Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-21-2014 1:08 pm
Case Number: CUD-14-650110
Filing Date: Nov-21-2014 1:08
Filed by: DAVID YUEN
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04699691
DECLARATION OF
PRISCILLA HSUE VS. HOWARD RICHMAN ET AL
001004699691
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Arthur Meirson, Esq. SBN267537 F
GOLDSTEIN, GELLMAN, MELBOSTAD, D
HARRIS & McSPARRAN, LLP 8 hey % linia
re!
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 1000 Aciaeg
San Francisco, CA 94109 Nev
415/673-5600 FAX:415/673-5606 c a { 2014
Attorneys for Plaintiff BY F E URT
PRISCILLA HSUE ia
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — LIMITED JURISDICTION
Case No. CUD-14-650110
PRISCILLA HSUE,
DECLARATION OF ARTHUR MEIRSON
Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
v. JUDGMENT
HOWARD RICHMAN, CLAUDINE A.
TRITTIN-RICHMAN, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, | Date: November 24, 2014
Time: 9:30 am
Defendants. Dept.: Courtroom 501
I, Arthur Meirson, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly authorized to practice before all the courts of the State of
California and am an associate in the law firm of Goldstein, Gellman, Melbostad, Harris &
McSparran, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff PRISCILLA HSUE in this action. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated herein, except where stated upon information and belief. If called upon
as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following.
2. Defendants’ motion is procedurally defective for two fatal reasons. It was not accompanied
with a separate statement as required. See Code of Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(1); see also Cal. R. of Ct.,
Rules 1.5(b)(1) and 3.1350(c)(2), (d), (h). Moreover, it is untimely. It was personally delivered to my
1.
57383B.docx:8009-00 Declaration of AM in Support of Opposition to
Defendant’s MSJ27
28
office at approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2014. Motions have to be served before they are
filed. Therefore, by serving the motion on me at 5:00 p.m. Defendants could not have filed by 4:00
p.m. on November 19, 2014, allowing five (5) days’ notice. See Code of Civ. Proc. §1170.7; see also
Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4" 1258, 1268. If Defendants filed a proof of service
declaring under penalty of perjury that personal service was completed before 5:00 p.m. on
November 19, 2014, such declaration is perjurious.
3. The trial in this matter was set as a bench trial without mandatory settlement conference on
November 6, 2014. Notice by the court was served November 6, 2014, to both Plaintiffs and
Defendants’ counsel. To date, Defendants have made no motion to re-designate the trial as a jury trial
or seek relief from waiver of jury trial. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel have been preparing for a
bench trial since receipt of the Court’s notice on November 7, 2014. See Exhibit 1.
4. The Rent Board recorded Notice of Constraints on Real Property on September 9, 2014,
establishing the date of withdrawal on 72A Buena Vista Terrace, San Francisco, CA 94117 as
September 25, 2014. See Exhibit 2.
5. Defendants’ excerpts of Alexander Monto’s deposition testimony are disingenuously cherry
picked, intentionally misleading, and devoid of context. Attached as Exhibit 3 are additional pages
referenced in Alexander Monto’s declaration providing the proper context. For instance, Alexander
Monto consistently stated at deposition numerous times that Dr. Sewell never told him directly or
indirectly anything about Mr. Richman’s medical condition or privileged patient status. The official
diagnosis of Crohn’s disease and length of the diagnosis was not communicated until the
December 23, 2013 letter delivered by Ms. Conway on December 27, 2013. Alexander Monto
misspoke about this, but then immediately corrected himself.
//
I
I
/
I
57383B.docx:8009-00 Declaration of AM in Support of Opposition to
Defendant’s MSJI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 21" day of November, 2014, at San Francisco, California.
57383B.docx:8009-00 Declaration of AM in Support of Opposition to
Defendant’s MSJEXHIBIT 1‘ @ @
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
PRISCILLA HSUE
PLAINTIFF (S)
vs. Case Number: CUD-14-650110
HOWARD RICHMAN et al Notice of Time and Place of Trial
DEFENDANT (S)
To: KEVIN P. GREENQUIST, and ARTHUR MEIRSON
You are hereby notified that the above case has been set for COURT TRIAL on NOV-24-2014 in Dept. 501, 400
McAllister Street at 9:00AM.
MOTIONS TO CONTINUE UNLAWFUL DETAINER TRIALS are heard Monday thru Friday at 9:30AM in
Department 501, 400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102. You are required to bring a copy
of the complaint and answer to your trial and any scheduled settelement conference.
DATED: NOV-06-2014 Ronald E. Quidachay
Judicial Officer
NO DEMAND FOR JURY ON FILE.
THIS CASE WAS SET FOR COURT TRIAL
Form 003071
i
i
t
i
t
t
r
i
:
i@ Certificate of Mailing e ‘
|, the undersigned, certify that | am an empioyee of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and not a party to
the above-entitied cause and that on NOV-06-2014 | served the foregoing Notice of Time and Place of Trial on each counsel of
fecord or party appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and
deposited in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102-4514 pursuant
to standard court practice.
Dated: NOV-06-2014 By: TJ MOROHOSHI
ARTHUR MEIRSON (267537)
GOLDSTEIN GELLMAN MELBOSTAD HARRIS &
MCSPARRAN
1388 SUTTER STREET
STE 1000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
KEVIN P. GREENQUIST (200627)
ZANGHI TORRES ARSHAWSKY LLP
703 MARKET ST STE 1600
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
ARTHUR MEIRSON (267537)
GOLDSTEIN GELLMAN MELBOSTAD HARRIS & MCSPARRAN
1388 SUTTER STREET
STE 1000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Form 003071EXHIBIT 2RECORDING REQUESTED: e
City and County of San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94102
\_S (415) 252-4602
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City and County of San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 252-4602
an Francisco ae
mmen Chu, Assessor-Recorder
DOC- 2014-5947499-99
Acct 37-Rent Arbitration Board
Tuesday, SEP @9, 2014 14:27:18
Tel Pd $0.00 Rept # oaas014g67
ofa/JL/1-1
NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY
(to be recorded by the Rent Board)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7060.2 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37, Section
37.94, the City of San Francisco has determined to apply constraints to successors in interest to an owner(s)
who has withdrawn residential accommodations from rent or lease.
The real property where the accommodations are located is specifically described as:
Block: 2608 Lot: 14
Address: 72-72A Buena Vista Terrace, San Francisco, CA 94117
Name of Owner(s): Alexander Monto and Priscilla Hsue
The date on which the accommodations at 72A Buena Vista Terrace is to be withdrawn from rent or
lease is September 25, 2014.
The constraints set forth in the following sections apply to the units until the dates indicated:
* Government Code Section 7060.2(a)&(d) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(a)&(b):
September 25, 2019. (Five years from date of withdrawal)
+ Government Code Section 7060.2(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(c):
September 25, 2024. (Ten years from date of withdrawal)
ALL OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS AS NAMED IN THIS DOCUMENT
WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY
RECORDED TERMINATION, AFTER SEPTEMBER 25, 2024.
A
Dated: September 8, 2014
Lida lili
Delene Wolf, Executive Director, $4n Francisco Rent Board
)
tishrd/ellis/2013ellisdocs/L131530-1year
FORM7RECORDING REQUESTED =): e@ .
City and County of San Francisco
Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board a Francisco lecorder
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 Carmen Chu. Assessor-Reco der
San Francisco, CA 94102 _ -
(7) San Fierce DOC- 2014-3947500-00
Acct 37-Rent Arbitration Board
Tuesday, SEP @9, 2014 14:27:18
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City and County of San Francisco Tel Pd $0.00 Rept # G05 014868
Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board ofalsl/i~a
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 252-4602
NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY
(to be recorded by the Rent Board)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7060.2 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37, Section
37.9A, the City of San Francisco has determined to apply constraints to successors in interest to an owner(s)
who has withdrawn residential accommodations from rent or lease.
The real property where the accommodations are located is specifically described as:
Block: 2608 Lot: 14
Address: 72-72A Buena Vista Terrace, San Francisco, CA 94117
Name of Owner(s): Alexander Monto and Priscilla Hsue
The date on which the accommodations at 72 Buena Vista Terrace is to be withdrawn from rent or
lease is January 23, 2014.
The constraints set forth in the following sections apply to the units until the dates indicated:
+ Government Code Section 7060.2(a)&(d) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(a)é&(b):
January 23, 2019. (Five years from date of withdrawal)
* Government Code Section 7060.2(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(c):
January 23, 2024. (Ten years from date of withdrawal)
ALL OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS AS NAMED IN THIS DOCUMENT
WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY
RECORDED TERMINATION, AFTER JANUARY 23, 2024.
Lr L
Dated: September 8, 2014 Lihue
Delene Wolf, Executive Diredfor, San Francisco Rent Board
tishrd/ellis/2013ellisdocs/L131530 FORM7EXHIBIT 3Dr. Sewell made some sort of a proper judgment or not is,
again, totally irrelevant, lacks foundation, calls for
speculation.
You can answer it if you have personal knowledge.
THE WITNESS: I have no reason to doubt that
Dr. Sewell would be truthful.
MR. GREENQUIST: Q. That's fine.
All right. And so did you ever receive any
indication from Dr. Sewell that my client has Crohn's
disease?
A. No.
Q. You never received any indication from Dr. Sewell
through you or your agent that my client has Crohn's
disease?
MR. MEIRSON: And clarification: Directly from
Dr. Sewell or by correspondence through some other party?
MR. GREENQUIST: Q. Directly from Dr. Sewell?
A. No.
Q. All right. Indirectly from Dr. Sewell?
A. I believe that I saw a letter that Dr. Sewell had
written, that it was brief.
Q. Did you tell Dr. Sewell to confirm whether or not
this was a legitimate letter?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask Dr. Sewell if he'd ever written such
13
BARKLEY
ALEXANDER MONTO, M.D. Court Reportersa letter?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever communicate with Dr. Sewell
whatsoever with regard to Howard Richman?
A. I did, but it was many years before.
Q. And what was the reason you spoke with Dr. Sewell
about Howard Richman?
A. I believe that Dr. Sewell mentioned to me that
Mr. Richman had talked to him about the fact that he, you
know, was a tenant in an apartment that -- that I was the
landlord for and that Dr. Sewell mentioned to me that
Howard had said that to him.
Q. Um-hum.
And did you -- and that was the extent of it?
When was this conversation?
A. Probably in 2011, a number of years before.
Um-hum.
And did he mention that Howard Richman was his
patient?
A. No. He mentioned that he had -- he had seen
Howard at San Francisco General where he practices.
Q. Um-hum.
A. So I -- he had seen him in a professional
context. It's a question of when somebody becomes a
person's patient.
14
BARKLEY
ALEXANDER MONTO, M.D. Court Reporters24
25
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. MEIRSON
MR. MEIRSON: Q. And several years ago when
Dr. Sewell mentioned to you that he had some professional
interaction with a person who was your tenant, did
Dr. Sewell at that point tell you Mr. Richman's medical
diagnosis?
A. I believe he said that he had Crohn's disease. I
believe so.
Q. You specifically remember having a conversation
with Dr. Sewell about his patient's medical condition?
A. Not -- not -- not -- not any specifics other than
that he was seen and that Mr. Richman had talked with
Dr. Sewell about the fact that he -- he was my tenant.
And so -- and I -- I believe that -- so it -- I don't
specifically remember if he included the word "Crohn's,"
but he -- he said that he had interacted with -- with
Mr. Richman.
Q. And did he provide you a letter at that time --
No.
-- indicating any kind of diagnosis?
» Oo P
No.
Q. Did he tell you how long Mr. Richman had been
experiencing this condition?
A. No.
Q. Did he tell you how this condition was impacting
112
BARKLEY
ALEXANDER MONTO, M.D. Court Reporters
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-21-2014 1:08 pm Case Number: CUD-14-650110 Filing Date: Nov-21-2014 1:08 Filed by: DAVID YUEN Juke Box: 001 Image: 04699691 DECLARATION OF PRISCILLA HSUE VS. HOWARD RICHMAN ET AL 001004699691 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Arthur Meirson, Esq. SBN267537 F GOLDSTEIN, GELLMAN, MELBOSTAD, D HARRIS & McSPARRAN, LLP 8 hey % linia re! 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 1000 Aciaeg San Francisco, CA 94109 Nev 415/673-5600 FAX:415/673-5606 c a { 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY F E URT PRISCILLA HSUE ia SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — LIMITED JURISDICTION Case No. CUD-14-650110 PRISCILLA HSUE, DECLARATION OF ARTHUR MEIRSON Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY v. JUDGMENT HOWARD RICHMAN, CLAUDINE A. TRITTIN-RICHMAN, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, | Date: November 24, 2014 Time: 9:30 am Defendants. Dept.: Courtroom 501 I, Arthur Meirson, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly authorized to practice before all the courts of the State of California and am an associate in the law firm of Goldstein, Gellman, Melbostad, Harris & McSparran, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff PRISCILLA HSUE in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except where stated upon information and belief. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following. 2. Defendants’ motion is procedurally defective for two fatal reasons. It was not accompanied with a separate statement as required. See Code of Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(1); see also Cal. R. of Ct., Rules 1.5(b)(1) and 3.1350(c)(2), (d), (h). Moreover, it is untimely. It was personally delivered to my 1. 57383B.docx:8009-00 Declaration of AM in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s MSJ27 28 office at approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2014. Motions have to be served before they are filed. Therefore, by serving the motion on me at 5:00 p.m. Defendants could not have filed by 4:00 p.m. on November 19, 2014, allowing five (5) days’ notice. See Code of Civ. Proc. §1170.7; see also Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4" 1258, 1268. If Defendants filed a proof of service declaring under penalty of perjury that personal service was completed before 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2014, such declaration is perjurious. 3. The trial in this matter was set as a bench trial without mandatory settlement conference on November 6, 2014. Notice by the court was served November 6, 2014, to both Plaintiffs and Defendants’ counsel. To date, Defendants have made no motion to re-designate the trial as a jury trial or seek relief from waiver of jury trial. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel have been preparing for a bench trial since receipt of the Court’s notice on November 7, 2014. See Exhibit 1. 4. The Rent Board recorded Notice of Constraints on Real Property on September 9, 2014, establishing the date of withdrawal on 72A Buena Vista Terrace, San Francisco, CA 94117 as September 25, 2014. See Exhibit 2. 5. Defendants’ excerpts of Alexander Monto’s deposition testimony are disingenuously cherry picked, intentionally misleading, and devoid of context. Attached as Exhibit 3 are additional pages referenced in Alexander Monto’s declaration providing the proper context. For instance, Alexander Monto consistently stated at deposition numerous times that Dr. Sewell never told him directly or indirectly anything about Mr. Richman’s medical condition or privileged patient status. The official diagnosis of Crohn’s disease and length of the diagnosis was not communicated until the December 23, 2013 letter delivered by Ms. Conway on December 27, 2013. Alexander Monto misspoke about this, but then immediately corrected himself. // I I / I 57383B.docx:8009-00 Declaration of AM in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s MSJI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21" day of November, 2014, at San Francisco, California. 57383B.docx:8009-00 Declaration of AM in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s MSJEXHIBIT 1‘ @ @ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 PRISCILLA HSUE PLAINTIFF (S) vs. Case Number: CUD-14-650110 HOWARD RICHMAN et al Notice of Time and Place of Trial DEFENDANT (S) To: KEVIN P. GREENQUIST, and ARTHUR MEIRSON You are hereby notified that the above case has been set for COURT TRIAL on NOV-24-2014 in Dept. 501, 400 McAllister Street at 9:00AM. MOTIONS TO CONTINUE UNLAWFUL DETAINER TRIALS are heard Monday thru Friday at 9:30AM in Department 501, 400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102. You are required to bring a copy of the complaint and answer to your trial and any scheduled settelement conference. DATED: NOV-06-2014 Ronald E. Quidachay Judicial Officer NO DEMAND FOR JURY ON FILE. THIS CASE WAS SET FOR COURT TRIAL Form 003071 i i t i t t r i : i@ Certificate of Mailing e ‘ |, the undersigned, certify that | am an empioyee of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and not a party to the above-entitied cause and that on NOV-06-2014 | served the foregoing Notice of Time and Place of Trial on each counsel of fecord or party appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and deposited in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102-4514 pursuant to standard court practice. Dated: NOV-06-2014 By: TJ MOROHOSHI ARTHUR MEIRSON (267537) GOLDSTEIN GELLMAN MELBOSTAD HARRIS & MCSPARRAN 1388 SUTTER STREET STE 1000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 KEVIN P. GREENQUIST (200627) ZANGHI TORRES ARSHAWSKY LLP 703 MARKET ST STE 1600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 ARTHUR MEIRSON (267537) GOLDSTEIN GELLMAN MELBOSTAD HARRIS & MCSPARRAN 1388 SUTTER STREET STE 1000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Form 003071EXHIBIT 2RECORDING REQUESTED: e City and County of San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94102 \_S (415) 252-4602 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City and County of San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 252-4602 an Francisco ae mmen Chu, Assessor-Recorder DOC- 2014-5947499-99 Acct 37-Rent Arbitration Board Tuesday, SEP @9, 2014 14:27:18 Tel Pd $0.00 Rept # oaas014g67 ofa/JL/1-1 NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY (to be recorded by the Rent Board) Pursuant to Government Code Section 7060.2 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37, Section 37.94, the City of San Francisco has determined to apply constraints to successors in interest to an owner(s) who has withdrawn residential accommodations from rent or lease. The real property where the accommodations are located is specifically described as: Block: 2608 Lot: 14 Address: 72-72A Buena Vista Terrace, San Francisco, CA 94117 Name of Owner(s): Alexander Monto and Priscilla Hsue The date on which the accommodations at 72A Buena Vista Terrace is to be withdrawn from rent or lease is September 25, 2014. The constraints set forth in the following sections apply to the units until the dates indicated: * Government Code Section 7060.2(a)&(d) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(a)&(b): September 25, 2019. (Five years from date of withdrawal) + Government Code Section 7060.2(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(c): September 25, 2024. (Ten years from date of withdrawal) ALL OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS AS NAMED IN THIS DOCUMENT WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY RECORDED TERMINATION, AFTER SEPTEMBER 25, 2024. A Dated: September 8, 2014 Lida lili Delene Wolf, Executive Director, $4n Francisco Rent Board ) tishrd/ellis/2013ellisdocs/L131530-1year FORM7RECORDING REQUESTED =): e@ . City and County of San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board a Francisco lecorder 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 Carmen Chu. Assessor-Reco der San Francisco, CA 94102 _ - (7) San Fierce DOC- 2014-3947500-00 Acct 37-Rent Arbitration Board Tuesday, SEP @9, 2014 14:27:18 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City and County of San Francisco Tel Pd $0.00 Rept # G05 014868 Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board ofalsl/i~a 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 252-4602 NOTICE OF CONSTRAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY (to be recorded by the Rent Board) Pursuant to Government Code Section 7060.2 and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 37, Section 37.9A, the City of San Francisco has determined to apply constraints to successors in interest to an owner(s) who has withdrawn residential accommodations from rent or lease. The real property where the accommodations are located is specifically described as: Block: 2608 Lot: 14 Address: 72-72A Buena Vista Terrace, San Francisco, CA 94117 Name of Owner(s): Alexander Monto and Priscilla Hsue The date on which the accommodations at 72 Buena Vista Terrace is to be withdrawn from rent or lease is January 23, 2014. The constraints set forth in the following sections apply to the units until the dates indicated: + Government Code Section 7060.2(a)&(d) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(a)é&(b): January 23, 2019. (Five years from date of withdrawal) * Government Code Section 7060.2(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 37.9A(c): January 23, 2024. (Ten years from date of withdrawal) ALL OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS AS NAMED IN THIS DOCUMENT WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY RECORDED TERMINATION, AFTER JANUARY 23, 2024. Lr L Dated: September 8, 2014 Lihue Delene Wolf, Executive Diredfor, San Francisco Rent Board tishrd/ellis/2013ellisdocs/L131530 FORM7EXHIBIT 3Dr. Sewell made some sort of a proper judgment or not is, again, totally irrelevant, lacks foundation, calls for speculation. You can answer it if you have personal knowledge. THE WITNESS: I have no reason to doubt that Dr. Sewell would be truthful. MR. GREENQUIST: Q. That's fine. All right. And so did you ever receive any indication from Dr. Sewell that my client has Crohn's disease? A. No. Q. You never received any indication from Dr. Sewell through you or your agent that my client has Crohn's disease? MR. MEIRSON: And clarification: Directly from Dr. Sewell or by correspondence through some other party? MR. GREENQUIST: Q. Directly from Dr. Sewell? A. No. Q. All right. Indirectly from Dr. Sewell? A. I believe that I saw a letter that Dr. Sewell had written, that it was brief. Q. Did you tell Dr. Sewell to confirm whether or not this was a legitimate letter? A. No. Q. Did you ask Dr. Sewell if he'd ever written such 13 BARKLEY ALEXANDER MONTO, M.D. Court Reportersa letter? A. No. Q. Did you ever communicate with Dr. Sewell whatsoever with regard to Howard Richman? A. I did, but it was many years before. Q. And what was the reason you spoke with Dr. Sewell about Howard Richman? A. I believe that Dr. Sewell mentioned to me that Mr. Richman had talked to him about the fact that he, you know, was a tenant in an apartment that -- that I was the landlord for and that Dr. Sewell mentioned to me that Howard had said that to him. Q. Um-hum. And did you -- and that was the extent of it? When was this conversation? A. Probably in 2011, a number of years before. Um-hum. And did he mention that Howard Richman was his patient? A. No. He mentioned that he had -- he had seen Howard at San Francisco General where he practices. Q. Um-hum. A. So I -- he had seen him in a professional context. It's a question of when somebody becomes a person's patient. 14 BARKLEY ALEXANDER MONTO, M.D. Court Reporters24 25 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. MEIRSON MR. MEIRSON: Q. And several years ago when Dr. Sewell mentioned to you that he had some professional interaction with a person who was your tenant, did Dr. Sewell at that point tell you Mr. Richman's medical diagnosis? A. I believe he said that he had Crohn's disease. I believe so. Q. You specifically remember having a conversation with Dr. Sewell about his patient's medical condition? A. Not -- not -- not -- not any specifics other than that he was seen and that Mr. Richman had talked with Dr. Sewell about the fact that he -- he was my tenant. And so -- and I -- I believe that -- so it -- I don't specifically remember if he included the word "Crohn's," but he -- he said that he had interacted with -- with Mr. Richman. Q. And did he provide you a letter at that time -- No. -- indicating any kind of diagnosis? » Oo P No. Q. Did he tell you how long Mr. Richman had been experiencing this condition? A. No. Q. Did he tell you how this condition was impacting 112 BARKLEY ALEXANDER MONTO, M.D. Court Reporters