Preview
GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790
WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351
JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811 FILED
MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C. SAN MATEO COUNTY
4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110
Westlake Village, CA 91361 13 2020
Telephone No.: (818) 865-0444
Supes
Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and
SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. DEPUTY CLERK
orem COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
48—ClV—01901
wo § ORD
Order COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
| ide
2287
Boo
Ws
Ga 231 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY Case No.: 18CIV01901
ws § 12 TRUJILLO, Honorable Robert D. Foiles; Dept. 21
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER
Plaintiffs, GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN
13 MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING
VS. CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO
14 WITHDRAW AND AMEND A
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
15
STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING RESPONSE
16
CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, (CRC 3.1312)
Defendants. Date: February 26, 2020
17
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: Law and Motion
18
Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
19
Trial Date: March 30, 2020
20
Defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC., pursuant to
21
California Rule of Court 3.1312, hereby submit a proposed Order Granting Defendants Stephen
22
Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw and Amend a Request for Admission
23
Response. Plaintiffs disapprove of defendants’ proposed order. Defendants’ proposed order and
24
transmittal letter emailed on February 28, 2020 is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of an email from
25
plaintiffs’ counsel dated March 4, 2020, stating the reasons for disapproval, is attached as Exhibit
26
B, along with plaintiffs’ proposed order. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter of March 5, 2020 from
27
defendants’ counsel stating the reasons for disapproval of plaintiffs’ proposed order and enclosing
28 -1-
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO
FLYING CLUB INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
(CRC 3.1312)
RECEIVED
MAR 0 9 2020
1 the revised order submitted herein.
DATED: March 6, 2020 MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON
By: 1 bua MMAMLA.
GARR L. MONTANARI
Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN MAGEE
and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.
10
a1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 N:I7517\pld\p-submission.prop.order.3.6.2020.wpd
28 2-
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO
FLYING CLUB INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE,
(CRC 3.1312)
GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790
WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351
JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811
MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C.
4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone No.: (818) 865-0444
Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and
SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
a1
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY ) Case No.: 18CIV01901
TRUJILLO, norable Robert D. Foiles; Dept. 21
12
n} Sproresh 'D] ORDER GRANTING
13
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE
) AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB,
14
VS. ) INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
) AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION RESPONSE
15
STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING )
16
CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, Date: February 26, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants. Dept.: Law and Motion
17
Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
18
Trial Date: March 30, 2020
19
20 The motion of defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. to
21 withdraw and amend a request for admission response came for hearing on February 26, 2020 in the
22 Law and Motion Department of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo, before Honorable Nancy
23 L. Fineman. Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and Garry L.
24 Montanari from Michaelis Montanari & Johnson appeared on behalf of the defendants.
of counsel, the Ce ‘anted the
25 Having reviewed the submits Papersae
A
E uments
al
{ve WAS No So ted
26 motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response? Therefore:
27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to withdraw and amend a response to
28 plaintiffs’ Request for Admission is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve by email an amended
-1-
[PREPESED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission Even though plaintiffs did not propound a
corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, defendant STEPHEN MAGEE agrees to produce a
response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as respects the amended response to Request for Admission
No. 3. The amended Request for Admission response and response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1
will be served by email and overnight mail by March 6, 2020. Defendants will provide a
supplemental experts disclosure, if any, served by email and overnight mail by March 9, 2020
Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure, if any, by email and overnight mail
by March 12, 2020. The reasonable costs associated with withdrawing the response and filing an
amended response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission shall be borne by defendants as to the
10 following costs
11 1 The expert’s costs of making available for deposition any defense expert with a new
12 opinion based upon the amended response;
13 2 The cost of plaintiffs’ expert to be deposed in offering rebuttal opinions as to any new
14 opinion from a defense expert based upon the amended response:
15 3 The expedited court reporter charges for depositions, if any, in Items 1 and 2 above:
16 and
17 4. The reasonable attorney fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a
18 supplemental expert disclosure, if any, and in preparing for and participating in the expert
19 depositions set forth in Items 1 and 2 above.
The cou regor Lor) ret/p Loc
20
21 Dated: =/ 1/ [2024 ——>
‘able Nancy L. hans
22 Court, County of San Mateo
23
24 N:\17517\pld\p-mtn.wd.rfa.resp.order.wpd LE
25
tle atties AGU ond He Cours
26
Teasenin c ris tyHS sre
SE ts
27 AN i wl-e Over Tle:
nok. be
ants
an Whie Can be peso with
s )
be
L Ice ASG
28 ee] - wd “Con te te
On NWN Dy
IS
+ Sole A 1a Z0ecN co Roze, Fr
Lise mot
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO fies INC.’S
M
[OTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
e e
0 oo re
ww LAW OFFICES OF \
JAMES |, MICHAELIS MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON JAMES P. JOHNSON
GARRY L. MONTANARI APROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION (1938 - 2014)
WESLEY S. WENIG
JOHN H. MOON 4333 PARK TERRACE DRIVE, SUITE 110.
C. DUFFY BUCHANAN
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91364
(LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA) Of Counsel
sender's e-mail: TELEPHONE (818) 865-0444
gmontanari@mmilaw.net TELEFAX (818) 865-8444
WWW.MMJLAW.NET
February 28, 2020
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Shawn Miller, Esq.
Danko Meredith
333 Twin Dolphin Dr. #145
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re: Trujillo, et al. v. Stephen Magee, et al.
Case No.: 18CTV01901
Date of Loss: November 18, 2016
Our Ref.: 4809-17517
Dear Mr. Miller:
Enclosed please find the following documents:
1 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants Stephen Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club,
Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw and Amend a Request for Admission Response; and
2 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants Stephen Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club,
Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer.
Please advise if these are acceptable to plaintiffs.
z
Very truly yours,
hemos
a
LIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON
G erry Montanari
GLM:bh
Encls.
NAI751 \t\l-pltts.atty.26.wpd
~ 4
GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790
WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351
JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811
MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C.
4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone No (818) 865-0444
Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and
SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY Case No.: 18CIV01901
12
TRUJILLO Honorable Robert D. Foiles; Dept. 21
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
13
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE
AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB,
14
VS. INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR
15 ADMISSION RESPONSE
STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING
16 CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, Date: February 26, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
17
Defendants Dept. Law and Motion
18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
Trial Date: March 30, 2020
19
20 The motion of defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. to
21 withdraw and amend a request for admission response came for hearing on February 26, 2020 in the
22 Law and Motion Department of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo, before Honorable Nancy
23 L, Fineman. Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and Garry L,
24 Montanari from Michaelis Montanari & Johnson appeared on behalf of the defendants
25 Having reviewed the submitted papers and arguments of counsel, the Court granted the
26 motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response. Therefore:
27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to withdraw and amend a response to
28 plaintiffs’ Request for Admission is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve by email an amended
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
’
response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission and corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1
by
March 3, 2020. Defendants shall provide a supplemental expert disclosure served by email
by March
5, 2020. Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure by email by March
10,
2020. The reasonable costs associated with withdrawing the response and filing an
amended
response
to plaintiffs’Request for Admission shall be borne by defendants as to the following costs:
1 The costs of making available for deposition any defense expert with a new opinion
based upon the amended response;
2 The cost of plaintiffs’ expert to be deposed in offering rebuttal opinions as to any new
opinion from a defense expert based upon the amended response; and.
10 3 The reasonable attorney fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing
a
11 supplemental expert disclosure and in preparing for and participating in the expert
depositions set
12 forth in Items 1 and 2 above.
13
14 Dated:
Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
15 Superior Court, County of San Mateo
16
17 N‘17517\pld\p-mtn.wd.rfa.resp.order.wpd
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB,
INC.’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
8 8
ww ~ 4
Qos
Fusi Hokafonu
From: Shawn Miller .
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 3:02 PM
To: ‘Garry L. Montanari’
Subject: Trujillo v. Magee: proposed order re withdrawal of RFA responses
Attachments: Motion to Withdraw and Amended RFA - Proposed Order based on court's
tentative.pdf
Importance: High
Mr. Montanari—
Attached is plaintiffs’ proposed order regarding defendants’ motion to withdraw a responses to RFA. Plaintiffs believe
the reasoning of the court in granting defendants’ motion should be included in the order as well as greater clarity in the
costs to be borne by defendants. Service copy to follow in overnight delivery.
Best regards,
Shawn R. Miller
Attorney
DANKO 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ste. 145
MEREDITH Redwood Shores, CA 94065
TRIAL LAWYERS: Phone: 650.453.3600 | www.dankolaw.com
et
MICHAEL S. DANKO, ESQ. SBN 111359
mdankot dankolaw.com
SHAWN R. MILLER, ESQ. SBN 238447
smiller@dankolaw.com
Au, 0
DANKO MEREDITH
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 453-3600
Facsimile: (650) 394-8672
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
10
ll BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO, Case No. 18CIV01901
12 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW
13 Vv. AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION RESPONSE.
14 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING
CLUB, INC., AND DOES 1 - 50,
15 Date: February 26, 2020
Defendants Time: 9:00 a.m.
16 Dept.: Law and Motion
17 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
Trial Date: February 10, 2020
18
19
20 WHEREAS the court having considered Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw and Amend a
21 Request for Admission Response on February 26, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion
22 Department of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, located at 400 County Center,
23 Redwood City before the Honorable Nancy Fineman.
24
25 WHEREAS, Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and
26 Gary Montanari appeared on behalf of defendants.
27
28 WHEREAS, the court having reviewed the submitted papers, the arguments of counsel, and
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE.
.
\~
the record of this matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendants Motion to Complete Discovery is
granted.
A party will be permitted to withdraw or amend an admission only if the court finds the
admission resulted from “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” CCP § 2033.300(b); see New
Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Shanahan) (2008) 168 CA4th 1403, 1418. While newly discovered
evidence can meet this standard, Defendants have not shown that their admission resulted from
10 “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” The evidence shows that Defendants were on notice
11 of the existence of the French drain since March 2017. Miller decl., Ex. F, H. In fact, it was
12 defense counsel who brought up the issue of the French drain at the expert’s deposition. See Miller
13 Decl.,Ex. E at 38:18-22, 40:21-23.
14
15 Defendants, on their papers, failed to adequately explained why they could not have
16 investigated the existence of a permit for the French drain at any point since the 2017 date of the
17 expert’s report. Moreover, this “newly discovered fact” does not appear to contradict Defendants’
18 response to Request for Admission No. 3. To prove negligence based on a violation of law, the
19 violation must be a “substantial factor” in bringing about the harm. CACI No. 418. Defendants have
20 not established that a permit was required for the drain. Also, Defendants fail to show that the lack
21 of a permit on its own could have brought about the harm alleged by Plaintiffs, and Defendants do
22 not allege any other newly discovered facts that would contradict their admission.
23
24 At the hearing on this matter, Defendants indicated they first noticed the French drain
25 referenced in Plaintiffs’ expert’s report the day or two before the expert was deposed. Based on this
26 representation by Defendant, the court finds Defendants first becoming aware of the French drain in
27 October 2019 days before Plaintiffs’ expert’s deposition to be a “new fact” supporting Defendants’
28
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE.
~ ~ /
Motion to Withdrawal a Request for Admission Response filed on December 20, 2019, and
thereupon makes the following additional orders:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall serve by email an amended response to
plaintiffs’ Request for Admission and corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 by March 5, 2020.
Defendants shall provide a supplemental expert disclosure served by email by March 6, 2020.
Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure by email by March 11, 2020.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall bear all reasonable costs
10 associated with withdrawing the request for admission response and supplemental expert disclosure
11 including:
12 1 The costs associated with deposing any defense expert with a new opinion based upon
13 the amended responses or any defense expert with a previously disclosed opinion who will now rely
14 upon the amended responses as an additional basis for those opinion(s) including the expert hourly
15 costs, the expedited court reporter charges, and all other costs involved in deposing defendants’
16 experts;
17 2. The costs of plaintiffs’ experts’ additional work necessitated by the amended responses
18 as well as the costs involved in any further deposition of those experts necessitated by their intention
19 to offer rebuttal opinions regarding any new opinions or bases for existing opinions resulting from
20 the amended responses; and
21 3 The reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a
22 supplemental expert disclosure, in preparing for, traveling to, and participating in the expert
23 depositions set forth above.
24
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
DATED: February__, 2020
27
Hon. Nancy Fineman
28 Judge of the Superior Court
3-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE.
a~
1 MICHAEL S. DANKO, ESQ. SBN 111359
mdanko@dankolaw.com
SHAWN R. MILLER, ESQ. SBN 238447
smiller@dankolaw.com
DANKO MEREDITH
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 453-3600
Facsimile: (650) 394-8672
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO, Case No. 18CIV01901
12 Plaintiffs, PROOF OF SERVICE.
13 Vv.
14 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING
CLUB, INC., AND DOES 1 - 50, Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
15 Trial Date: February 10, 2020
Defendants
16
17
I, the undersigned, declare:
18
Iam employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen
19
and not a party to this action. My business address is 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145, Redwood
Shores, California 94065.
21
On March 4, 2020, I served the foregoing document:
22
EMAIL DATED MARCH 4, 2020 TO GARRY MONTANARI
23
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND
2 AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
25 on the parties to this action, addressed as follows, in the manner described below:
26 (1 BYU.S. MAIL ~I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed
to the persons at the address(es) below and (specify one):
27
LJ deposited the sealed envelope with the U.S. Postal Service, with postage fully
28 prepaid.
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
O placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary busines
s
practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is
placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
prepaid.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or
package provided by an overni ight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(
s) at the
address(es) below. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnig
ht
delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery
carrier.
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY — I placed the above-listed document(s) in a sealed
envelope and personally delivered to the address(es) set forth below.
BY MESSENGER DELIVERY — I served the documents by placing them in an
envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed below
and
10 providing them to a professional messenger service for service.
11 BY FAX TRANSMISSION ~ Based on an agreement of the parties
to accept service
by fax transmission, I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at the fax number(s)
12 listed
below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record
of
the fax transmission, which was printed out, is attached.
13
Oo BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE — Based on a court order or an agreement of the
parties
14 to accept electronic service, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the persons at
the
electronic service address(es) listed below.
15
16 Addressed to:
17 Garry L. Montanari Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN MAGEE
John Moon and SAC AERO CLUB FLYING, INC.
18 Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson, P.C.
19 4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110
Westlake Village, CA 91361
20 Tel: (818) 865-0444
Fax: (818) 865-8444
21 Email: gmontanari@mmjlaw.net
Email: jmoon@mmjlaw.net
22
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
23
March » 2020, at Redwood City, California.
24
25
26 Fusi Hokafonu
27
28
2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
~ LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES I. MICHAELIS MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON JAMES P. JOHNSON
GARRY L. MONTANARI APROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION (1938 - 2014)
WESLEY S. WENIG
JOHN H. MOON 4333 PARK TERRACE DRIVE, SUITE 110
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91361 C. DUFFY BUCHANAN
(LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA) Of Counsel
sender's e-mail: TELEPHONE (818) 865-0444
gmontanari@mmijlaw.net TELEFAX (818) 865-8444
\WWW.MMJLAW.NET
March 5, 2020
VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS ONLY
Shawn Miller, Esq.
Danko Meredith
333 Twin Dolphin Dr. #145
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re: Trujillo, et al. v. Stephen Magee, et al.
Case No.: 18CIV01901
Date of Loss: November 18, 2016
Our Ref.: 4809-17517
Dear Mr. Miller:
We are in receipt of plaintiffs’ proposed order regarding defendants’ motion, to withdraw a
response to request for admission. We cannot agree with your proposed order. First, it includes the
entire tentative opinion which was to deny the motion. As you know, the Court eventually reversed
its tentative to grant the motion. Second, we have now confirmed that plaintiffs did not propound
any Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 in conjunction with Request for Admissions (Set No. One) to
defendant Stephen Magee. Notwithstanding and without waiving our objection to do so, we are
willing to provide a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to Request No. 3 only.
Third, some of the dates in our original proposed order have now passed we need to revise those
dates. In addition, the depositions, if any, of expert witnesses will be taken in your office so there
would be no travel expenses for plaintiffs’ counsel,
Enclosed is our revised proposed order granting defendants’ motion to withdraw and amend
a request for admission response. Let me know if our revised proposed order is acceptable or if ‘you
wish your order and letter to be submitted as plaintiffs’ response to our order.
Very truly yours,
MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON
Garry ontanari
GLM:bh
Encl.
NAITS17Mtel-plefs.atty.30.wpd
~
GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790
WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351
JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811
MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C
4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110
Westlake Village, CA 91361 -
Telephone No.: (818) 865-0444
Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and
SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY Case No.: 18CIV01901
12
TRUJILLO, Honorable Robert D. Foiles; Dept, 21
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
13
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE
AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB,
14
VS. INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR
15 ADMISSION RESPONSE
STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING
16
CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, Date: February 26, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
17
Defendants. Dept.: Law and Motion
18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
Trial Date: March 30; 2020
19
20 The motion of defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. to
21 withdraw and amend a request for admission response came for hearing on February 26, 2020 in the
22 Law and Motion Department of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo, before Honorable Nancy
23 L. Fineman. Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and Garry L.
24 Montanari from Michaelis Montanari & Johnson appeared on behalf of the defendants.
25 Having reviewed the submitted papers and arguments of counsel, the Court granted the
26 motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response. Therefore:
27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to withdraw and amend a response to
28 plaintiffs’ Request for Admission is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve by email an amended
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
Se ~
response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission. Even though plaintiffs did not propound a
corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, defendant STEPHEN MAGEE agrees to produce a
response
to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as respects the amended response
to Request for Admission
No. 3. The amended Request for Admission response and response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1
will be served by email and overnight mail by March 6, 2020. Defendants will provide a
supplemental experts disclosure, if any, served by email and overnight mail by March 9, 2020.
Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure, ifany, by email and overnight mail
by March 12, 2020. The reasonable costs associated with withdrawing the response and filing an
amended response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission shall be borne by defendants as to the
10 following costs:
a1 1 The expert’s costs of.making available for deposition any defense expert with anew
12 opinion based upon the amended response;
13 2. The cost of plaintiffs’ expert to be deposed in offering rebuttal opinions as to any new
14 opinion from a defense expert based upon the amended response;
15 3 The expedited court reporter charges for depositions, if any, in Items 1 and 2 above;
16 and
17 4, The reasonable attorney fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a
18 supplemental expert disclosure, if any, and in preparing for and participating in the expert
19 depositions set forth in Items 1 and 2 above.
20
21 Dated:
Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
22 Superior Court, County of San Mateo
23
24 NAL7517\pld\p-mtn.wd.rfa.resp.order:wpd
25
26
27
28
2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE
9/5/2020 + FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s)
alt
=e a
216 zo
59.
=
>
a
62
Se
2G
OO
BS
: ime
pee
i a
o Ao! es
———
a =a
—
On
Be &
2g
oi =
oO
=
ast. =
So a
= — a
=
ee 1D.
=2
Zz
<=
awe a
Se
=
a
So
= B25)
Sata
= o 2S!
SS = =
e
=
‘ito bh
After printing this label:
1. Use the 'Print’ button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line.
3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned,
Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a protocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in
additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not
be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, rion-délivery,misdélivery,or misinformation,
unless you declaré a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Limitations found in the current FedEx
Service Guide apply. Your right to recover frorh FedEx for any loss, :ncluding intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, irjcome interest, profit,
attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,conséquential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 ot the
authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual ddcuménted loss.Maximum for iteiris of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry,
precious metals, negotiable instruments and other Items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current
FedEx Service Guide.
https:zwww fedex.comishipping/shipmentConfirmationAction.handle?method=doContinue Wt
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
S.S.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Iam e
Preview
GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790 WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351 JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811 FILED MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C. SAN MATEO COUNTY 4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110 Westlake Village, CA 91361 13 2020 Telephone No.: (818) 865-0444 Supes Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. DEPUTY CLERK orem COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 48—ClV—01901 wo § ORD Order COUNTY OF SAN MATEO | ide 2287 Boo Ws Ga 231 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY Case No.: 18CIV01901 ws § 12 TRUJILLO, Honorable Robert D. Foiles; Dept. 21 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER Plaintiffs, GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN 13 MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING VS. CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO 14 WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 15 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING RESPONSE 16 CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, (CRC 3.1312) Defendants. Date: February 26, 2020 17 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: Law and Motion 18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 19 Trial Date: March 30, 2020 20 Defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC., pursuant to 21 California Rule of Court 3.1312, hereby submit a proposed Order Granting Defendants Stephen 22 Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw and Amend a Request for Admission 23 Response. Plaintiffs disapprove of defendants’ proposed order. Defendants’ proposed order and 24 transmittal letter emailed on February 28, 2020 is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of an email from 25 plaintiffs’ counsel dated March 4, 2020, stating the reasons for disapproval, is attached as Exhibit 26 B, along with plaintiffs’ proposed order. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter of March 5, 2020 from 27 defendants’ counsel stating the reasons for disapproval of plaintiffs’ proposed order and enclosing 28 -1- SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE (CRC 3.1312) RECEIVED MAR 0 9 2020 1 the revised order submitted herein. DATED: March 6, 2020 MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON By: 1 bua MMAMLA. GARR L. MONTANARI Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. 10 a1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 N:I7517\pld\p-submission.prop.order.3.6.2020.wpd 28 2- SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE, (CRC 3.1312) GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790 WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351 JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811 MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C. 4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone No.: (818) 865-0444 Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 a1 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY ) Case No.: 18CIV01901 TRUJILLO, norable Robert D. Foiles; Dept. 21 12 n} Sproresh 'D] ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE ) AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, 14 VS. ) INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ) AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE 15 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING ) 16 CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, Date: February 26, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants. Dept.: Law and Motion 17 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 18 Trial Date: March 30, 2020 19 20 The motion of defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. to 21 withdraw and amend a request for admission response came for hearing on February 26, 2020 in the 22 Law and Motion Department of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo, before Honorable Nancy 23 L. Fineman. Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and Garry L. 24 Montanari from Michaelis Montanari & Johnson appeared on behalf of the defendants. of counsel, the Ce ‘anted the 25 Having reviewed the submits Papersae A E uments al {ve WAS No So ted 26 motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response? Therefore: 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to withdraw and amend a response to 28 plaintiffs’ Request for Admission is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve by email an amended -1- [PREPESED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission Even though plaintiffs did not propound a corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, defendant STEPHEN MAGEE agrees to produce a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as respects the amended response to Request for Admission No. 3. The amended Request for Admission response and response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 will be served by email and overnight mail by March 6, 2020. Defendants will provide a supplemental experts disclosure, if any, served by email and overnight mail by March 9, 2020 Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure, if any, by email and overnight mail by March 12, 2020. The reasonable costs associated with withdrawing the response and filing an amended response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission shall be borne by defendants as to the 10 following costs 11 1 The expert’s costs of making available for deposition any defense expert with a new 12 opinion based upon the amended response; 13 2 The cost of plaintiffs’ expert to be deposed in offering rebuttal opinions as to any new 14 opinion from a defense expert based upon the amended response: 15 3 The expedited court reporter charges for depositions, if any, in Items 1 and 2 above: 16 and 17 4. The reasonable attorney fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a 18 supplemental expert disclosure, if any, and in preparing for and participating in the expert 19 depositions set forth in Items 1 and 2 above. The cou regor Lor) ret/p Loc 20 21 Dated: =/ 1/ [2024 ——> ‘able Nancy L. hans 22 Court, County of San Mateo 23 24 N:\17517\pld\p-mtn.wd.rfa.resp.order.wpd LE 25 tle atties AGU ond He Cours 26 Teasenin c ris tyHS sre SE ts 27 AN i wl-e Over Tle: nok. be ants an Whie Can be peso with s ) be L Ice ASG 28 ee] - wd “Con te te On NWN Dy IS + Sole A 1a Z0ecN co Roze, Fr Lise mot ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO fies INC.’S M [OTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE e e 0 oo re ww LAW OFFICES OF \ JAMES |, MICHAELIS MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON JAMES P. JOHNSON GARRY L. MONTANARI APROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION (1938 - 2014) WESLEY S. WENIG JOHN H. MOON 4333 PARK TERRACE DRIVE, SUITE 110. C. DUFFY BUCHANAN WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91364 (LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA) Of Counsel sender's e-mail: TELEPHONE (818) 865-0444 gmontanari@mmilaw.net TELEFAX (818) 865-8444 WWW.MMJLAW.NET February 28, 2020 VIA EMAIL ONLY Shawn Miller, Esq. Danko Meredith 333 Twin Dolphin Dr. #145 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Re: Trujillo, et al. v. Stephen Magee, et al. Case No.: 18CTV01901 Date of Loss: November 18, 2016 Our Ref.: 4809-17517 Dear Mr. Miller: Enclosed please find the following documents: 1 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants Stephen Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw and Amend a Request for Admission Response; and 2 [Proposed] Order Granting Defendants Stephen Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer. Please advise if these are acceptable to plaintiffs. z Very truly yours, hemos a LIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON G erry Montanari GLM:bh Encls. NAI751 \t\l-pltts.atty.26.wpd ~ 4 GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790 WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351 JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811 MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C. 4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone No (818) 865-0444 Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY Case No.: 18CIV01901 12 TRUJILLO Honorable Robert D. Foiles; Dept. 21 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, 14 VS. INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR 15 ADMISSION RESPONSE STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING 16 CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, Date: February 26, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Defendants Dept. Law and Motion 18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 Trial Date: March 30, 2020 19 20 The motion of defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. to 21 withdraw and amend a request for admission response came for hearing on February 26, 2020 in the 22 Law and Motion Department of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo, before Honorable Nancy 23 L, Fineman. Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and Garry L, 24 Montanari from Michaelis Montanari & Johnson appeared on behalf of the defendants 25 Having reviewed the submitted papers and arguments of counsel, the Court granted the 26 motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response. Therefore: 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to withdraw and amend a response to 28 plaintiffs’ Request for Admission is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve by email an amended -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE ’ response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission and corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 by March 3, 2020. Defendants shall provide a supplemental expert disclosure served by email by March 5, 2020. Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure by email by March 10, 2020. The reasonable costs associated with withdrawing the response and filing an amended response to plaintiffs’Request for Admission shall be borne by defendants as to the following costs: 1 The costs of making available for deposition any defense expert with a new opinion based upon the amended response; 2 The cost of plaintiffs’ expert to be deposed in offering rebuttal opinions as to any new opinion from a defense expert based upon the amended response; and. 10 3 The reasonable attorney fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a 11 supplemental expert disclosure and in preparing for and participating in the expert depositions set 12 forth in Items 1 and 2 above. 13 14 Dated: Honorable Nancy L. Fineman 15 Superior Court, County of San Mateo 16 17 N‘17517\pld\p-mtn.wd.rfa.resp.order.wpd 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE 8 8 ww ~ 4 Qos Fusi Hokafonu From: Shawn Miller . Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 3:02 PM To: ‘Garry L. Montanari’ Subject: Trujillo v. Magee: proposed order re withdrawal of RFA responses Attachments: Motion to Withdraw and Amended RFA - Proposed Order based on court's tentative.pdf Importance: High Mr. Montanari— Attached is plaintiffs’ proposed order regarding defendants’ motion to withdraw a responses to RFA. Plaintiffs believe the reasoning of the court in granting defendants’ motion should be included in the order as well as greater clarity in the costs to be borne by defendants. Service copy to follow in overnight delivery. Best regards, Shawn R. Miller Attorney DANKO 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ste. 145 MEREDITH Redwood Shores, CA 94065 TRIAL LAWYERS: Phone: 650.453.3600 | www.dankolaw.com et MICHAEL S. DANKO, ESQ. SBN 111359 mdankot dankolaw.com SHAWN R. MILLER, ESQ. SBN 238447 smiller@dankolaw.com Au, 0 DANKO MEREDITH 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 453-3600 Facsimile: (650) 394-8672 Attomeys for Plaintiffs BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 10 ll BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO, Case No. 18CIV01901 12 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW 13 Vv. AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE. 14 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC., AND DOES 1 - 50, 15 Date: February 26, 2020 Defendants Time: 9:00 a.m. 16 Dept.: Law and Motion 17 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 Trial Date: February 10, 2020 18 19 20 WHEREAS the court having considered Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw and Amend a 21 Request for Admission Response on February 26, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion 22 Department of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, located at 400 County Center, 23 Redwood City before the Honorable Nancy Fineman. 24 25 WHEREAS, Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and 26 Gary Montanari appeared on behalf of defendants. 27 28 WHEREAS, the court having reviewed the submitted papers, the arguments of counsel, and -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE. . \~ the record of this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendants Motion to Complete Discovery is granted. A party will be permitted to withdraw or amend an admission only if the court finds the admission resulted from “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” CCP § 2033.300(b); see New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Shanahan) (2008) 168 CA4th 1403, 1418. While newly discovered evidence can meet this standard, Defendants have not shown that their admission resulted from 10 “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” The evidence shows that Defendants were on notice 11 of the existence of the French drain since March 2017. Miller decl., Ex. F, H. In fact, it was 12 defense counsel who brought up the issue of the French drain at the expert’s deposition. See Miller 13 Decl.,Ex. E at 38:18-22, 40:21-23. 14 15 Defendants, on their papers, failed to adequately explained why they could not have 16 investigated the existence of a permit for the French drain at any point since the 2017 date of the 17 expert’s report. Moreover, this “newly discovered fact” does not appear to contradict Defendants’ 18 response to Request for Admission No. 3. To prove negligence based on a violation of law, the 19 violation must be a “substantial factor” in bringing about the harm. CACI No. 418. Defendants have 20 not established that a permit was required for the drain. Also, Defendants fail to show that the lack 21 of a permit on its own could have brought about the harm alleged by Plaintiffs, and Defendants do 22 not allege any other newly discovered facts that would contradict their admission. 23 24 At the hearing on this matter, Defendants indicated they first noticed the French drain 25 referenced in Plaintiffs’ expert’s report the day or two before the expert was deposed. Based on this 26 representation by Defendant, the court finds Defendants first becoming aware of the French drain in 27 October 2019 days before Plaintiffs’ expert’s deposition to be a “new fact” supporting Defendants’ 28 -2- [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE. ~ ~ / Motion to Withdrawal a Request for Admission Response filed on December 20, 2019, and thereupon makes the following additional orders: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall serve by email an amended response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission and corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 by March 5, 2020. Defendants shall provide a supplemental expert disclosure served by email by March 6, 2020. Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure by email by March 11, 2020. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall bear all reasonable costs 10 associated with withdrawing the request for admission response and supplemental expert disclosure 11 including: 12 1 The costs associated with deposing any defense expert with a new opinion based upon 13 the amended responses or any defense expert with a previously disclosed opinion who will now rely 14 upon the amended responses as an additional basis for those opinion(s) including the expert hourly 15 costs, the expedited court reporter charges, and all other costs involved in deposing defendants’ 16 experts; 17 2. The costs of plaintiffs’ experts’ additional work necessitated by the amended responses 18 as well as the costs involved in any further deposition of those experts necessitated by their intention 19 to offer rebuttal opinions regarding any new opinions or bases for existing opinions resulting from 20 the amended responses; and 21 3 The reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a 22 supplemental expert disclosure, in preparing for, traveling to, and participating in the expert 23 depositions set forth above. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: February__, 2020 27 Hon. Nancy Fineman 28 Judge of the Superior Court 3- [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE. a~ 1 MICHAEL S. DANKO, ESQ. SBN 111359 mdanko@dankolaw.com SHAWN R. MILLER, ESQ. SBN 238447 smiller@dankolaw.com DANKO MEREDITH 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 453-3600 Facsimile: (650) 394-8672 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 11 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO, Case No. 18CIV01901 12 Plaintiffs, PROOF OF SERVICE. 13 Vv. 14 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC., AND DOES 1 - 50, Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 15 Trial Date: February 10, 2020 Defendants 16 17 I, the undersigned, declare: 18 Iam employed in the County of San Mateo, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen 19 and not a party to this action. My business address is 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145, Redwood Shores, California 94065. 21 On March 4, 2020, I served the foregoing document: 22 EMAIL DATED MARCH 4, 2020 TO GARRY MONTANARI 23 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND 2 AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE 25 on the parties to this action, addressed as follows, in the manner described below: 26 (1 BYU.S. MAIL ~I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the address(es) below and (specify one): 27 LJ deposited the sealed envelope with the U.S. Postal Service, with postage fully 28 prepaid. -1- PROOF OF SERVICE O placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary busines s practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - I enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package provided by an overni ight delivery carrier and addressed to the person( s) at the address(es) below. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnig ht delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. BY PERSONAL DELIVERY — I placed the above-listed document(s) in a sealed envelope and personally delivered to the address(es) set forth below. BY MESSENGER DELIVERY — I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed below and 10 providing them to a professional messenger service for service. 11 BY FAX TRANSMISSION ~ Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the document(s) to the person(s) at the fax number(s) 12 listed below. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which was printed out, is attached. 13 Oo BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE — Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties 14 to accept electronic service, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the persons at the electronic service address(es) listed below. 15 16 Addressed to: 17 Garry L. Montanari Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN MAGEE John Moon and SAC AERO CLUB FLYING, INC. 18 Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson, P.C. 19 4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110 Westlake Village, CA 91361 20 Tel: (818) 865-0444 Fax: (818) 865-8444 21 Email: gmontanari@mmjlaw.net Email: jmoon@mmjlaw.net 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 23 March » 2020, at Redwood City, California. 24 25 26 Fusi Hokafonu 27 28 2- PROOF OF SERVICE ~ LAW OFFICES OF JAMES I. MICHAELIS MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON JAMES P. JOHNSON GARRY L. MONTANARI APROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION (1938 - 2014) WESLEY S. WENIG JOHN H. MOON 4333 PARK TERRACE DRIVE, SUITE 110 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91361 C. DUFFY BUCHANAN (LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA) Of Counsel sender's e-mail: TELEPHONE (818) 865-0444 gmontanari@mmijlaw.net TELEFAX (818) 865-8444 \WWW.MMJLAW.NET March 5, 2020 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS ONLY Shawn Miller, Esq. Danko Meredith 333 Twin Dolphin Dr. #145 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Re: Trujillo, et al. v. Stephen Magee, et al. Case No.: 18CIV01901 Date of Loss: November 18, 2016 Our Ref.: 4809-17517 Dear Mr. Miller: We are in receipt of plaintiffs’ proposed order regarding defendants’ motion, to withdraw a response to request for admission. We cannot agree with your proposed order. First, it includes the entire tentative opinion which was to deny the motion. As you know, the Court eventually reversed its tentative to grant the motion. Second, we have now confirmed that plaintiffs did not propound any Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 in conjunction with Request for Admissions (Set No. One) to defendant Stephen Magee. Notwithstanding and without waiving our objection to do so, we are willing to provide a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 with respect to Request No. 3 only. Third, some of the dates in our original proposed order have now passed we need to revise those dates. In addition, the depositions, if any, of expert witnesses will be taken in your office so there would be no travel expenses for plaintiffs’ counsel, Enclosed is our revised proposed order granting defendants’ motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response. Let me know if our revised proposed order is acceptable or if ‘you wish your order and letter to be submitted as plaintiffs’ response to our order. Very truly yours, MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON Garry ontanari GLM:bh Encl. NAITS17Mtel-plefs.atty.30.wpd ~ GARRY L. MONTANARI, State Bar No. 89790 WESLEY S. WENIG, State Bar No. 162351 JOHN H. MOON, State Bar No. 253811 MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, P.C 4333 Park Terrace Dr. #110 Westlake Village, CA 91361 - Telephone No.: (818) 865-0444 Attorneys for defendants, STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY Case No.: 18CIV01901 12 TRUJILLO, Honorable Robert D. Foiles; Dept, 21 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, 14 VS. INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR 15 ADMISSION RESPONSE STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING 16 CLUB, INC. and DOES 1 - 50, Date: February 26, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Defendants. Dept.: Law and Motion 18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 Trial Date: March 30; 2020 19 20 The motion of defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC. to 21 withdraw and amend a request for admission response came for hearing on February 26, 2020 in the 22 Law and Motion Department of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo, before Honorable Nancy 23 L. Fineman. Shawn R. Miller from Danko Meredith appeared on behalf of plaintiffs and Garry L. 24 Montanari from Michaelis Montanari & Johnson appeared on behalf of the defendants. 25 Having reviewed the submitted papers and arguments of counsel, the Court granted the 26 motion to withdraw and amend a request for admission response. Therefore: 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to withdraw and amend a response to 28 plaintiffs’ Request for Admission is GRANTED. Defendants shall serve by email an amended -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE Se ~ response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission. Even though plaintiffs did not propound a corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, defendant STEPHEN MAGEE agrees to produce a response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as respects the amended response to Request for Admission No. 3. The amended Request for Admission response and response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 will be served by email and overnight mail by March 6, 2020. Defendants will provide a supplemental experts disclosure, if any, served by email and overnight mail by March 9, 2020. Plaintiffs shall provide a rebuttal supplemental expert disclosure, ifany, by email and overnight mail by March 12, 2020. The reasonable costs associated with withdrawing the response and filing an amended response to plaintiffs’ Request for Admission shall be borne by defendants as to the 10 following costs: a1 1 The expert’s costs of.making available for deposition any defense expert with anew 12 opinion based upon the amended response; 13 2. The cost of plaintiffs’ expert to be deposed in offering rebuttal opinions as to any new 14 opinion from a defense expert based upon the amended response; 15 3 The expedited court reporter charges for depositions, if any, in Items 1 and 2 above; 16 and 17 4, The reasonable attorney fees and costs of plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing a 18 supplemental expert disclosure, if any, and in preparing for and participating in the expert 19 depositions set forth in Items 1 and 2 above. 20 21 Dated: Honorable Nancy L. Fineman 22 Superior Court, County of San Mateo 23 24 NAL7517\pld\p-mtn.wd.rfa.resp.order:wpd 25 26 27 28 2- [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND AMEND A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE 9/5/2020 + FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s) alt =e a 216 zo 59. = > a 62 Se 2G OO BS : ime pee i a o Ao! es ——— a =a — On Be & 2g oi = oO = ast. = So a = — a = ee 1D. =2 Zz <= awe a Se = a So = B25) Sata = o 2S! SS = = e = ‘ito bh After printing this label: 1. Use the 'Print’ button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned, Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a protocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, rion-délivery,misdélivery,or misinformation, unless you declaré a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Limitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover frorh FedEx for any loss, :ncluding intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, irjcome interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,conséquential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 ot the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual ddcuménted loss.Maximum for iteiris of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other Items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide. https:zwww fedex.comishipping/shipmentConfirmationAction.handle?method=doContinue Wt PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) S.S. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) Iam e