Preview
'
'
1 RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067)
MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608)
HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK
Ecoum'Y
S I}?
2 ROSSI,
SAN 20:
meg
1960 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126-1493 2.1116
Tel: (408) 261-4252
Fax: (408) 261-4292
/V/\~ Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
\1/ KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
I
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFO IA
OO\]O'\
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
\O
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV538897
10 Partnership,
DECLARATION OF JAMIE CARDOSO
11 Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS
12 vs. TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF
RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION OF
13 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a California DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FURTHER
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 RESPONSES AND FOR PRODUCTION
14 through 10, OF DOCUMENTS AND SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANT
15 Defendants.
16 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, Date: J anuarv 5. 2017 ;
17 Time: 9:00 a.m. .
Cross-Complainant, Dept: Law & Motion .'
18
pposition
vs. IIl111111111"Hill/III!““ll
19 Action Filed: June 1, 2016 0
Trial Date: TBD in
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General
20 Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10, Declaration
306158
D10
21 Cross-Defendants
22' I, JAMIE CARDOSO, declare and state that if called as a witness I am competent to and
23 could and would testify as follows based upon my personal knowledge:
24 1. I make this Declaration in Support of OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
25 OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION OF
Rossi. Hmncrslough.
26
Rcisclll & Chuck
[960 The Alameda DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR PRODUCTION OF
Suite 200
San Jose. CA
95126-1“)!
27
(401‘) 26 l—JZSZ DOCUMENTS AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT.
Fax (408) 26 l4292
28 2. On August 15, 2016, our office received the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A.
DECLARATION OF JAMIE CARDOSO IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE l
1 3. I normally open the US. Mail addressed to Ronald R. Rossi when it arrives at our
2 office.
b) 4. I did so in this instance with regard to the document attached hereto as Exhibit A.
It is my usual practice to bring such letters to the attention of Mr. Rossi.
5. However, in this instance I did not realize until August 22, 2016 that instead I had
6 accidentally misfiled it with papers for another case.
7 6. I did not discover this error until on or about the afternoon of August 22, 2016,
when I brought it to the attention of my supervising attorney, Mr. Rossi.
9 7. Early the next morning, I assisted him in emailing to opposing counsel the
_
10 emailed letter attached hereto as Exhibit B.
11 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
12 foregoing is true and correct.
13 Executed this 20th day of December, 2016, at San J 05 California.
14
15 By: Q0@ *-
JWJE CARDOSO
16
17
'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rnss1.|l.1mcrslougll.
26
Reisclll & Chuck
1960111: Alameda
Suilc 200
San Jose. CA
95126-H93
(408) 261-4252
27
Fax (408) 261—4292
28
DECLARATION OF JAMIE CARDOSO IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE 2
LAW OFFICES OF
STEVEN B MSER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AREA CODE 510
OAKLAND CITY CENTER TELEPHONE 835-5582
[300 CLAY STREET, SUITE 1050
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 946 l2
August 11, 2016
Ronald R. Rossi
Madolyn Orr , ,
Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck
1360 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95126
Re: DBP V. King Center
The inspection demand
Gentlepeople:
Your client’s responses to the inspection demand and
production of documents are not code-compliant. The
deficiencies are in the objections} résfiéfiséé and manner of
~ .~~;=¥J, ~mu~ I
.4- w
production.
A
The objections
Privilege
An objection based on the attorney client or work
pfioduct privilege must:
i
0 “Identify with particularity any
E
document falling within the category of
g
item in the demand to which an objection is
!
being made;” and,
e “If an objection is based on a claim of
'privilege or a claim that the information
sought is protected wort productb the _
responSe shall provide sufficient factual
Ronald R Rossi
Madolyn D. Orr
August 11, 2016
Page 2
'information for other parties to evaluate
the merits of that claim, including, if
necessary, a privilege log.”l
Objections based on attorney client or work product
privilege have been stated in response to requests 1, 2 and
4—13. No documents, or categories of documents, are
identified. And the privilege log does not identify any
documents being withheld based on a claim of work product
‘
or attorney—client privilege.
These objections are without merit and too general.2
Either a further response and complete privilege log should
be provided, or the objections withdrawn.
“Overbroad and seeks information which will not
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
This claim, which appears to be.a mantra, is asserted
in response to each request. That it appears, in a
boilerplate fashion, verily leaves the impression you folks
simply cut and paste form objections without conducting
either a good faith attempt to respond or reasoned analysis
ofgthe request and proper legal objections.
Under the law, you have the burden to demonstrate the
information sought is not calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant, admissible evidence within the
subject matter of the litigation.
E
Please provide justification for the objections to
requests seeking:
1California Code of Civil Procedure §203l.240
2California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.3lO(a)(3)
Ronald R Rossi
Madolyn D. Orr
August 11, 2016
Page 3
0 communications with my client (1 and 2);
0 leases with your client’s tenants, in light of
the allegations of the complaint and cross-
A
complaint (3);
0 common area expenses, when the cross—complaint
alleges my client breached an obligation to
pay such expenses and where your client’s
leases provide for its tenants to pay such
expenses (4, 9 and 10);
0 communications with your client’s tenants
about parking (are you seriously contending
this is not an issue?) (5, 6, 7, 8 and 11;
and,
0 documents directly related to the agreement
which forms the basis of the complaint and
cross—complaint (11 and 12)..
The objection has no merit. And I suspect you know so.
Please withdraw them, or let me know why my reasoning is
flawed.
)
Privacy, confidential information, financial
information
This objection, in one form or another, shows up in
response to all requests except 1, 2 and 8.
What is disturbing is that the one request which sought
leases with tenants, number three, specifically stated
“rent due under the lease may be redacted, as may any
personal financial information relating to any tenant.” Why
Ronald R Rossi
Madolyn D. Orr
August 11, 2016
Page 4
did your client assert the objection to this request?
;
It is just not right to assert the objection to
requests 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 which seek no financial or
private information. Why did you do that?
And what about objecting to requests regarding common
area expenses when your client cross—complained for those
expenses? How does this objection, or any of the objections
discussed in this letter, demonstrate you or your client
acted with “substantial justification3”?
RequeSts 4 and 10
Code of Civil Procedure §1985.3 sets forth the
legislatively mandated requirement for a Privacy Act
notice. Your client appears to claim such notice was
required. What authority supports that? The section does
nct apply to the records sought, nor does it apply to a
request under section 2031.010.
Where is the substantial justification for the
objection and refusal to comply, particularly in light of
thb cross—complaint seeking money from my client for common
area‘expenses?
The production of documents is deficient because
documents promised to be produced weren’t.
Your client swore, under penalty of perjury, it would
produce all responsive documents (subject to the
objections) sought by all requests except 4 and 10. So, I
thought I would find responsive documents to all but 4 and
3California Code of Civil Procedure §20323.030(a)
Ronald R Rossi
Madolyn D. Orr
August 11, 2016
Page 5’
10 when I reviewed the disc.
But I was wrong.
Your client said, in response to request 3, it would
produce all leases “with any tenant”. Only four, de la
Rama, Quach, Raval and Panopio, were produced. And they (as
many of the documents) were produced multiple times.
You know your client has more than four tenants. Why
would your client promise to produce_all leases, yet only
produce a fraction of them?
The percentage of the common area for the tenant was
redacted from the leases. This is not financial information
and it is directly relevant. Unredacted versions need to be
produced.
And what is the story with requests 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11?
Again, your client said it would produce documents. Not
one document was produced. Now maybe they are buried
somewhere. Fair enough. Just tell me where. After all, it
is your client’s and your responsibility to produce the
documents “as they are kept in the usual course of
business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with
the categories in the demand.”4
5
It appears there was a conscious decision to create
confusion and disarray———producing multiple copies of the
same document——-and arranging them in such a fashion as to
mate it very difficult to navigate.
I realize electronically stored information, such as
4California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.280(a)
cald R Rossi
Madolyn D. Orr
August 11, 2016
Page 6
emails, may be difficult to organize and produce. But this
production, a production that should have included many
documents that actually are on paper, is not adequate nor
is it consistent with the response.
I trust you intended to comply with the rules. But this
response, and production, are deficient.
Please get me code compliant responses, without
overbroad and inappropriate objections and production of
all properly discoverable documents, by August 24. If you
need more time, or believe a further meet and confer would
yield positive results, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Maybe I am wrong. If you think the responses and
production are code—compliant, please let me know.
Sincerely,
St ven B. Piser
SBPzei
cc: J. L. Fitzgerald
From: Jamie Cattlgso _ .
Sent: Tuesday, {699253-231 S29.l§.9_;49_ AM
To: esperanza06@pacbell.net
Cc: Ronald Rossi; Madolyn Orr;john@jlfitzgeraldlaw.com
Subject: King Plaza Center, LLC / 950-980 King Drive
Attachments: Piser [08-23—2016].pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Categories: RRR work
Mr. Piser:
Please see the attached correspondence from Mr. Rossi dated August 23, 2016. A hard copy will follow via US.
Mail.
K u
on
.
Z
ROSS}: HAMERSLOUGH
REISCHL & CHUCK
:\ Lu: (Jvuwmzuu
ih‘uu’nuul
."1'
Jamie Cardoso, Paralegal
Legal Assistant to Ronald R. Rossi, Esq.
1960 The Alameda, Suite 200, Sanjose, CA 95126
(408) 261-4252 |
Direct Dial: (408) 261-4288 |
Fax: (408) 261-4292 |
Email: 'amie rhrc.net
Visit RHRC’S website i
Get RHRC's latest legal updates on Facebook
'17).» mm
mm ”Inf/'03 mun/fwd in 11/: ”mi/”MW 11 M
011,-fw- 11., [m '1
”q
(1111/ [om-”mm- gm.- "mm/(l Ila/11rd m'mnn m
1» 1111 Momma”; WWI-mm rmdm mm irp/iI-i/zged
711; ”1.3543
I/Iar Ii‘Jdfl‘ q/Ji: wary/lg: 1'." no/ l/Jvi/zhv1/L'd/u‘1pin1/ or 11/1 (13:11! ”mm/114m- dr/iI~L'Ii/Ig i/ In 11/1 intr/Idm' Irlfifiizun you (11 r [Mir/{y Molljllvi (bu/3m lmre main/l 1/11} drum/7111] 1'11 error 1711/] 1110/ mgr rm’m,
mq/ifl'mfidl
i
dough/(111011, dam/11160”, arm J in"
Ill/J ”mm-’1
J'ln’rl/i}
'
I. l) 1111 0'11! r twin-r] I/Jir [DI/llflIVI/ilvfioll
A a. mil/Wm]. mm: .l) m' imm‘ditl/rl'
lime Mali"- lull/11.111101! [Mr/.2 1/11 0/:' iIm/ ”mm/"e.
1'.“
.3 .411
J by
. - o
ROSS] HAMERSLOUGH
REISCHL st CHUCK
A l‘roiessional Law Corporation
August 23, 2016
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Steven B. Piser, Esq.
Law Offices of Steven B. Piset
Oakland City Center
1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050
Oakland, CA 94612
caperanza06@pacbell.net
RE: King Plaza Center, LLC / 950~98O King Drive, Daly City
Our File: R16113
Dear Mr. Piser:
Frankly, I misfiled your meet and confer letter of August ll, 2016 and cannot address
it within the time limit you set forth.
Again, it seems to me that since we are going to mediation, why don’t we just put all
of- these cliscox cry issues on hold pending the mediation? Ihope that is not a pr.oblem I
would request however, that you provide your basic discovery responses which we need to
evaluate the overuse by the bowling alley. I understand those are due on or about
September 12, 2016.
I think it is imperative that we both have our respectivt parking consultants present
at the mediation. We both acknowledge there is a parking pioblem. '1 he question
is, what
causes the problem —
your client, the Manila Market or something else? In the long term,
there has to be a parking soluticm that works for eveiyonc. In my experience, I believe it
takes parking consultants with the expertise to evaluate these issues. Please reconsider your
decision not to have your parking consultant present at the upcoming mediation. We are
spending a lot of money with judge Cahill —— let’s spend it wisely.
RRiizjc
Cc: John I.. litzgerald, Esq. (iolunéfijlfitxeeraldlaw. com)
\(‘i .\\ll
S: Rlfillfiu. ()RRl .Sl’\l’l$l. R
[08--2)- ROM). DO( X
3960 The Alameda. Suite 200, San Jose. CA 95126 ' PMOB) 261-d252 H608) 26l-4292
8 Harris Court. Suite Al. Monterey. CA 93940 °
P(831~)655-3180
www.rhrc.net
.. :.._..,,r
a
«T»-
:1
559' Ian msMi??? .2 Wigner we 243
'“"’-"'3:}.'T-"t;i"‘”'&i‘enter:‘ nilréfinsr:
{J‘JZT-‘Wmfiii’tfs' "
Preview
' ' 1 RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067) MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608) HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK Ecoum'Y S I}? 2 ROSSI, SAN 20: meg 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126-1493 2.1116 Tel: (408) 261-4252 Fax: (408) 261-4292 /V/\~ Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant \1/ KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFO IA OO\]O'\ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO \O DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV538897 10 Partnership, DECLARATION OF JAMIE CARDOSO 11 Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS 12 vs. TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION OF 13 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a California DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FURTHER Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 RESPONSES AND FOR PRODUCTION 14 through 10, OF DOCUMENTS AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT 15 Defendants. 16 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Date: J anuarv 5. 2017 ; 17 Time: 9:00 a.m. . Cross-Complainant, Dept: Law & Motion .' 18 pposition vs. IIl111111111"Hill/III!““ll 19 Action Filed: June 1, 2016 0 Trial Date: TBD in DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General 20 Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10, Declaration 306158 D10 21 Cross-Defendants 22' I, JAMIE CARDOSO, declare and state that if called as a witness I am competent to and 23 could and would testify as follows based upon my personal knowledge: 24 1. I make this Declaration in Support of OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE 25 OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION OF Rossi. Hmncrslough. 26 Rcisclll & Chuck [960 The Alameda DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR PRODUCTION OF Suite 200 San Jose. CA 95126-1“)! 27 (401‘) 26 l—JZSZ DOCUMENTS AND SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT. Fax (408) 26 l4292 28 2. On August 15, 2016, our office received the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. DECLARATION OF JAMIE CARDOSO IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE l 1 3. I normally open the US. Mail addressed to Ronald R. Rossi when it arrives at our 2 office. b) 4. I did so in this instance with regard to the document attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is my usual practice to bring such letters to the attention of Mr. Rossi. 5. However, in this instance I did not realize until August 22, 2016 that instead I had 6 accidentally misfiled it with papers for another case. 7 6. I did not discover this error until on or about the afternoon of August 22, 2016, when I brought it to the attention of my supervising attorney, Mr. Rossi. 9 7. Early the next morning, I assisted him in emailing to opposing counsel the _ 10 emailed letter attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 12 foregoing is true and correct. 13 Executed this 20th day of December, 2016, at San J 05 California. 14 15 By: Q0@ *- JWJE CARDOSO 16 17 ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rnss1.|l.1mcrslougll. 26 Reisclll & Chuck 1960111: Alameda Suilc 200 San Jose. CA 95126-H93 (408) 261-4252 27 Fax (408) 261—4292 28 DECLARATION OF JAMIE CARDOSO IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE 2 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B MSER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AREA CODE 510 OAKLAND CITY CENTER TELEPHONE 835-5582 [300 CLAY STREET, SUITE 1050 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 946 l2 August 11, 2016 Ronald R. Rossi Madolyn Orr , , Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck 1360 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, California 95126 Re: DBP V. King Center The inspection demand Gentlepeople: Your client’s responses to the inspection demand and production of documents are not code-compliant. The deficiencies are in the objections} résfiéfiséé and manner of ~ .~~;=¥J, ~mu~ I .4- w production. A The objections Privilege An objection based on the attorney client or work pfioduct privilege must: i 0 “Identify with particularity any E document falling within the category of g item in the demand to which an objection is ! being made;” and, e “If an objection is based on a claim of 'privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected wort productb the _ responSe shall provide sufficient factual Ronald R Rossi Madolyn D. Orr August 11, 2016 Page 2 'information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”l Objections based on attorney client or work product privilege have been stated in response to requests 1, 2 and 4—13. No documents, or categories of documents, are identified. And the privilege log does not identify any documents being withheld based on a claim of work product ‘ or attorney—client privilege. These objections are without merit and too general.2 Either a further response and complete privilege log should be provided, or the objections withdrawn. “Overbroad and seeks information which will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” This claim, which appears to be.a mantra, is asserted in response to each request. That it appears, in a boilerplate fashion, verily leaves the impression you folks simply cut and paste form objections without conducting either a good faith attempt to respond or reasoned analysis ofgthe request and proper legal objections. Under the law, you have the burden to demonstrate the information sought is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence within the subject matter of the litigation. E Please provide justification for the objections to requests seeking: 1California Code of Civil Procedure §203l.240 2California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.3lO(a)(3) Ronald R Rossi Madolyn D. Orr August 11, 2016 Page 3 0 communications with my client (1 and 2); 0 leases with your client’s tenants, in light of the allegations of the complaint and cross- A complaint (3); 0 common area expenses, when the cross—complaint alleges my client breached an obligation to pay such expenses and where your client’s leases provide for its tenants to pay such expenses (4, 9 and 10); 0 communications with your client’s tenants about parking (are you seriously contending this is not an issue?) (5, 6, 7, 8 and 11; and, 0 documents directly related to the agreement which forms the basis of the complaint and cross—complaint (11 and 12).. The objection has no merit. And I suspect you know so. Please withdraw them, or let me know why my reasoning is flawed. ) Privacy, confidential information, financial information This objection, in one form or another, shows up in response to all requests except 1, 2 and 8. What is disturbing is that the one request which sought leases with tenants, number three, specifically stated “rent due under the lease may be redacted, as may any personal financial information relating to any tenant.” Why Ronald R Rossi Madolyn D. Orr August 11, 2016 Page 4 did your client assert the objection to this request? ; It is just not right to assert the objection to requests 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 which seek no financial or private information. Why did you do that? And what about objecting to requests regarding common area expenses when your client cross—complained for those expenses? How does this objection, or any of the objections discussed in this letter, demonstrate you or your client acted with “substantial justification3”? RequeSts 4 and 10 Code of Civil Procedure §1985.3 sets forth the legislatively mandated requirement for a Privacy Act notice. Your client appears to claim such notice was required. What authority supports that? The section does nct apply to the records sought, nor does it apply to a request under section 2031.010. Where is the substantial justification for the objection and refusal to comply, particularly in light of thb cross—complaint seeking money from my client for common area‘expenses? The production of documents is deficient because documents promised to be produced weren’t. Your client swore, under penalty of perjury, it would produce all responsive documents (subject to the objections) sought by all requests except 4 and 10. So, I thought I would find responsive documents to all but 4 and 3California Code of Civil Procedure §20323.030(a) Ronald R Rossi Madolyn D. Orr August 11, 2016 Page 5’ 10 when I reviewed the disc. But I was wrong. Your client said, in response to request 3, it would produce all leases “with any tenant”. Only four, de la Rama, Quach, Raval and Panopio, were produced. And they (as many of the documents) were produced multiple times. You know your client has more than four tenants. Why would your client promise to produce_all leases, yet only produce a fraction of them? The percentage of the common area for the tenant was redacted from the leases. This is not financial information and it is directly relevant. Unredacted versions need to be produced. And what is the story with requests 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11? Again, your client said it would produce documents. Not one document was produced. Now maybe they are buried somewhere. Fair enough. Just tell me where. After all, it is your client’s and your responsibility to produce the documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.”4 5 It appears there was a conscious decision to create confusion and disarray———producing multiple copies of the same document——-and arranging them in such a fashion as to mate it very difficult to navigate. I realize electronically stored information, such as 4California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.280(a) cald R Rossi Madolyn D. Orr August 11, 2016 Page 6 emails, may be difficult to organize and produce. But this production, a production that should have included many documents that actually are on paper, is not adequate nor is it consistent with the response. I trust you intended to comply with the rules. But this response, and production, are deficient. Please get me code compliant responses, without overbroad and inappropriate objections and production of all properly discoverable documents, by August 24. If you need more time, or believe a further meet and confer would yield positive results, please do not hesitate to contact me. Maybe I am wrong. If you think the responses and production are code—compliant, please let me know. Sincerely, St ven B. Piser SBPzei cc: J. L. Fitzgerald From: Jamie Cattlgso _ . Sent: Tuesday, {699253-231 S29.l§.9_;49_ AM To: esperanza06@pacbell.net Cc: Ronald Rossi; Madolyn Orr;john@jlfitzgeraldlaw.com Subject: King Plaza Center, LLC / 950-980 King Drive Attachments: Piser [08-23—2016].pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Categories: RRR work Mr. Piser: Please see the attached correspondence from Mr. Rossi dated August 23, 2016. A hard copy will follow via US. Mail. K u on . Z ROSS}: HAMERSLOUGH REISCHL & CHUCK :\ Lu: (Jvuwmzuu ih‘uu’nuul ."1' Jamie Cardoso, Paralegal Legal Assistant to Ronald R. Rossi, Esq. 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200, Sanjose, CA 95126 (408) 261-4252 | Direct Dial: (408) 261-4288 | Fax: (408) 261-4292 | Email: 'amie rhrc.net Visit RHRC’S website i Get RHRC's latest legal updates on Facebook '17).» mm mm ”Inf/'03 mun/fwd in 11/: ”mi/”MW 11 M 011,-fw- 11., [m '1 ”q (1111/ [om-”mm- gm.- "mm/(l Ila/11rd m'mnn m 1» 1111 Momma”; WWI-mm rmdm mm irp/iI-i/zged 711; ”1.3543 I/Iar Ii‘Jdfl‘ q/Ji: wary/lg: 1'." no/ l/Jvi/zhv1/L'd/u‘1pin1/ or 11/1 (13:11! ”mm/114m- dr/iI~L'Ii/Ig i/ In 11/1 intr/Idm' Irlfifiizun you (11 r [Mir/{y Molljllvi (bu/3m lmre main/l 1/11} drum/7111] 1'11 error 1711/] 1110/ mgr rm’m, mq/ifl'mfidl i dough/(111011, dam/11160”, arm J in" Ill/J ”mm-’1 J'ln’rl/i} ' I. l) 1111 0'11! r twin-r] I/Jir [DI/llflIVI/ilvfioll A a. mil/Wm]. mm: .l) m' imm‘ditl/rl' lime Mali"- lull/11.111101! [Mr/.2 1/11 0/:' iIm/ ”mm/"e. 1'.“ .3 .411 J by . - o ROSS] HAMERSLOUGH REISCHL st CHUCK A l‘roiessional Law Corporation August 23, 2016 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Steven B. Piser, Esq. Law Offices of Steven B. Piset Oakland City Center 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 Oakland, CA 94612 caperanza06@pacbell.net RE: King Plaza Center, LLC / 950~98O King Drive, Daly City Our File: R16113 Dear Mr. Piser: Frankly, I misfiled your meet and confer letter of August ll, 2016 and cannot address it within the time limit you set forth. Again, it seems to me that since we are going to mediation, why don’t we just put all of- these cliscox cry issues on hold pending the mediation? Ihope that is not a pr.oblem I would request however, that you provide your basic discovery responses which we need to evaluate the overuse by the bowling alley. I understand those are due on or about September 12, 2016. I think it is imperative that we both have our respectivt parking consultants present at the mediation. We both acknowledge there is a parking pioblem. '1 he question is, what causes the problem — your client, the Manila Market or something else? In the long term, there has to be a parking soluticm that works for eveiyonc. In my experience, I believe it takes parking consultants with the expertise to evaluate these issues. Please reconsider your decision not to have your parking consultant present at the upcoming mediation. We are spending a lot of money with judge Cahill —— let’s spend it wisely. RRiizjc Cc: John I.. litzgerald, Esq. (iolunéfijlfitxeeraldlaw. com) \(‘i .\\ll S: Rlfillfiu. ()RRl .Sl’\l’l$l. R [08--2)- ROM). DO( X 3960 The Alameda. Suite 200, San Jose. CA 95126 ' PMOB) 261-d252 H608) 26l-4292 8 Harris Court. Suite Al. Monterey. CA 93940 ° P(831~)655-3180 www.rhrc.net .. :.._..,,r a «T»- :1 559' Ian msMi??? .2 Wigner we 243 '“"’-"'3:}.'T-"t;i"‘”'&i‘enter:‘ nilréfinsr: {J‘JZT-‘Wmfiii’tfs' "