Preview
MMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-05-2012 1:53 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-504804
Filing Date: Apr-05-2012 1:53
Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03564300
DECLARATION
SALVATORE MINEO INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL et al VS. CITY
SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION, A DELAWARE et al
001C03564300
instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
3oC eon Dn Fw NH
wR NY NNN NN KD Se Be Ee Be ee Be Se Se
oma AA BON EF SD eI HH F&F YW NH = OS
Ashwin Ladva, Esq. (SB¥ 206140)
LADVA LAW FIRM
530 Jackson Street, 2"! Floor ,
San Francisco, CA 94133 APR OS LO?’
Telephone: (415) 296-8844 crue tus
Fax: (415) 296-8847 CLERK GE, Th
Daniel Martinez de Ja Vega, Esq. (SB# 255885)
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGA
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 287-6203
Fax: (415) 704-5067
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Salvatore Mineo, Gina Schembari, Phillip Case No. CGC-10-504804
Thomas Nails, Benjamin Duax, and David
Hayward individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
DANIEL MARTINEZ DE LA VEGA’S
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITION OF ANDREW SMITH AND/OR
DEFENDANT CITY SIGHTSEEING
CORPORATION’S PMK
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, CITY
SIGHTSEEING WORLDWIDE and DOES 1-
500, inclusive,
Date: April 12, 2012
Time: 9:30am
Department: 302
Defendants. October 1, 2012
ee ee eee”
DECLARATION OF DANIEL MARTINEZ DE LA VEGA
DeclarationCom YN A HW BR YW DN
boeN YN NY NR NR NY SF FP Se SF GC FE Bn rs
RBoegakt Gveereseewen nu ek YN SO
L,, declare:
I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California.
I represent Plaintiffs in the civil action Mineo v. CITY SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION,
(2010) CGC-10-504804.
This action is a wage and hour class action, involving five (5) named plaintiffs, approximately
200 hundred employees over a four year time period.
On January 18, 2012 I met and conferred with Ms. Thompson over the telephone regard the
PMK deposition and Defendant’s refusal to release copies of the January 10, 2012 document
production until these documents were reviewed by Defense Counsel.
On January 18, 2012, I informed Ms. Thompson over the telephone that we would not agree to
reschedule the PMK. I informed Ms. Thompson that we were surprised that Mr. Smith was the
PMK seeing that two (2) other employees Ms. Peggy Padua and Ms. Jamie White were the
employees who actually reviewed the timesheets of Defendant’s employees. Our understanding
was that Ms. White was now a manager and still employed by Defendant.
6. On January 18, 2012, I also informed Ms. Thompson that it was not practical to conduct both
deposition at the same time and that we did not have enough time to do Mr. Smith’s and the
PMK’s deposition at the same time due to the amount of information that need to be reviewed.
7. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit A is my office’s September 15, 2011 meet and confer
emai] requesting a date to inspect the documents.
8. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit B is my office’s October 27, 2011 meet and confer email
requesting a date to inspect the documents.
9. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit C is my office’s January 23, 2012 meet and confer letter
regarding the PMK deposition and the documents.
10. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit D is Defendant CSC’s February 9, 2012 email response to
my meet and confer letter dated February 7, 2012.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 2 day of Prd. 2012, at
alifornia.
ly submitted
aniel Martinez de la Vega wo
Attorney for Plaintiffs —
DeclarationEXHIBIT ALaw Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing https://mail google.com mail/w/0/Pui-2&ik=942a234N3.&view—pt&q-...
Danie! Martinez de la Vega
M4 Mineo v. Citysightseeing
Daniel Martinez de la Vega Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:25 PM
To: Paul Dion , Elizabeth Thompson , Ashwin Ladva
Dear Counsel,
We agree to extend the deadline for filing a Motion to Compe! one week to September 30, 2011.
Additionally, please contact Mr. Ladva's office by September 20, 2011 regarding dates (either next or the
following week) when Plaintiffs’ counsel may inspect the documents Ms. Thompson had stated were available
for inspection. Also, we would appreciate a estimate of approximately how many documents are available for
inspection.
Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Daniel Martinez de la Vega
Law Offices of Daniel Vega
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 287-6200
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify this office
immediately by calling (415) 287-6203 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all
copies, including attachments.
lofl 4/5/2012 9:38 AMEXHIBIT BLaw Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing https://mail. google.com mail /w/0/?ui=2&ik-94 20234123 &view=pt&q=...
lof3
Daniel Martinez de ia Vega
M4 Mineo v. Citysightseeing
Daniel Martinez de la Vega Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:27 PM
To: Elizabeth Thompson
Bec: Ashwin Ladva , Paul Dion
Dear Counsel,
Please forward us the proposed protective order described in the email below regarding Plaintiffs most recent
request for production of documents. Additionally, please email us proposed dates when documents will be
available for inspection and/or copying.
Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Daniel Martinez de la Vega
Law Offices of Daniel Vega
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 287-6200
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify this office
immediately by calling (415) 287-6203 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all
copies, including attachments.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2041 at 5:48 PM, Elizabeth Thompson wrote:
Ashwin,
| am writing in response to Daniel Vega’s email below. CitySightseeing elected to allow inspection
of documents in response to special interrogatories 11 and 65 as propounded by each named
plaintiff. No. 11 requests information about other tour guides, drivers and front desk personnel and
will be made available subject to a protective order. | will email you a proposed stipulated order
later this week.
The information requested by No. 65 relates to the hours worked by the named plaintiffs, and their
time sheets have already been produced for the most part. There are some gaps, however, and
trying to fill those gaps will require searching the same storage areas as for No. 14. It will be more
efficient for everyone and less disruptive to my client if all documents are reviewed at one time,
rather than piecemeal. In the meantime, we will work on gathering documents and coming up with an
estimate of the volume involved, By that time that is done, we should have a protective order in
place and can proceed with the document review.
4/5/2012 9:39 AMLaw Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing https://mail. google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2 &ik-94 24234123 &view=pt&q=...
2 of 3
Regards,
Elizabeth Thompson | Jones Bothwell Dion & Thompson LLP | 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco,
CA 94104-4608 | T 415.951.9168 F 415.951.8901 | www.jbdlaw.com
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify our office immediately at (415) 951-9167 or by e-mail to ethompson@jbdlaw.com and destroy all copies of this message and any
attachments. Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature for purposes of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
{UETA) or the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("E-Sign") unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this
message.
From: Daniel Martinez de la Vega [mailto:dvega@vegalawyer.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:26 PM
To: Paul Dion; Elizabeth Thompson; Ashwin Ladva
Subject: Re: Mineo v. Citysightseeing
Dear Counsel,
We agree to extend the deadiine for filing a Motion to Compel one week to September 30, 2011.
Additionally, please contact Mr. Ladva's office by September 20, 2011 regarding dates
(either next or the following week) when Plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents
Ms. Thompson had stated were available for inspection. Also, we would appreciate a
estimate of approximately how many documents are available for inspection.
Thank you for your time and fee! free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Daniel Martinez de la Vega
Law Offices of Daniel Vega
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 287-6200
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. if you have received this message in error, please notify this
office immediately by calling (415) 287-6203 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and
destroy all copies, including attachments.
4/5/2012 9:39 AM‘Law Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing hittps://mail. google.com/mail/w0/?ui=2&ik=94 2023423 &view=pt&q-...
3 of 3 4/5/2012 9:39 AMEXHIBIT CLaw Offices of Daniel Vega
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 287-6203
Fax: (415) 704-5067
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
January 23, 2012
Ms. Elizabeth Thompson, Esq
Jones Bothwell Dion & Thompson LLP
44 Montgomery St., Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: Mineo v. Citysightseeing, et al.,
Dear Counsel,
This letter is in response to your January 22, 2012 letter. Your letter completely
mischaractizes the events of the past two weeks and our January 18, 2012 conversation.
As J explained over the telephone on January 18, 2012, my office has not received emails
regarding scheduling of the January 10, 2011 document inspection, depositions and related
matters. As | stated on the phone, I need to be cc on all correspondence and that I found it
unprofessional that I was not receiving these emails. You stated that “I didn’t think you needed to
be ce’d on these logistical matter.” Due to not being cc’d on these matters I was not aware of the
location of the document inspection and arrived at your office.
As for the document inspection, as I stated over the phone, J found it highly unprofessional
that we were required to go to a unheated and dirty warchouse to review less than four (4)
dilapidated boxes of payroll stubs and timesheets. There were no tables and the documents were
scattered, unorganized and in several torn up boxes. We found it unacceptable that counsel could
claim these documents are privileged and responsive to our document requests when they had
clearly not been reviewed by anyone for sometime. On the telephone, I stated to you that you
cannot make blanket claims that the documents are attorney cyes only when you didn’t even
review these documents yourself, Defendant Manger Smith, who was present at the inspection,
stated that these documents had not been moved or reviewed for sometime.
To make matters worse, after the inspection, counsel instructed our copy service to deliver
all copies to you first. We had no idea that this was done. Only a day before we expected delivery
of these documents did counsel email us to state that these documents needed to be reviewed by
their office first. As counsel was aware, we had depositions scheduled the following week. In our
conversation I had to request several time for a date and time when I would receive our copies. All
counse] would state was “T will do my best to get them to you.” In light of the deposition taking
place the following week, I told counsel any open ended time frames was unacceptable and ILA., OFFICES DANTEL VEGA
Page 2
needed a date and time. Only after I stated I would be asking for court intervention was a time and
place provided.
As to the PMK deposition, counsel, you may not dictate the manner and form we do our
discovery. There was no agreement to only take Mr. Smith’s deposition once. We only requested
that his deposition be rescheduled. Your argument that we can only take Mr. Smith’s deposition
once because he is the PMK is not based on any cited authority and, as I stated on the phone there
are a number of areas of questions for the PMK and we do not believe there is adequate time to do
a PMK and Mr. Andrew’s deposition on the same day. Furthermore, see my January 20, 2011
letter where I meet and confer on Defendant’s objections to notice of depositions and requests for
document production.
Many of these issues could have been avoided if my office was cc’d on these
communications.
We do not anticipate any future issues regarding professionalism. Thank you for your
anticipated cooperation in this matter.
‘Yours Sincerely,
/sf
DANIEL MARTINEZ DE LA VEGA
ATTORNEY
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGASoS Dm DH Bw LP |
Mineo, et al. v. City Sightseeing Corp., et al. Case No. CGC-10-504804
I, the undersigned, declare:
Jam over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this action. I am employed in
the City and County of San Francisco. My business address is 530 Jackson Street, 2™ Floor,
San Francisco, California, 94133. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing
documents described as follows:
Daniel Martinez De La Vega’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Deposition of Andrew Smith and/or Defendant City Sightseeing Corporation’s PMK
On the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed ina sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
Elizabeth Thompson
JONES, BOTHWELL, DION & THOMPSON
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94104
{] BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service,
to-wit, that correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same
day in the ordinary course of business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and
mailing this date, following ordinary business practices.
[XX] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Following ordinary business practices, [
cause the aforementioned document to be served, by hand delivery this date to the offices of
the addressee(s).
[] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused such envelope to be delivered by a
commercial carrier service for overnight delivery to the office(s) of the addressee(s).
{] BY FACSIMILE: _ | caused said document to be transmitted by Facsimile
machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted above.
T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this date in San Francisco,
California.
Dated: April 4, 2012 Drow LE pulboa7
/ _Ainna Kurikova
Proof of Service USPS T
Preview
MMA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-05-2012 1:53 pm Case Number: CGC-10-504804 Filing Date: Apr-05-2012 1:53 Filed by: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 03564300 DECLARATION SALVATORE MINEO INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL et al VS. CITY SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION, A DELAWARE et al 001C03564300 instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. 3oC eon Dn Fw NH wR NY NNN NN KD Se Be Ee Be ee Be Se Se oma AA BON EF SD eI HH F&F YW NH = OS Ashwin Ladva, Esq. (SB¥ 206140) LADVA LAW FIRM 530 Jackson Street, 2"! Floor , San Francisco, CA 94133 APR OS LO?’ Telephone: (415) 296-8844 crue tus Fax: (415) 296-8847 CLERK GE, Th Daniel Martinez de Ja Vega, Esq. (SB# 255885) LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGA 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 287-6203 Fax: (415) 704-5067 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Salvatore Mineo, Gina Schembari, Phillip Case No. CGC-10-504804 Thomas Nails, Benjamin Duax, and David Hayward individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DANIEL MARTINEZ DE LA VEGA’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ANDREW SMITH AND/OR DEFENDANT CITY SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION’S PMK Plaintiff, v. CITY SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, CITY SIGHTSEEING WORLDWIDE and DOES 1- 500, inclusive, Date: April 12, 2012 Time: 9:30am Department: 302 Defendants. October 1, 2012 ee ee eee” DECLARATION OF DANIEL MARTINEZ DE LA VEGA DeclarationCom YN A HW BR YW DN boeN YN NY NR NR NY SF FP Se SF GC FE Bn rs RBoegakt Gveereseewen nu ek YN SO L,, declare: I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California. I represent Plaintiffs in the civil action Mineo v. CITY SIGHTSEEING CORPORATION, (2010) CGC-10-504804. This action is a wage and hour class action, involving five (5) named plaintiffs, approximately 200 hundred employees over a four year time period. On January 18, 2012 I met and conferred with Ms. Thompson over the telephone regard the PMK deposition and Defendant’s refusal to release copies of the January 10, 2012 document production until these documents were reviewed by Defense Counsel. On January 18, 2012, I informed Ms. Thompson over the telephone that we would not agree to reschedule the PMK. I informed Ms. Thompson that we were surprised that Mr. Smith was the PMK seeing that two (2) other employees Ms. Peggy Padua and Ms. Jamie White were the employees who actually reviewed the timesheets of Defendant’s employees. Our understanding was that Ms. White was now a manager and still employed by Defendant. 6. On January 18, 2012, I also informed Ms. Thompson that it was not practical to conduct both deposition at the same time and that we did not have enough time to do Mr. Smith’s and the PMK’s deposition at the same time due to the amount of information that need to be reviewed. 7. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit A is my office’s September 15, 2011 meet and confer emai] requesting a date to inspect the documents. 8. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit B is my office’s October 27, 2011 meet and confer email requesting a date to inspect the documents. 9. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit C is my office’s January 23, 2012 meet and confer letter regarding the PMK deposition and the documents. 10. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit D is Defendant CSC’s February 9, 2012 email response to my meet and confer letter dated February 7, 2012. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2 day of Prd. 2012, at alifornia. ly submitted aniel Martinez de la Vega wo Attorney for Plaintiffs — DeclarationEXHIBIT ALaw Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing https://mail google.com mail/w/0/Pui-2&ik=942a234N3.&view—pt&q-... Danie! Martinez de la Vega M4 Mineo v. Citysightseeing Daniel Martinez de la Vega Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:25 PM To: Paul Dion , Elizabeth Thompson , Ashwin Ladva Dear Counsel, We agree to extend the deadline for filing a Motion to Compe! one week to September 30, 2011. Additionally, please contact Mr. Ladva's office by September 20, 2011 regarding dates (either next or the following week) when Plaintiffs’ counsel may inspect the documents Ms. Thompson had stated were available for inspection. Also, we would appreciate a estimate of approximately how many documents are available for inspection. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Daniel Martinez de la Vega Law Offices of Daniel Vega 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 287-6200 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify this office immediately by calling (415) 287-6203 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies, including attachments. lofl 4/5/2012 9:38 AMEXHIBIT BLaw Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing https://mail. google.com mail /w/0/?ui=2&ik-94 20234123 &view=pt&q=... lof3 Daniel Martinez de ia Vega M4 Mineo v. Citysightseeing Daniel Martinez de la Vega Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:27 PM To: Elizabeth Thompson Bec: Ashwin Ladva , Paul Dion Dear Counsel, Please forward us the proposed protective order described in the email below regarding Plaintiffs most recent request for production of documents. Additionally, please email us proposed dates when documents will be available for inspection and/or copying. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Daniel Martinez de la Vega Law Offices of Daniel Vega 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 287-6200 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify this office immediately by calling (415) 287-6203 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies, including attachments. On Tue, Sep 20, 2041 at 5:48 PM, Elizabeth Thompson wrote: Ashwin, | am writing in response to Daniel Vega’s email below. CitySightseeing elected to allow inspection of documents in response to special interrogatories 11 and 65 as propounded by each named plaintiff. No. 11 requests information about other tour guides, drivers and front desk personnel and will be made available subject to a protective order. | will email you a proposed stipulated order later this week. The information requested by No. 65 relates to the hours worked by the named plaintiffs, and their time sheets have already been produced for the most part. There are some gaps, however, and trying to fill those gaps will require searching the same storage areas as for No. 14. It will be more efficient for everyone and less disruptive to my client if all documents are reviewed at one time, rather than piecemeal. In the meantime, we will work on gathering documents and coming up with an estimate of the volume involved, By that time that is done, we should have a protective order in place and can proceed with the document review. 4/5/2012 9:39 AMLaw Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing https://mail. google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2 &ik-94 24234123 &view=pt&q=... 2 of 3 Regards, Elizabeth Thompson | Jones Bothwell Dion & Thompson LLP | 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94104-4608 | T 415.951.9168 F 415.951.8901 | www.jbdlaw.com This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our office immediately at (415) 951-9167 or by e-mail to ethompson@jbdlaw.com and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature for purposes of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act {UETA) or the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("E-Sign") unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. From: Daniel Martinez de la Vega [mailto:dvega@vegalawyer.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:26 PM To: Paul Dion; Elizabeth Thompson; Ashwin Ladva Subject: Re: Mineo v. Citysightseeing Dear Counsel, We agree to extend the deadiine for filing a Motion to Compel one week to September 30, 2011. Additionally, please contact Mr. Ladva's office by September 20, 2011 regarding dates (either next or the following week) when Plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents Ms. Thompson had stated were available for inspection. Also, we would appreciate a estimate of approximately how many documents are available for inspection. Thank you for your time and fee! free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Daniel Martinez de la Vega Law Offices of Daniel Vega 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 287-6200 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. if you have received this message in error, please notify this office immediately by calling (415) 287-6203 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies, including attachments. 4/5/2012 9:39 AM‘Law Offices of Daniel Vega Mail - Mineo v. Citysightseeing hittps://mail. google.com/mail/w0/?ui=2&ik=94 2023423 &view=pt&q-... 3 of 3 4/5/2012 9:39 AMEXHIBIT CLaw Offices of Daniel Vega 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 287-6203 Fax: (415) 704-5067 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL January 23, 2012 Ms. Elizabeth Thompson, Esq Jones Bothwell Dion & Thompson LLP 44 Montgomery St., Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Mineo v. Citysightseeing, et al., Dear Counsel, This letter is in response to your January 22, 2012 letter. Your letter completely mischaractizes the events of the past two weeks and our January 18, 2012 conversation. As J explained over the telephone on January 18, 2012, my office has not received emails regarding scheduling of the January 10, 2011 document inspection, depositions and related matters. As | stated on the phone, I need to be cc on all correspondence and that I found it unprofessional that I was not receiving these emails. You stated that “I didn’t think you needed to be ce’d on these logistical matter.” Due to not being cc’d on these matters I was not aware of the location of the document inspection and arrived at your office. As for the document inspection, as I stated over the phone, J found it highly unprofessional that we were required to go to a unheated and dirty warchouse to review less than four (4) dilapidated boxes of payroll stubs and timesheets. There were no tables and the documents were scattered, unorganized and in several torn up boxes. We found it unacceptable that counsel could claim these documents are privileged and responsive to our document requests when they had clearly not been reviewed by anyone for sometime. On the telephone, I stated to you that you cannot make blanket claims that the documents are attorney cyes only when you didn’t even review these documents yourself, Defendant Manger Smith, who was present at the inspection, stated that these documents had not been moved or reviewed for sometime. To make matters worse, after the inspection, counsel instructed our copy service to deliver all copies to you first. We had no idea that this was done. Only a day before we expected delivery of these documents did counsel email us to state that these documents needed to be reviewed by their office first. As counsel was aware, we had depositions scheduled the following week. In our conversation I had to request several time for a date and time when I would receive our copies. All counse] would state was “T will do my best to get them to you.” In light of the deposition taking place the following week, I told counsel any open ended time frames was unacceptable and ILA., OFFICES DANTEL VEGA Page 2 needed a date and time. Only after I stated I would be asking for court intervention was a time and place provided. As to the PMK deposition, counsel, you may not dictate the manner and form we do our discovery. There was no agreement to only take Mr. Smith’s deposition once. We only requested that his deposition be rescheduled. Your argument that we can only take Mr. Smith’s deposition once because he is the PMK is not based on any cited authority and, as I stated on the phone there are a number of areas of questions for the PMK and we do not believe there is adequate time to do a PMK and Mr. Andrew’s deposition on the same day. Furthermore, see my January 20, 2011 letter where I meet and confer on Defendant’s objections to notice of depositions and requests for document production. Many of these issues could have been avoided if my office was cc’d on these communications. We do not anticipate any future issues regarding professionalism. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. ‘Yours Sincerely, /sf DANIEL MARTINEZ DE LA VEGA ATTORNEY LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL VEGASoS Dm DH Bw LP | Mineo, et al. v. City Sightseeing Corp., et al. Case No. CGC-10-504804 I, the undersigned, declare: Jam over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this action. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco. My business address is 530 Jackson Street, 2™ Floor, San Francisco, California, 94133. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing documents described as follows: Daniel Martinez De La Vega’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Smith and/or Defendant City Sightseeing Corporation’s PMK On the following person(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed ina sealed envelope addressed as follows: Elizabeth Thompson JONES, BOTHWELL, DION & THOMPSON 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94104 {] BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: I am readily familiar with my firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, to-wit, that correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business. I sealed said envelope and placed it for collection and mailing this date, following ordinary business practices. [XX] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Following ordinary business practices, [ cause the aforementioned document to be served, by hand delivery this date to the offices of the addressee(s). [] BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused such envelope to be delivered by a commercial carrier service for overnight delivery to the office(s) of the addressee(s). {] BY FACSIMILE: _ | caused said document to be transmitted by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted above. T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this date in San Francisco, California. Dated: April 4, 2012 Drow LE pulboa7 / _Ainna Kurikova Proof of Service USPS T