a report issued by thefransmittingfacsimile 14 machine. 15 D by placing a trae copy ofthe document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS, an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or 16 driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, 17 addressed as set forth below. 18 [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] 19 20 I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on April 21 23, 2009, at Sacramento, Califomia. 22 23 JAitcWL 24 Suzanne Michaud 25 26 .27 28 Nia41/608293-1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Service List 2 Craig N. Lundgren Counsel for RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI, 3 LUNDGREN & REYNOLDS, LLP INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA BRITSCHGI 424 Second Street, Suite A CORPORATION 4 Davis, CA 95616 Tel: (530)297-5030 5 Fax: (530) 297-5077 6 Richard D Sopp Counsel for CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC. Maloney, Wheatley, Sopp & Brooks 7 1004 River Rock Drive, Suite 245 Tel: (916) 988-3857 Folsom, CA 95630 Fax:(916)988-5296 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIC341/608293-1 SERVICE LIST BROADCAST REPORT TIME : 04/23/2009 12:00 NAME : ARCHER NORRIS FAX : 19166465696 TEL : 19166462480 SER.S : BRDD5J253330 PAGE(S> 05 DATE TINE FAX NO./N^E DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT COMMENT 04/23 11:57 15302975077 52 06 ok ECM 04/23 11:58 9885296 01:46 06 OK ECM BUSY: BUSV/NO RESPONSE NG : POOR LINE CONDITION CV : COVERPAGE PC : PC-FAX EXHIBIT "F" SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER Date: 07/20/2009 Time; 09-00:00 AM