Preview
1 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993)
peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com
2 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077)
daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com
3 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER,
HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
4 639 Kentucky Street,
Fairfield, CA 94533
5 Telephone: (707) 427-3998
Facsimile: (707) 427-0268
6
Attorneys for Defendants
7 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
9 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11
DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No. S-CV-0048973
12 individual,
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
14 vs. SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THE
FOLLOWING:
15 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual;
BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; 1. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIST
OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED
17 Defendants. EXPERTS;
2. MOTION FOR ORDER
18 GRANTING LEAVE TO TAKE A
SECOND VOLUME OF
19 PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION;
3. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
20 PERFORM A FURTHER
INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
21 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF
22
Date: February 21, 2024
23 Time: 8:00 a.m.
Dept: 42
24 Trial Date: 4/2/2024
Action Filed: 8/19/2022
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
1 I, Daniel R. Mayer, declare:
2 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of the State of
3 California and an associate with the law firm of McNamara, Ambacher, Wheeler, Hirsig
4 & Gray LLP, attorneys for Defendants HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT
5 SINGH TOOR (“Defendants”) in this case.
6 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. As to matters stated upon
7 information and belief, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness, could and would
8 testify competently thereto.
9 3. This matter arises out of an incident that that occurred at approximately 5:58 p.m. on
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10 November 13, 2021 in the parking structure located at 1151 Galleria Boulevard in
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11 Roseville, California. the underlying incident, Plaintiff allegedly sustained a broken left
12 arm from coming into contact with a stop sign.
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 4. Trial in this matter is set for April 2, 2024. The events and circumstances immediately
14 preceding trial, and this Application, have necessitated the filing of the aforementioned
15 three Motions by Defendants.
16 5. The Motion for Protective Order is based on Plaintiff’s excessive and oppressive expert
17 witness disclosure, which lists fifty-five witnesses as non-retained experts. A true and
18 correct copy of the complete moving papers associated with this Motion is attached
19 hereto as Exhibit “A.”
20 6. The Motion for Leave to Take a Second Volume of Plaintiff’s Deposition is due to new
21 claims made and/or which arose after Plaintiff’s initial written discovery responses,
22 deposition, and independent medical examination. As a result, Plaintiff could not
23 possibly have been completely examined on them at the initial deposition. A true and
24 correct copy of the complete moving papers associated with this Motion is attached
25 hereto as Exhibit “B.”
26 7. The Motion for Leave to Perform a Further Physical Examination of Plaintiff is based
27 largely on the same grounds, as well as the fact that Plaintiff’s new claims are somewhat
28 outside the specialty of the expert who performed the initial IME. A true and correct
2
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
1 copy of the complete moving papers associated with this Motion is attached hereto as
2 Exhibit “C.”
3 8. Plaintiff’s counsel refused to meaningfully meet-and-confer on any of these three topics,
4 as a result of which motions were necessarily made.
5 9. There has been no delay in placing these matters before the Court. The subject matter
6 of these motions was determined, in all three cases and to a lesser or greater extent for
7 each of them, was determined by:
8 a. (1) Plaintiff’s responses to pre-trial written discovery, which were served on
9 February 8, 2024;
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10 b. (2) Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert witnesses, which was served on February 13,
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11 2024;
12 c. and (3) Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ amended demand for independent
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 medical examination, which was served on February 15, 2024.
14 d. In order to accommodate meet-and-confer, this was the first opportunity on
15 which the motions could be filed in their entirety. Moreover, and given the
16 number of motions, making them piecemeal via multiple ex parte applications
17 would have been burdensome and oppressive for all parties and the Court, and
18 would have unnecessarily consumed the resources of all the same.
19 10. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b), sixteen court days (the ordinary notice
20 period) from February 20, 2024 is March 12, 2024, only twenty-one days before trial.
21 If these Motions were to be ruled upon in the customary fashion, that would provide
22 very little time for the ordered discovery to be performed, if the Motions are granted.
23 Even if they were ultimately not granted, this period represents a significant portion of
24 the time remaining for trial, and during which the trial preparation of both parties would
25 be held in a prejudicial limbo.
26 11. At the same time, considering the significance of the discovery concerned by the
27 Motions (a substantial portion of expert discovery and highly salient aspects of fact
28 discovery), the Court’s ruling and the results of that discovery if the Motions are granted
3
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
1 will significantly impact all aspects of trial preparation. This poses an issue in the
2 present, which will only worsen as time goes on. As a result of these facts, Defendants,
3 and even Plaintiff, are at risk of imminently suffering irreparable harm.
4 12. Defendants have complied with all applicable rules. Defendants’ counsel contacted the
5 Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter via email on February 19, 2024, at 10:56 p.m., advising
6 them of Defendants’ intent to proceed with this Application and with the Motions. At
7 time of writing, no counsel have responded indicating their intent to appear at or oppose
8 this Application, but considering the previous course of dealing, opposition is expected.
9 A true and correct copy of correspondence informing Plaintiff’s counsel of this
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10 Application is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11
12
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
15 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed in Fairfield, California on this twentieth
16 day of February, 2024.
Daniel R. Mayer
17
_______________________________________
18
DANIEL R. MAYER
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
EXHIBIT “A”
1 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993)
peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com
2 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077)
daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com
3 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER,
HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
4 639 Kentucky Street,
Fairfield, CA 94533
5 Telephone: (707) 427-3998
Facsimile: (707) 427-0268
6
Attorneys for Defendants
7 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
9 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11
DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No. S-CV-0048973
12 individual,
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Plaintiff, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIST OF
14 vs. PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED EXPERTS
15 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; Date: February 21, 2024
BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; Time: 8:00 a.m.
16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Dept: 42
Trial Date: 4/2/2024
17 Defendants. Action Filed: 8/19/2022
18
19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 21, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
21 the matter may be heard in Department 42 and before the Honorable Trisha Hirashima, of the
22 above-entitled Court, located at 10820 Justice Center Dr, Roseville, CA 95678, Defendants
23 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR will and hereby do move 1 this Court for
24 a protective order to reduce Plaintiff DANIEL BONILLA’s (“Plaintiff”) list of non-retained
25 experts.
26 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6), et seq. on
27 the grounds that Plaintiff’s expert disclosure lists fifty-five individuals as non-retained experts. This
28 1
Pursuant to Defendants’ concurrently filed ex parte application incorporating this Motion and its papers.
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 number of experts is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative and subjects Defendant to undue burden,
2 expense and oppression.
3 This Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
4 Authorities, the Declaration of Daniel R. Mayer and the exhibits attached thereto, any and all Reply
5 papers filed in response to any Opposition papers filed by the plaintiffs, on the records and file
6 herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at hearing of the motion.
7 Tentative Rulings:
8 Tentative rulings are posted at noon one day prior to each Law and Motion Calendar.
9 Tentative rulings will be the final ruling unless the court and all parties are notified of a request for
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10 oral argument by 4pm the day before the scheduled hearing per Local rule 20.2.3. For submitting
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11 orders after hearing, refer to Local Rule 20.2.5. To obtain a tentative ruling call (916) 408-6480.
12 To request an oral argument call (916) 408-6481 or for Tahoe call (530) 584-3463.
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Dated: February 20, 2024 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER,
HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
14
15
By:
Daniel R. Mayer
16 Peter J. Hirsig
Daniel R. Mayer
17 Attorneys for Defendant
HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH
18 TOOR
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993)
peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com
2 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077)
daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com
3 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER,
HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
4 639 Kentucky Street,
Fairfield, CA 94533
5 Telephone: (707) 427-3998
Facsimile: (707) 427-0268
6
Attorneys for Defendants
7 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
9 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11
DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No. S-CV-0048973
12 individual,
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
14 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER TO REDUCE THE
LIST OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED
15 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; EXPERTS
BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual;
16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: February 21, 2024
Time: 8:00 a.m.
17 Defendants. Dept: 42
Trial Date: 4/2/2024
18 Action Filed: 8/19/2022
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 This matter arises out of an incident that that occurred at approximately 5:58 p.m. on
22 November 13, 2021 in the parking structure located at 1151 Galleria Boulevard in Roseville,
23 California.
24 This matter is set for trial on April 2, 2024, and the parties exchanged expert witness
25 disclosures pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.260 on February 13, 2024.
26 Plaintiff’s disclosure included two retained expert witnesses, and fifty-five non-retained expert
27 witnesses. Of these fifty-five, forty-eight are representatives of Sutter Medical Foundation. Plaintiff
28 had care with Sutter under the supervision of two physicians: Napoleon Bernardo, M.D. and Ryan
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 Vitali, M.D., both of whom are listed as non-retained experts on Plaintiff’s and Defendants’
2 disclosure. The remaining Sutter witnesses identified by Plaintiff are subordinate to these
3 physicians or their plans of care for Plaintiff in one form or another. Twenty-six of them are
4 registered nurses.
5 Defendants’ counsel’s attempts to meet-and-confer on this subject were rudely and
6 unprofessionally rebuffed, as have all attempts made by Defendants’ counsel to meet-and-confer
7 on every aspect of this case since its inception. In this particular case, Plaintiff’s counsel’s
8 engagement with meet-and-confer was limited to a disingenuous statement that counsel intended
9 to call all fifty-five witnesses at trial.
McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP
10 Due to the failure of meet-and-confer, and the gross excessiveness of Plaintiff’s expert
639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530
11 disclosure, it has been necessary to file this Motion in order to protect Defendants from oppression,
12 undue burden and expense by having to depose all of these witnesses.
TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
13 II. RELEVANT FACTS
14 In the underlying incident, Plaintiff allegedly sustained a broken left arm from coming into
15 contact with a stop sign. Afterward, he was taken via ambulance to Sutter Roseville Medical Center,
16 where he was under the care of emergency medicine specialist Napoleon Bernardo, M.D., and
17 underwent surgery with Ryan Vitali, M.D. After being discharged from the hospital, Plaintiff
18 remained under Dr. Vitali’s care for several months, and underwent two further surgeries.
19 (Declaration of Daniel R. Mayer (“Mayer Decl.”) ¶3.)
20 As mentioned, the parties exchanged expert witness information on February 13, 2023.
21 (Mayer Decl. ¶4, Exs. A, B.) Plaintiff disclosed a total of fifty-five non-retained expert witnesses,
22 of whom forty-eight are associated with Sutter, and of whom twenty-six are registered nurses.
23 Several others are physical therapists, pharmacists, and radiologists. Defendant disclosed eight non-
24 retained expert witnesses. Defendants submit that, with the exception of the witnesses which both
25 disclosures list (of which there are six1), are the only witnesses truly likely to be called as witnesses
26 at trial.
27
28 1
The only two listed on Defendants’ disclosure but not Plaintiffs are the paramedics who transported Plaintiff to the
Preview
1 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993) peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com 2 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077) daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com 3 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 4 639 Kentucky Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 5 Telephone: (707) 427-3998 Facsimile: (707) 427-0268 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 9 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No. S-CV-0048973 12 individual, TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 14 vs. SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING: 15 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; 1. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIST OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED 17 Defendants. EXPERTS; 2. MOTION FOR ORDER 18 GRANTING LEAVE TO TAKE A SECOND VOLUME OF 19 PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; 3. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 20 PERFORM A FURTHER INDEPENDENT MEDICAL 21 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF 22 Date: February 21, 2024 23 Time: 8:00 a.m. Dept: 42 24 Trial Date: 4/2/2024 Action Filed: 8/19/2022 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 1 I, Daniel R. Mayer, declare: 2 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of the State of 3 California and an associate with the law firm of McNamara, Ambacher, Wheeler, Hirsig 4 & Gray LLP, attorneys for Defendants HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT 5 SINGH TOOR (“Defendants”) in this case. 6 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. As to matters stated upon 7 information and belief, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness, could and would 8 testify competently thereto. 9 3. This matter arises out of an incident that that occurred at approximately 5:58 p.m. on McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 November 13, 2021 in the parking structure located at 1151 Galleria Boulevard in 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 Roseville, California. the underlying incident, Plaintiff allegedly sustained a broken left 12 arm from coming into contact with a stop sign. TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 4. Trial in this matter is set for April 2, 2024. The events and circumstances immediately 14 preceding trial, and this Application, have necessitated the filing of the aforementioned 15 three Motions by Defendants. 16 5. The Motion for Protective Order is based on Plaintiff’s excessive and oppressive expert 17 witness disclosure, which lists fifty-five witnesses as non-retained experts. A true and 18 correct copy of the complete moving papers associated with this Motion is attached 19 hereto as Exhibit “A.” 20 6. The Motion for Leave to Take a Second Volume of Plaintiff’s Deposition is due to new 21 claims made and/or which arose after Plaintiff’s initial written discovery responses, 22 deposition, and independent medical examination. As a result, Plaintiff could not 23 possibly have been completely examined on them at the initial deposition. A true and 24 correct copy of the complete moving papers associated with this Motion is attached 25 hereto as Exhibit “B.” 26 7. The Motion for Leave to Perform a Further Physical Examination of Plaintiff is based 27 largely on the same grounds, as well as the fact that Plaintiff’s new claims are somewhat 28 outside the specialty of the expert who performed the initial IME. A true and correct 2 DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 1 copy of the complete moving papers associated with this Motion is attached hereto as 2 Exhibit “C.” 3 8. Plaintiff’s counsel refused to meaningfully meet-and-confer on any of these three topics, 4 as a result of which motions were necessarily made. 5 9. There has been no delay in placing these matters before the Court. The subject matter 6 of these motions was determined, in all three cases and to a lesser or greater extent for 7 each of them, was determined by: 8 a. (1) Plaintiff’s responses to pre-trial written discovery, which were served on 9 February 8, 2024; McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 b. (2) Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert witnesses, which was served on February 13, 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 2024; 12 c. and (3) Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ amended demand for independent TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 medical examination, which was served on February 15, 2024. 14 d. In order to accommodate meet-and-confer, this was the first opportunity on 15 which the motions could be filed in their entirety. Moreover, and given the 16 number of motions, making them piecemeal via multiple ex parte applications 17 would have been burdensome and oppressive for all parties and the Court, and 18 would have unnecessarily consumed the resources of all the same. 19 10. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b), sixteen court days (the ordinary notice 20 period) from February 20, 2024 is March 12, 2024, only twenty-one days before trial. 21 If these Motions were to be ruled upon in the customary fashion, that would provide 22 very little time for the ordered discovery to be performed, if the Motions are granted. 23 Even if they were ultimately not granted, this period represents a significant portion of 24 the time remaining for trial, and during which the trial preparation of both parties would 25 be held in a prejudicial limbo. 26 11. At the same time, considering the significance of the discovery concerned by the 27 Motions (a substantial portion of expert discovery and highly salient aspects of fact 28 discovery), the Court’s ruling and the results of that discovery if the Motions are granted 3 DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 1 will significantly impact all aspects of trial preparation. This poses an issue in the 2 present, which will only worsen as time goes on. As a result of these facts, Defendants, 3 and even Plaintiff, are at risk of imminently suffering irreparable harm. 4 12. Defendants have complied with all applicable rules. Defendants’ counsel contacted the 5 Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter via email on February 19, 2024, at 10:56 p.m., advising 6 them of Defendants’ intent to proceed with this Application and with the Motions. At 7 time of writing, no counsel have responded indicating their intent to appear at or oppose 8 this Application, but considering the previous course of dealing, opposition is expected. 9 A true and correct copy of correspondence informing Plaintiff’s counsel of this McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 Application is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 12 TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 15 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed in Fairfield, California on this twentieth 16 day of February, 2024. Daniel R. Mayer 17 _______________________________________ 18 DANIEL R. MAYER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. MAYER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR THREE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS EXHIBIT “A” 1 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993) peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com 2 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077) daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com 3 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 4 639 Kentucky Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 5 Telephone: (707) 427-3998 Facsimile: (707) 427-0268 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 9 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No. S-CV-0048973 12 individual, TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Plaintiff, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIST OF 14 vs. PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED EXPERTS 15 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; Date: February 21, 2024 BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; Time: 8:00 a.m. 16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Dept: 42 Trial Date: 4/2/2024 17 Defendants. Action Filed: 8/19/2022 18 19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 21, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 21 the matter may be heard in Department 42 and before the Honorable Trisha Hirashima, of the 22 above-entitled Court, located at 10820 Justice Center Dr, Roseville, CA 95678, Defendants 23 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR will and hereby do move 1 this Court for 24 a protective order to reduce Plaintiff DANIEL BONILLA’s (“Plaintiff”) list of non-retained 25 experts. 26 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6), et seq. on 27 the grounds that Plaintiff’s expert disclosure lists fifty-five individuals as non-retained experts. This 28 1 Pursuant to Defendants’ concurrently filed ex parte application incorporating this Motion and its papers. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 number of experts is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative and subjects Defendant to undue burden, 2 expense and oppression. 3 This Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and 4 Authorities, the Declaration of Daniel R. Mayer and the exhibits attached thereto, any and all Reply 5 papers filed in response to any Opposition papers filed by the plaintiffs, on the records and file 6 herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at hearing of the motion. 7 Tentative Rulings: 8 Tentative rulings are posted at noon one day prior to each Law and Motion Calendar. 9 Tentative rulings will be the final ruling unless the court and all parties are notified of a request for McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 oral argument by 4pm the day before the scheduled hearing per Local rule 20.2.3. For submitting 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 orders after hearing, refer to Local Rule 20.2.5. To obtain a tentative ruling call (916) 408-6480. 12 To request an oral argument call (916) 408-6481 or for Tahoe call (530) 584-3463. TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Dated: February 20, 2024 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 14 15 By: Daniel R. Mayer 16 Peter J. Hirsig Daniel R. Mayer 17 Attorneys for Defendant HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH 18 TOOR 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 PETER J. HIRSIG (State Bar No. 197993) peter.hirsig@mcnamaralaw.com 2 DANIEL R. MAYER (State Bar No. 300077) daniel.mayer@mcnamaralaw.com 3 MCNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 4 639 Kentucky Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 5 Telephone: (707) 427-3998 Facsimile: (707) 427-0268 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR and BALJIT SINGH TOOR 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 9 CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 DANIEL GREGORY BONILLA, an Case No. S-CV-0048973 12 individual, TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIST OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED 15 HARJOBAN KAUR TOOR, an individual; EXPERTS BALJIT SINGH TOOR, an individual; 16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: February 21, 2024 Time: 8:00 a.m. 17 Defendants. Dept: 42 Trial Date: 4/2/2024 18 Action Filed: 8/19/2022 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 This matter arises out of an incident that that occurred at approximately 5:58 p.m. on 22 November 13, 2021 in the parking structure located at 1151 Galleria Boulevard in Roseville, 23 California. 24 This matter is set for trial on April 2, 2024, and the parties exchanged expert witness 25 disclosures pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.260 on February 13, 2024. 26 Plaintiff’s disclosure included two retained expert witnesses, and fifty-five non-retained expert 27 witnesses. Of these fifty-five, forty-eight are representatives of Sutter Medical Foundation. Plaintiff 28 had care with Sutter under the supervision of two physicians: Napoleon Bernardo, M.D. and Ryan MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 Vitali, M.D., both of whom are listed as non-retained experts on Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ 2 disclosure. The remaining Sutter witnesses identified by Plaintiff are subordinate to these 3 physicians or their plans of care for Plaintiff in one form or another. Twenty-six of them are 4 registered nurses. 5 Defendants’ counsel’s attempts to meet-and-confer on this subject were rudely and 6 unprofessionally rebuffed, as have all attempts made by Defendants’ counsel to meet-and-confer 7 on every aspect of this case since its inception. In this particular case, Plaintiff’s counsel’s 8 engagement with meet-and-confer was limited to a disingenuous statement that counsel intended 9 to call all fifty-five witnesses at trial. McNAMARA, AMBACHER, WHEELER, HIRSIG & GRAY LLP 10 Due to the failure of meet-and-confer, and the gross excessiveness of Plaintiff’s expert 639 KENTUCKY STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 -5530 11 disclosure, it has been necessary to file this Motion in order to protect Defendants from oppression, 12 undue burden and expense by having to depose all of these witnesses. TELEPHONE: (707) 427-3998 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 II. RELEVANT FACTS 14 In the underlying incident, Plaintiff allegedly sustained a broken left arm from coming into 15 contact with a stop sign. Afterward, he was taken via ambulance to Sutter Roseville Medical Center, 16 where he was under the care of emergency medicine specialist Napoleon Bernardo, M.D., and 17 underwent surgery with Ryan Vitali, M.D. After being discharged from the hospital, Plaintiff 18 remained under Dr. Vitali’s care for several months, and underwent two further surgeries. 19 (Declaration of Daniel R. Mayer (“Mayer Decl.”) ¶3.) 20 As mentioned, the parties exchanged expert witness information on February 13, 2023. 21 (Mayer Decl. ¶4, Exs. A, B.) Plaintiff disclosed a total of fifty-five non-retained expert witnesses, 22 of whom forty-eight are associated with Sutter, and of whom twenty-six are registered nurses. 23 Several others are physical therapists, pharmacists, and radiologists. Defendant disclosed eight non- 24 retained expert witnesses. Defendants submit that, with the exception of the witnesses which both 25 disclosures list (of which there are six1), are the only witnesses truly likely to be called as witnesses 26 at trial. 27 28 1 The only two listed on Defendants’ disclosure but not Plaintiffs are the paramedics who transported Plaintiff to the