Preview
RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067)
3:3t
1
MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608)
2 ROSSI HAMERSLOUGH REISCHL & CHUCK ,
1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 SAN “mm -
“_ (a
“’0
.
3 San Jose, CA 95126-1493 3‘33 w
1 2017
Tel: (408) 261-4252
4 Fax: (408) 261-4292
Q0
(}\ ‘é\ 5 Attorneys for Defendant 5! c *
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
V 6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
‘
8 -
_
9 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV538897
Partnership, Fax
10 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
Plaintiff, AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F By
1 1 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC’S File
vs. MOTION TO COMPEL
12
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Date: FebruaryI 8. 2017
13 Limited Liability Company, BUA~QUACH, an Time: 9:00 am.
individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, Dept: Law & Motion
14 DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH LAI,
and DOES 1through 10,
15 Action Filed: June I, 2016
Defendants. Trial Date: TBD
16
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware
17 Limited Liability Company,
18 Cross-COmplainant,
19 vs.
20 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General
Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10,
2l
Cross-Defendant.
22
23
24
25
“$2211?" 26
--- -
mfifi“ cwsagam
3:111c ,
EPL
(was, 27 law
FR\‘(W)16H‘.‘91 , 357340
.
28
\llllllllll\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 1
DOCUMENTS & FURTHER RESPONSE To RFPDI; AND FOR SANCI‘IONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS
._a
I. MAKING THIS MOTION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED, AND
SANCTIONS AGAINST KING’S COUNSEL ARE NOT EQUITABLE
we)
. This motion is very simple. Before this motion was filed, and continuing through the
present day, opposing party DBP asserts that it is supposedly not obligated to produce
45-
documents responsive to King’s Request for Production Set One (“RF PD”) at all, or by any
O\UI
particular date. DBP’s stated grounds for this position is, literally, that the RFPD did not include
an hour and minute deadline for document production.'
\]
2
As if that were not unreasonable enough, before this motion was filed, and continuing
00
through the present day, opposing party DBP asserts that the DBP’s counsel’s written promise in
\O
August to respond to discovery by September 26, 2016 M sufficient to extend DBP’s
deadline to respond to discovery by producing documents pursuant to September 26, 2016; but
somehow w sufficient to extend DBP’s deadline to serve a written response to September 26,
2016, because otherwise DBP would have waived all of its objections. DBP takes this position
in order to avoid having to admit that it should have produced all of its responsive documents by
September 26, 2016 at the latest, but did not do so.
I
i
Instead, in DBP’s written response to the RFPDs, and in a cover letter accompanying the
written response, DBP re-asserted its position that the RFPD did not obligate it to produce any
NNNNNNNNNh-Ir—In—tn—t—nr—uu—In—It—It—I
documents by any particular deadline, and stated that any documents it did intend to produce
would only be voluntary, as a supposed show of good will and cooperation —.not as-a-means of
WVQM¢WNHOOWQ¢M3WNflc
compliance with its discovery obligations pursuant to the RFPD or the Discovery Act.
In any event, by September 26, 2016 DBP did not produce all of its responsive
documents except those identified with particularity as withheld. Instead, DBP’s counsel
emailed various batchesof documents to King’s counsel on various dates through the month of
October 2016.2
e'. llamcnluugh.
A
Rein-N“M
l'XllTh: Ahmala
Sun: 2m '
3811*“ CA The objection by which DBP attempted to asserted this ground for avoiding its discovery obligations is discussed
95l26—Nfl
(AIS) 31-14252 at length in the Separate Statement.
Fun (108) 2614292 2
As stated in the moving papers and Separate Statement, some of these materials — especially electronically stored
information in the form of digital photographs — were not produced in the manner required by the Discovery Act.
The DiScovery Act YYY
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DO iii
FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFPD]; AND FOR SANCT IONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS
Before this motion was filed, DBP’s counsel refused to state whether the batches of
documents that it had sent on various dates in October 2016 were, Or were not, the entirety of the
responsive documents in DBP’s possession custody or control. King’s counsel asked three times
for DBP’s counsel to clarify whether — despite DBP’s peculiar position that it was not obligated
to produce documents at all, or by any particular date — whether DBP had nonetheless produced
\OOONQLIIAUJN—
all of its responsive documents except those identified with particularity in its written response.
Each'time DBP’s counsel would not say “yes” or “no.”
.
Filing this motion was a last resort for King. BeCause of the conduct and statements of
DBP and DBP’s counsel, without filing this motion there Was no other way for movant King to
receive confirmation — in a form admissible in court — of whether or not DBP had/had not
produced all of its responsive documents other than those documents identified with
particularity. Propounding discovery and extending deadlines for DBP, did not prompt DBP to
cooperate. Attempting to meet and confer with DBP’s counsel did not prompt DBP (or its
counsel) to cooperate. This motion was necessary, and making it was substantially justified.
Hence, DBP’s request for sanctions under C.C.P. §2023.010(h), , 2023030, 203 l .300(c),
against King’s counsel Rossi Hamerslough Reischl & Chuck for “making” a discovery motion
should 92; be granted.
. As set forth in the moving papers, and in the papers submitted herewith in reply, King’s
mqamemNHoGESEGEfifif-S
counsel attempted to meet and confer .with DBP’s counsel regarding the issues raised 'in this
.
motion on several occasions.
King’s counsel continued efforts to reach an informal compromise even after this motion
i
was filed. King’s counsel offered two types of compromises that would allow this motion to be
taken off calendar (thereby saving everyone time and expense, including the Court), while still
,
fulfilling King’s need for an evidentiarily admissible statement by responding party DBP
NNNNNNNNN
regarding the extent to which DBP has/has not produced its responsive documents. An amended
verified response with a proper statement of compliance (i.e., that responding party DBP would —
San Jane. CA
”Uh-N9)
(W) 3614252 or had;already — produced all responsive documents in its possession custody or control by the
(40!) ltd-4292
Fax
earlierideadline, except any identified with specificity in DBP’s September 26, 2016 response)
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DO iv
FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFPDI; AND FOR SANCT IONS AGAINST DBP [NVESTMENTS
1 would accomplish this. A declaration under oath would also accomplish this. (See, Decl. Orr
2 ISO Reply 11113-15, and exhibits.)
'
3 But, DBP refused these reasonable compromises. Instead, DBP upped the ante: DBP’s
4 opposition papers now seek sanctions against King’s counsel (although against exactly whom is
5 unclear) for supposedly not meeting and conferring enough, while —- interestingly — neglecting to
6 provide to the Court any of the correspondence from King’s counsel attempting to meet and
7 confer with DBP’s counsel on this very subject during the month of January 2017, after this
8 motion was filed. The further meet and confer correspondence from King’s counsel is provided
9 for the Court now (see, Decl. Orr ISO Reply), to provide a complete picture of meet and confer
10 efforts, rather than the selective, skewed perspective DBP provided in its opposition papers.
11 -
King’s counsel made reasonable efforts to meet and confer with DBP’s counsel
12 regarding the matters at issue in this motion. Accordingly, DBP’s request for sanctions
13 underlC.C.P. §2023.020 against King’s counsel Rossi Hamerslough Reischl & Chuck should “—01
14 be granted.
'
15
H. ISSUING SANCTIONS AGAINST KING’S COUNSEL IN THIS
15 CONTEXT WOULD NOT SATISFY DUE PROCESS
17 DBP’S opposition papers include a — as served on their filing deadline — request for
18 sanctions against King’s counsel Ms. Orr. DBP’S late-filed papers seek sanctions against the
19 firm representing King’s counsel, Rossi Hamerslough Reischl & Chuck. What DBP’s
20 oppOsition papers do @ include is an explanation of how or why DBP is entitled to sanctions
21 against opposing counsel without a noticed motion and its attendant protections. DBP’s late
22 request for sanctions would appear to violate procedural due process.
I
23 III. KING IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DBP’S DITIGAL PHOTOS IN
.
THEIR ORIGINAL FILE FORMAT
24 .
As set forth in the moving papers, and in the meet and confer correspondence exchanged
25
prior to the filing of this motion, there is good cause for the production of DBP’s digital photos.
Egg. 26
As responding party, DBP was required to produce these digital photos in the form stated in the
(figggg 27
’“““"’""’°’
discovery request as propounded — their digital form, with the electronic data showing the date
28
551;! MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT or MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION or no v
FURTHER RESPONSE To nrpm; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST nap INVESTMENTS
the photo was taken, etc. intact. (QCPL. § 2031.28‘0‘(d)(l); DB1? has not shown any valid reason
to for'refnsingto do 80. (Accordingly, DB‘P ’shouldb'e: ordered tofproduce, its responsive digital
DJ
photos in the manner specified-in the demand,
IV. TO DATE, KING STILL H AS N0 WRITTEN, ADMISSIBLE
ASSURANCE FROM DBP THAT DBI’ HAS PRODUCED ALL OF ITS
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS (EXCEPT ANY THAT VS' ERE
IDENTIFIED WITH SPECIFICI’I‘)I IN DBP’S 9126/16 RESPONSE)
Despite all of DBP’sL statementstin opposition, istill neither DBP (nor even DBP’s
counsel) has ever made a statement under Oath (Via verificmion; declaration:~ o‘r Otherwise)
confirming that DBP has produced all ofits responsive documents except those identified; with
particularity in its September 26, 201 6. response. (See, Dec]. Orr ISO Reply 'g‘fl lu-l 5;)
V, CONCLUSION
Forthe reasons: set forth in the" moving paper's,~ including theSeparate Statetiient; andlin
the,Reply papers submitted simultaneously herewith, King‘respe'ctl'ully' requests that DBP be
compelled to serve-a verified amended response, withoutrthe objection identified in the Separate
Statement, and to produce all responsive documents (exceptith’ose‘identified with particularity as
Withheld in its September '26, 2016 response), including digital photos in their originalelectronic
format, ,wnnau associated metadata.
/ / 11
Dated 4mm ROSSI. HAMERSLOUGI-I. REIS‘CHL & CHUCK
BY:
RoNALD R RossI Us
MADOLYN D QRR
Attorneys for DbI‘I'VDANT/CROSS
COMPLAIN‘AN 1‘
(\J 4:.
KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC
I Imadthgh,
Rpm.
’
'vl Chm).
REPL I’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CIOMI’EL’I‘I’RODUCTION OF DO \rj
FURTHER RESPONSE TO'RFI‘DI; ANDLFOR sANcr‘mNs AGAINST blip INVESTMENTS
PROOF OF SERVICE
[\J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA:
:1 citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the
b.)
I am
age 01 eighteen years and not a party to the \tithin action; my business address IS 1960 The
Alameda Suite 200 San Jose CA 95126— 1493 On the date set forth below Iscrx ed the
documents described below:
REPLY MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL
on the following person(s) 111 this action by placing a true copy thereot enclosed 1n a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
Steven B. Piser, Esq.
LAW OFFICES. OF STEVEN B. PISER
A Professional Corporation
1300Cl'ay Street, Suite 1050
Oakland, CA 94612
510-835-5582,
510832-1717 Fax
John L. F itzgerald,Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD
101 California StreeL Suite 2300
San Francisco,; CA 9411 1
415-689-1209
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DBP INVESTMENTS, A C alifomia General
Partnership
(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I enclosed said document(s) 111 an envelope or package .
provided by FedE\ and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed on this Proof of Service.
I placed the envelope or package for collection and ox emight delivery at an olfice or a
regularly utilized drop box 01 FedEx or deli\ ered such document(s) to a courier or driver
authorized by FedEx to receive documents.
El (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing rs true and correct.
Executed on February 1, 2017 at San Jose,.California
00011 011mm
CINDY L®UN
A: '
i
S:\€L\R\R16113WLDGS\MTC RE FURTHER WRITI' EN RESPONSES & COMPEL PRODUCTION O D/OCS K FOR ._
SANCTIONS‘rRlE Pl Y \Rl: I’L\
MI’A'S. DOC\
Preview
RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067) 3:3t 1 MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608) 2 ROSSI HAMERSLOUGH REISCHL & CHUCK , 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 SAN “mm - “_ (a “’0 . 3 San Jose, CA 95126-1493 3‘33 w 1 2017 Tel: (408) 261-4252 4 Fax: (408) 261-4292 Q0 (}\ ‘é\ 5 Attorneys for Defendant 5! c * KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC V 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ‘ 8 - _ 9 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV538897 Partnership, Fax 10 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS Plaintiff, AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F By 1 1 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC’S File vs. MOTION TO COMPEL 12 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Date: FebruaryI 8. 2017 13 Limited Liability Company, BUA~QUACH, an Time: 9:00 am. individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, Dept: Law & Motion 14 DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH LAI, and DOES 1through 10, 15 Action Filed: June I, 2016 Defendants. Trial Date: TBD 16 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware 17 Limited Liability Company, 18 Cross-COmplainant, 19 vs. 20 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10, 2l Cross-Defendant. 22 23 24 25 “$2211?" 26 --- - mfifi“ cwsagam 3:111c , EPL (was, 27 law FR\‘(W)16H‘.‘91 , 357340 . 28 \llllllllll\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 1 DOCUMENTS & FURTHER RESPONSE To RFPDI; AND FOR SANCI‘IONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS ._a I. MAKING THIS MOTION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED, AND SANCTIONS AGAINST KING’S COUNSEL ARE NOT EQUITABLE we) . This motion is very simple. Before this motion was filed, and continuing through the present day, opposing party DBP asserts that it is supposedly not obligated to produce 45- documents responsive to King’s Request for Production Set One (“RF PD”) at all, or by any O\UI particular date. DBP’s stated grounds for this position is, literally, that the RFPD did not include an hour and minute deadline for document production.' \] 2 As if that were not unreasonable enough, before this motion was filed, and continuing 00 through the present day, opposing party DBP asserts that the DBP’s counsel’s written promise in \O August to respond to discovery by September 26, 2016 M sufficient to extend DBP’s deadline to respond to discovery by producing documents pursuant to September 26, 2016; but somehow w sufficient to extend DBP’s deadline to serve a written response to September 26, 2016, because otherwise DBP would have waived all of its objections. DBP takes this position in order to avoid having to admit that it should have produced all of its responsive documents by September 26, 2016 at the latest, but did not do so. I i Instead, in DBP’s written response to the RFPDs, and in a cover letter accompanying the written response, DBP re-asserted its position that the RFPD did not obligate it to produce any NNNNNNNNNh-Ir—In—tn—t—nr—uu—In—It—It—I documents by any particular deadline, and stated that any documents it did intend to produce would only be voluntary, as a supposed show of good will and cooperation —.not as-a-means of WVQM¢WNHOOWQ¢M3WNflc compliance with its discovery obligations pursuant to the RFPD or the Discovery Act. In any event, by September 26, 2016 DBP did not produce all of its responsive documents except those identified with particularity as withheld. Instead, DBP’s counsel emailed various batchesof documents to King’s counsel on various dates through the month of October 2016.2 e'. llamcnluugh. A Rein-N“M l'XllTh: Ahmala Sun: 2m ' 3811*“ CA The objection by which DBP attempted to asserted this ground for avoiding its discovery obligations is discussed 95l26—Nfl (AIS) 31-14252 at length in the Separate Statement. Fun (108) 2614292 2 As stated in the moving papers and Separate Statement, some of these materials — especially electronically stored information in the form of digital photographs — were not produced in the manner required by the Discovery Act. The DiScovery Act YYY REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DO iii FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFPD]; AND FOR SANCT IONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS Before this motion was filed, DBP’s counsel refused to state whether the batches of documents that it had sent on various dates in October 2016 were, Or were not, the entirety of the responsive documents in DBP’s possession custody or control. King’s counsel asked three times for DBP’s counsel to clarify whether — despite DBP’s peculiar position that it was not obligated to produce documents at all, or by any particular date — whether DBP had nonetheless produced \OOONQLIIAUJN— all of its responsive documents except those identified with particularity in its written response. Each'time DBP’s counsel would not say “yes” or “no.” . Filing this motion was a last resort for King. BeCause of the conduct and statements of DBP and DBP’s counsel, without filing this motion there Was no other way for movant King to receive confirmation — in a form admissible in court — of whether or not DBP had/had not produced all of its responsive documents other than those documents identified with particularity. Propounding discovery and extending deadlines for DBP, did not prompt DBP to cooperate. Attempting to meet and confer with DBP’s counsel did not prompt DBP (or its counsel) to cooperate. This motion was necessary, and making it was substantially justified. Hence, DBP’s request for sanctions under C.C.P. §2023.010(h), , 2023030, 203 l .300(c), against King’s counsel Rossi Hamerslough Reischl & Chuck for “making” a discovery motion should 92; be granted. . As set forth in the moving papers, and in the papers submitted herewith in reply, King’s mqamemNHoGESEGEfifif-S counsel attempted to meet and confer .with DBP’s counsel regarding the issues raised 'in this . motion on several occasions. King’s counsel continued efforts to reach an informal compromise even after this motion i was filed. King’s counsel offered two types of compromises that would allow this motion to be taken off calendar (thereby saving everyone time and expense, including the Court), while still , fulfilling King’s need for an evidentiarily admissible statement by responding party DBP NNNNNNNNN regarding the extent to which DBP has/has not produced its responsive documents. An amended verified response with a proper statement of compliance (i.e., that responding party DBP would — San Jane. CA ”Uh-N9) (W) 3614252 or had;already — produced all responsive documents in its possession custody or control by the (40!) ltd-4292 Fax earlierideadline, except any identified with specificity in DBP’s September 26, 2016 response) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DO iv FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFPDI; AND FOR SANCT IONS AGAINST DBP [NVESTMENTS 1 would accomplish this. A declaration under oath would also accomplish this. (See, Decl. Orr 2 ISO Reply 11113-15, and exhibits.) ' 3 But, DBP refused these reasonable compromises. Instead, DBP upped the ante: DBP’s 4 opposition papers now seek sanctions against King’s counsel (although against exactly whom is 5 unclear) for supposedly not meeting and conferring enough, while —- interestingly — neglecting to 6 provide to the Court any of the correspondence from King’s counsel attempting to meet and 7 confer with DBP’s counsel on this very subject during the month of January 2017, after this 8 motion was filed. The further meet and confer correspondence from King’s counsel is provided 9 for the Court now (see, Decl. Orr ISO Reply), to provide a complete picture of meet and confer 10 efforts, rather than the selective, skewed perspective DBP provided in its opposition papers. 11 - King’s counsel made reasonable efforts to meet and confer with DBP’s counsel 12 regarding the matters at issue in this motion. Accordingly, DBP’s request for sanctions 13 underlC.C.P. §2023.020 against King’s counsel Rossi Hamerslough Reischl & Chuck should “—01 14 be granted. ' 15 H. ISSUING SANCTIONS AGAINST KING’S COUNSEL IN THIS 15 CONTEXT WOULD NOT SATISFY DUE PROCESS 17 DBP’S opposition papers include a — as served on their filing deadline — request for 18 sanctions against King’s counsel Ms. Orr. DBP’S late-filed papers seek sanctions against the 19 firm representing King’s counsel, Rossi Hamerslough Reischl & Chuck. What DBP’s 20 oppOsition papers do @ include is an explanation of how or why DBP is entitled to sanctions 21 against opposing counsel without a noticed motion and its attendant protections. DBP’s late 22 request for sanctions would appear to violate procedural due process. I 23 III. KING IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DBP’S DITIGAL PHOTOS IN . THEIR ORIGINAL FILE FORMAT 24 . As set forth in the moving papers, and in the meet and confer correspondence exchanged 25 prior to the filing of this motion, there is good cause for the production of DBP’s digital photos. Egg. 26 As responding party, DBP was required to produce these digital photos in the form stated in the (figggg 27 ’“““"’""’°’ discovery request as propounded — their digital form, with the electronic data showing the date 28 551;! MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT or MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION or no v FURTHER RESPONSE To nrpm; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST nap INVESTMENTS the photo was taken, etc. intact. (QCPL. § 2031.28‘0‘(d)(l); DB1? has not shown any valid reason to for'refnsingto do 80. (Accordingly, DB‘P ’shouldb'e: ordered tofproduce, its responsive digital DJ photos in the manner specified-in the demand, IV. TO DATE, KING STILL H AS N0 WRITTEN, ADMISSIBLE ASSURANCE FROM DBP THAT DBI’ HAS PRODUCED ALL OF ITS RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS (EXCEPT ANY THAT VS' ERE IDENTIFIED WITH SPECIFICI’I‘)I IN DBP’S 9126/16 RESPONSE) Despite all of DBP’sL statementstin opposition, istill neither DBP (nor even DBP’s counsel) has ever made a statement under Oath (Via verificmion; declaration:~ o‘r Otherwise) confirming that DBP has produced all ofits responsive documents except those identified; with particularity in its September 26, 201 6. response. (See, Dec]. Orr ISO Reply 'g‘fl lu-l 5;) V, CONCLUSION Forthe reasons: set forth in the" moving paper's,~ including theSeparate Statetiient; andlin the,Reply papers submitted simultaneously herewith, King‘respe'ctl'ully' requests that DBP be compelled to serve-a verified amended response, withoutrthe objection identified in the Separate Statement, and to produce all responsive documents (exceptith’ose‘identified with particularity as Withheld in its September '26, 2016 response), including digital photos in their originalelectronic format, ,wnnau associated metadata. / / 11 Dated 4mm ROSSI. HAMERSLOUGI-I. REIS‘CHL & CHUCK BY: RoNALD R RossI Us MADOLYN D QRR Attorneys for DbI‘I'VDANT/CROSS COMPLAIN‘AN 1‘ (\J 4:. KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC I Imadthgh, Rpm. ’ 'vl Chm). REPL I’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CIOMI’EL’I‘I’RODUCTION OF DO \rj FURTHER RESPONSE TO'RFI‘DI; ANDLFOR sANcr‘mNs AGAINST blip INVESTMENTS PROOF OF SERVICE [\J STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: :1 citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the b.) I am age 01 eighteen years and not a party to the \tithin action; my business address IS 1960 The Alameda Suite 200 San Jose CA 95126— 1493 On the date set forth below Iscrx ed the documents described below: REPLY MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL on the following person(s) 111 this action by placing a true copy thereot enclosed 1n a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Steven B. Piser, Esq. LAW OFFICES. OF STEVEN B. PISER A Professional Corporation 1300Cl'ay Street, Suite 1050 Oakland, CA 94612 510-835-5582, 510832-1717 Fax John L. F itzgerald,Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD 101 California StreeL Suite 2300 San Francisco,; CA 9411 1 415-689-1209 Attorneys for Plaintiff DBP INVESTMENTS, A C alifomia General Partnership (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I enclosed said document(s) 111 an envelope or package . provided by FedE\ and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed on this Proof of Service. I placed the envelope or package for collection and ox emight delivery at an olfice or a regularly utilized drop box 01 FedEx or deli\ ered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by FedEx to receive documents. El (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing rs true and correct. Executed on February 1, 2017 at San Jose,.California 00011 011mm CINDY L®UN A: ' i S:\€L\R\R16113WLDGS\MTC RE FURTHER WRITI' EN RESPONSES & COMPEL PRODUCTION O D/OCS K FOR ._ SANCTIONS‘rRlE Pl Y \Rl: I’L\ MI’A'S. DOC\