On August 22, 2018 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Valles, Angelita,
and
Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority,
for Employment-Other
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
F I L E DNL'FORN'A
David P Myers (SBN 206137) S&fij‘rgfii ggggg‘, g§§%
dmyers@myerslawgroup.c0m SAN EERNARDINO DISTRICTO
D. Smith (SBN 226591)
dsmith@myerslawgr0up.com DEC 2 7 2023
THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
9327 Fairway View Dr. Ste 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 BY.
I
Telephone (909) 919- 2027 I. PADEL’L’.
‘
P.- 10. DEPUTY
\OOONQUl-BWNH
Facsimile (888) 375- 2102
Attorneys for Plaintiff ANGELITA “ANGELA” VALLES
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
, _ ,
Case No. CIVD81822066
ANGELITA VALLES, an 1nd1v1dual,
_ I
Assigned t0: Hon. Brian McCarville;
Plamtlff, Dept 530
VS.
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION T0 QUASH TRIAL
VICTOR VALLEY WASTEWATER SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR
RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, a APPEARANCE AND DOCUMENT
government agency; and DOES 1-10, inclusive PRODUCTION AT TRIAL ISSUED
DECEMBER 19, 2023 TO
Defendants. CLAUSESPANIAC, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO LIMIT SCOPE 0F
NNNNNNNNNH—flflp—flp—d—t—H
SUBPOENA; SUPPORTING
mflom-RWNHOOWVQM-RWN—o
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES AND D. SMITH
DECLARATION
Date: March 7, 2024
Time: 8:30
Dept: S30
TRC Date: January 11, 2024
Trial Date: January 16, 2024
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICED MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
_ 1 -
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
H
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff ANGELITA VALLES hereby moves this Court
2
for order quashing the trial subpoena duces tecum issued 0n December 19, 2023 t0
3
ClauseSpaniac, or in the alternative limit the scope of subpoena on March 7, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.
4
in Department S30 of this court located at San Bemardino Superior Court, Civil Justice Center,
5
247 W. Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415.
6 Plaintiff” s motion is based on the following grounds:
7 1. Defendant seeks Plaintiff employment records from American Indian Health Services
8 (“AIHS) by and through AIHS litigation counsel (“AIHS Subpoena”) subject to a motion
9
to quash or modify the subpoena. CCP §§ 1985.6(f)(1), 1987.1 (a), (b)(1)(2), (2), (4);
2. The AIHS Subpoena identifies a scope far beyond admissible evidence 0f alleged
1 0
misconduct termination from subsequent employment to limit economic damages. CACI
11
N0. 3693 (citing Stanchfield v. Hamer Toyota Inc., (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1502—
12
1503).
13
3. Defendant has issued the AIHS Subpoena in an end-run around its untimely motion to
14 compel document demands at deposition, and therefore an untimely discovery
it is really
15 request beyond the non—expert discovery cut-off. CCP § 2024.020.
16 4. Defendant already obtained discovery of AIHS alleged termination for misconduct
17 evidence by taking the deposition of AIHS person most knowledgeable, Executive
Director Scott Black, on that topic and failed t0 either notice production 0f the sought
18
documents at that deposition or move t0 compel further document production in Violation
19
0f the non-expert discovery cut-off. Id.
20
Plaintiff’ s motion is further based 0n the attached supporting memorandum 0f points and
21
authorities, Plaintiff counsel declaration, and any other 0r further evidence, argument, and
22
matters, including those that this Court may or shall take judicial notice, presented at the hearing.
23
24
Dated: December 26, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,
25
26
27
By:
M
THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
D. Smith, Esq.
Attorneysfor PlaintiffAngelita Valles
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICED MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
- 2 _
Document Filed Date
December 27, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 22, 2018
Category
Employment-Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
F I L E DNL'FORN'A David P Myers (SBN 206137) S&fij‘rgfii ggggg‘, g§§% dmyers@myerslawgroup.c0m SAN EERNARDINO DISTRICTO D. Smith (SBN 226591) dsmith@myerslawgr0up.com DEC 2 7 2023 THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9327 Fairway View Dr. Ste 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 BY. I Telephone (909) 919- 2027 I. PADEL’L’. ‘ P.- 10. DEPUTY \OOONQUl-BWNH Facsimile (888) 375- 2102 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANGELITA “ANGELA” VALLES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO , _ , Case No. CIVD81822066 ANGELITA VALLES, an 1nd1v1dual, _ I Assigned t0: Hon. Brian McCarville; Plamtlff, Dept 530 VS. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION T0 QUASH TRIAL VICTOR VALLEY WASTEWATER SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR RECLAMATION AUTHORITY, a APPEARANCE AND DOCUMENT government agency; and DOES 1-10, inclusive PRODUCTION AT TRIAL ISSUED DECEMBER 19, 2023 TO Defendants. CLAUSESPANIAC, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO LIMIT SCOPE 0F NNNNNNNNNH—flflp—flp—d—t—H SUBPOENA; SUPPORTING mflom-RWNHOOWVQM-RWN—o MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND D. SMITH DECLARATION Date: March 7, 2024 Time: 8:30 Dept: S30 TRC Date: January 11, 2024 Trial Date: January 16, 2024 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICED MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM _ 1 - TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: H PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff ANGELITA VALLES hereby moves this Court 2 for order quashing the trial subpoena duces tecum issued 0n December 19, 2023 t0 3 ClauseSpaniac, or in the alternative limit the scope of subpoena on March 7, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. 4 in Department S30 of this court located at San Bemardino Superior Court, Civil Justice Center, 5 247 W. Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415. 6 Plaintiff” s motion is based on the following grounds: 7 1. Defendant seeks Plaintiff employment records from American Indian Health Services 8 (“AIHS) by and through AIHS litigation counsel (“AIHS Subpoena”) subject to a motion 9 to quash or modify the subpoena. CCP §§ 1985.6(f)(1), 1987.1 (a), (b)(1)(2), (2), (4); 2. The AIHS Subpoena identifies a scope far beyond admissible evidence 0f alleged 1 0 misconduct termination from subsequent employment to limit economic damages. CACI 11 N0. 3693 (citing Stanchfield v. Hamer Toyota Inc., (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1502— 12 1503). 13 3. Defendant has issued the AIHS Subpoena in an end-run around its untimely motion to 14 compel document demands at deposition, and therefore an untimely discovery it is really 15 request beyond the non—expert discovery cut-off. CCP § 2024.020. 16 4. Defendant already obtained discovery of AIHS alleged termination for misconduct 17 evidence by taking the deposition of AIHS person most knowledgeable, Executive Director Scott Black, on that topic and failed t0 either notice production 0f the sought 18 documents at that deposition or move t0 compel further document production in Violation 19 0f the non-expert discovery cut-off. Id. 20 Plaintiff’ s motion is further based 0n the attached supporting memorandum 0f points and 21 authorities, Plaintiff counsel declaration, and any other 0r further evidence, argument, and 22 matters, including those that this Court may or shall take judicial notice, presented at the hearing. 23 24 Dated: December 26, 2023 Respectfully Submitted, 25 26 27 By: M THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C. D. Smith, Esq. Attorneysfor PlaintiffAngelita Valles 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICED MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM - 2 _