Document for ARNTSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, et al vs. GREGORY J DAVIS, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
     EIMER STAHL LLP
 2   1999 S. Bascom Ave., Suite 1025
     Campbell, CA 95008
 3   Telephone: (408) 889-1668
 4   Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com

 5   Attorney for Plaintiffs

 6

 7                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
 8

 9
      Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family        Case No. 22-CIV-01148
10    Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn         Consolidated with Case No. 23-CIV-01099
      Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang;
11                                                    Date: March 11, 2024
12                   Plaintiffs,                      Time: 2:00 p.m.
      v.                                              Dept. 24
13
      David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures    Date Action Filed: March 15, 2022
14    LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387
      Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe;      Hon. Jeffrey Finigan
15    Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC;
16    Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust;
      TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ            PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
17    Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose          PARAMONT DEFENDANTS’
      Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings,        DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
18    LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil;
      Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20,
19

20                   Defendants.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


            PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PARAMONT DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
 1          Pursuant to the Court’s pre-trial order, Plaintiffs hereby submit this opposition to the

 2   Paramont Defendants’ deposition designations:

 3          The Paramont Defendants have now deposed all five Plaintiffs in this action, with the last

 4   deposition occurring earlier today, March 4, 2024. During these depositions, counsel for the

 5   Paramont Defendants engaged in significant misconduct, including misstating the testimony of

 6   other Plaintiffs, asking questions that clearly lacked foundation, asking for legal conclusions,

 7   inquiring into privileged communications, badgering the witnesses with repeated iterations of the

 8   same questions, and generally trying to confuse the witnesses with lengthy narratives. Plaintiffs’

 9   counsel interposed proper objections to these questions.

10          In a blatant abuse of the designation process, the Paramont Defendants have purported to

11   designate substantial portions of Plaintiffs’ transcripts except the objections lodged by Plaintiffs’

12   counsel. Indeed, the Paramont Defendants selectively omitted from their designations every

13   objection raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel during Plaintiffs’ depositions. For example, here are

14   samples of the designations from the depositions of Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen, Mary Lee, Martha

15   Dunn, and John Ho, with the Paramont Defendants’ designations highlighted in yellow and

16   Plaintiffs’ counsel’s omitted objections highlighted in blue:

17          Examples of designations from Bob’s deposition, with omitted objections:

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                               2
            PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PARAMONT DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
 1   Examples of designations from Mary’s deposition, with omitted objections:

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13   Examples of designations from Martha’s deposition, with omitted objections:

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                        3
     PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PARAMONT DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
 1          Examples of designations from John’s deposition, with omitted objections:

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14          The Paramont Defendants never met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel about any of

15   Plaintiffs’ objections. Instead, they apparently hope to sidestep all of Plaintiffs’ objections through

16   selectively designating the transcripts to simply excise those objections. The Paramont Defendants

17   have even represented to the Court that they intend to play portions of these depositions, and their

18   selective designations suggest they hope to do so without obtaining any ruling on the objections

19   interposed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Paramont Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Issues

20   for Trial (Mar. 4, 2024), at 2 [discussing Paramont Defendants’ right to “play short video clips

21   from some of the Plaintiffs’ depositions as part of their case”].) That is clearly improper, and

22   Defendants should not be allowed to end-run Plaintiffs’ legitimate objections through such

23   selective designations. The Paramont Defendant’s abuse of the designation process also forced

24   Plaintiffs to spend substantial time reviewing each of the Paramont Defendants’ designations and

25   omissions and notating the same to preserve their rights. Accordingly, for the avoidance of

26   doubt, Plaintiffs re-lodge each and every objection made during Plaintiffs’ depositions

27   (specifically, the depositions of Bob Arntsen, Mary Lee, Martha Dunn on behalf of the Arntsen

28   Family Partnership, LP and the Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship, and John Ho) that the

                                               4
            PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PARAMONT DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
 1   Paramont Defendants have attempted to omit via their deposition designations. 1

 2            The Paramont Defendants’ designations are improper in other respects, as well. For

 3   example, in numerous instances, the Paramont Defendants omit essential parts of Plaintiffs’

 4   depositions that are relevant to the parts that the Paramont Defendants seek to introduce. (See Code

 5   Civ. P. § 2025.620(e).) In several cases, they even selectively designated only part of Plaintiff’s

 6   answer to a question to make it appear as though Plaintiffs answered differently than they did.

 7            If the Paramont Defendants wish to challenge Plaintiffs’ objections, they should identify

 8   the specific objections they think improper and confer with Plaintiffs about them and/or raise them

 9   with the Court. But they have declined to that. Accordingly, this Court should not allow the

10   Paramont Defendants to play any portion of Plaintiffs’ depositions without first resolving the

11   objections that Plaintiffs’ counsel lodged during the depositions. If the Paramont Defendants

12   attempt to play excerpted versions of these depositions at trial, Plaintiffs’ counsel reserves the right

13   to object and seek a ruling on the objections before the deposition testimony is played to the jury.

14

15
     Dated:     March 4, 2024                                    By: ______________________
16
                                                                      Collin J. Vierra
17
                                                                      Attorney for Plaintiffs
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
     1
       Quanyu “Jacky” Huang was deposed on March 4, 2024, and the transcript of that deposition has not yet been
28   produced. To the extent the Paramont Defendants engage in the same bad-faith designations to Jacky’s transcript,
     Plaintiffs re-lodge each and every objection made during that deposition, as well.
                                                               5
              PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PARAMONT DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS