Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT AITORNEY (Nome, sfafebar number, and address]: FOR COURT USE ONLY
George P.Rodarokis,SBN 222214 KathrynL.Greene, SBN 294727
Rodorakis 8.Sousa,AFC
100 Sycamore Ave, Suite 10, Modesto. CA 95354
E-FILED
TELEPHONE NO: (209]554-5232 FAX NO: [209)544—1 085
7/8/2020 2:09 PM
ATTORNEY FOR (Nameii Plaintiff Stephen W. Sloan
Superior Court of California
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO County of Fresno
Clvll Dlvlslon
By: J. Nelson, Deputy
1130 O Street
Fresno, California 93721 —2220
PLAINTIFF/PEI'ITIONER: Stephen W. Sloan
DEFEN DANT/RESPCNDENTI Ponoche Wafer Dis?rin
CASE NUMBER:
OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
WCECGOOSH
E requesi
Plainfims)
o
D Defendanfls)
Pretrial
E Cross-comploinon1(s) D Cross—defendontqs)
Discovery Conference filed by PIoinfiffStephen w. Sloan
D Other(s) Opposition fo
on Ju:y e, 2020
This opposflion relates to:
DA dispute regarding a request for production of documenis. set propounded on
A dispute regarding form or special interrogatories. set Two propounded on Plaintiff .
D A dispute regarding c:deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled for
D A dispute regarding a deposition nofice, production oi documents 01 o deposition or deposition questions
related to the deposition of scheduled for
D A dispute regarding mone1ary. issue, evidence or terminating sancfions related to
D with Local the
Privilege is
Rule
basisfor
2.LI7(B).
the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which compiies
The parties hove engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts pn'or Io filing this opposition:
(Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of The issues or resoluiions reached via
these efforts.)
Defendant Ponoche Wafer District ("PWD") served o second se1 of wriflen discovery on Plaintiff Stephen W. Sloan
(”Sioon") on or about April 10, 2020. Sloan served responses on June 8, 2020. On June 22, 2020, FWD seni o mee1
0nd confer Iefier to Sloan, addressing what PWD believed 10 be deficiencies in certain of Sloan's responses.
These perceived deficiencies inciuded o response 1o one request for production, in which Sloan had responded
by advising that his search for responsive documents was ongoing, as well as responses to interrogatories and
requests for admission relating to contentions and The bases for those contentions that contained soleiy
objections. The objections were thorough, so as n01 10 waive any ground for objection. PWD asserted ihoi ihe
objections were boilerplate and frivolous, and did not constitute o basis for refusing to respond to those
in1errogotories and requests. Counsel for PWD indicofed that a phone coll To discuss the matter would be
forthcoming, bu’r no phone coll was received. PWD demanded further responses within four days.
In response To PWD's meet and confer letter, on June 26, 2020, Sloan served amended responses, along wi1h o
letter response. As explained in 1he accompanying letter, Sloan amended his responses to the Requests for
Admission, Special Interrogotories, and Form Interrogoton'es to disclose whether or n01 Sloan mode cedoin
contentions, but maintained his objeciion To providing further informafion pertaining to the contentions on the
grounds 1h01 such information wos protected from disclosure by fhe attorney work produci doctrine.
Counsel for Sloan invited counsel for PWD 10 contacf them 10 discuss the mofier fUdher, if PWD so desired, but
heard nothing more from PWD on This matter until receiving PWD's Reques‘.‘ for Pre1rio| Discovery Conference.
PCV-7l R0549 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAI.DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno County Superior Cour?
Mandatory Local Rule 2.] .17
A brief summary of why the requested discovery should be denied, including the facts and legal arguments in
support isas follows:
(Excepfing a privilege log ifchecked above. no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, oromochmenfs shall be
ofiochedJ
PWD's interrogatories pertain 1o Sloan's position on con1en1ions tho’rnecessarily involve legal theories and
reasoning. More specifically, PWD seeks Sloan's position and the underlying facts, witnesses, and documents cs
’ro four comenfions: thoi no excepfion To 1he claim presemufion requirement applies to Sloon's claim,
(1) (2] that
Sloan did not present a wriffen claim 10 PWD, (3) that the claim filing requirements were not excused, and (4)
That 1he 1ime limit for presenfing the claim hos expired. These ore not simple, foct-based comentions. The
claims requirement under The Governmem Cloims AC1 is highly Technical, with statutory and judicialIy-crecied
triggers, thresholds, 0nd exceptions. Issues pertaining To applicable exceptions, the expiration of 1ime for
submifling o claim, 0nd whefher a claim was excused or even submitted involve substantial inierprefofion of
statutes 0nd case low, legal reasoning, and legal theory.
Although a party's contentions mcy be discoverable, i1 is well setfled that discovery requests seeking the legal
reasoning and theory behind c1 party's contention ore not proper. An attorney's work product includes “The
product of [the aflomey's] effort, research, and thought in the preparation of his client's case." (BP Alaska
Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court ( 1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-54, fn. 4.) T'ne oHorney work product
doctrine affords greater protection for on afiorney’s menial impressions, and covers reflecfions of on ofiorney's
evaluations or inferpreTofions of the low or the facts. (See Hobbs v. Municipoi Coud ( 1991) 233 Col.App.3d 670,
692.) If creates on “absolute privilege against discovery of on attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions or
legal Theories." (In re Tobo’rho G. {1996) 45 Cal.AppAfh 1.159,1167.) "A party‘s contention may be The subject
of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or 1heory behind The contention." (Sav—On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court
( I975)
15 Co|.3d 1, 5.) Nor may discovery be employed to ”elicit on opponent's legal reasoning or
theories." (Burke v. Superior Coun of Sacramento County (1969) 71.Col.2d 276, 284—85 (noting tho? o party may
be required to divulge whether if makes o certain contention, but need not divulge the legal theory or
reasoning process underlying tho’r contention“
Sloan's amended responses disclose his contentions. Anything more consfiiutes absolutely privileged
informofion proiected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine. Information penaining to The
facts, witnesses. and documents underlying Those conienfions cannot be disclosed without necessarily
“reveol[ing] the ofiorney‘s facfics, impressions, or evaluation of The case." (See Coifo v. Superior Court {201 2) 54
Col.4’rh 480. 502.) Sloan could n01 respond to the interrogatories 01 issue wi1hout disclosing oHorney—clien?
privileged communications. Requiring Sloan's counsel to divulge ifs legal theories and reosonings, which ore
similarly protected by The oflorney work product doctrine, is an invasion of that pro1ec1ion.
Comrory to PWD's assertion. Sloan is not engaging in gamesmanship. It is True Thai Sloan‘s counsel suspects
mot PWD does n01 seek information, but rather to elicit Sloan's legal reasoning 0nd Theories on matters that ore
raised in PWD's mofion for summoryjudgment. It does appear that the discovery is on ofiempf to examine
Sloan's argumenis in opposition to PWD's motion before the opposition is filed. However. even if the discovery is
a legitimate attempt to obtain information. Sloan‘s basis for n01 responding is also legitimate, well founded, and
supported by substantial authority, as the information sought is protected by 1he attorney work product docfine.
It is understood that the filing of 1he Request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing o
motion 1o compel discovery on the disputed issues for 1he number of days be1ween the filing of 1he request
ond issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining 10 1he discovery dispute.
Party received 1he REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 2020
Jul)! 2,
Date
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1 .1 7(A)(1), this opposition is being filed within five (5) court days of service of 1he requesi
tor CI Pretrial Discovery Conference, exiended five (5) days for service by mail, and hos been served on the
opposing pony.
Opposing Porfy was sewed with a copy of fhe OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
on: JUI 8,2020
Dofe
July 8,2020 Kathryn L.Greene
Doie Type or Pnni Nome ‘
‘
PGWI R0549 onosmon Io Request ron PRHRIAL Discovenv CONFERENCE Fresmo Couniy Superior Court
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1 .1 7
A
r—A
Ix)
U.)
UI
I
On the date set forth below, I
W
am a citizen 0f the United States and am employed in Stanislaus
eighteen (18) years and not a party to this action;
101, Modesto, CA 95354.
my business address is
served the following documents:
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE, by placing a true copy thereof
County.
OPPOSITION T0
I am over the age of
100 Sycamore Avenue, Suite
enclosed in a sealed envelope and served in the manner and/or manners described below to each of the
parties herein and addressed as follows:
ON
Benjamin T. Nicholson Marshal] C. Whitney
fl
Gregory S. Mason Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP
00
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard 8050 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Wayte & Carruth LLP Fresno, CA 93711
7647 North Fresno Street Telephone: (559) 753-2550
\D
Fresno, CA 93720 Facsimile: (559) 753-2560
Telephone: (559) 433-1300 mwhitnex@wtjlaw.com
O
Facsimile: (559) 433-2300
Ben.Nicholson@mcconnickbarstow.com
Greg.Mason@flcconnickbarstow.com
BY MAIL: I caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in the mail at my business address,
addressed to the addressee(s) designated. I am readily familiar with RODARAKIS & SOUSA,
APC practices for collection and processing 0f correspondence and pleadings for mailing. It is
deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
X BY E-MAIL: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by electronic mail to the addressee(s)
designated.
BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such cnvelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the
addressee(s) designated.
NNNNNNNNNp—HHp—HHHHH—A
BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE:
OOQQM¥WN~O©OOQQUI£WNH
I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered via
overnight courier service to the addresse6(s) designated.
BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document to be transmitted to the telephone number(s) of the
addressee(s) designated.
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed at Modesto, California, on July 8,2020.
Qfi, sanma'
A
2
OPPOSITION T0 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT AITORNEY (Nome, sfafebar number, and address]: FOR COURT USE ONLY George P.Rodarokis,SBN 222214 KathrynL.Greene, SBN 294727 Rodorakis 8.Sousa,AFC 100 Sycamore Ave, Suite 10, Modesto. CA 95354 E-FILED TELEPHONE NO: (209]554-5232 FAX NO: [209)544—1 085 7/8/2020 2:09 PM ATTORNEY FOR (Nameii Plaintiff Stephen W. Sloan Superior Court of California SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO County of Fresno Clvll Dlvlslon By: J. Nelson, Deputy 1130 O Street Fresno, California 93721 —2220 PLAINTIFF/PEI'ITIONER: Stephen W. Sloan DEFEN DANT/RESPCNDENTI Ponoche Wafer Dis?rin CASE NUMBER: OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE WCECGOOSH E requesi Plainfims) o D Defendanfls) Pretrial E Cross-comploinon1(s) D Cross—defendontqs) Discovery Conference filed by PIoinfiffStephen w. Sloan D Other(s) Opposition fo on Ju:y e, 2020 This opposflion relates to: DA dispute regarding a request for production of documenis. set propounded on A dispute regarding form or special interrogatories. set Two propounded on Plaintiff . D A dispute regarding c:deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled for D A dispute regarding a deposition nofice, production oi documents 01 o deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for D A dispute regarding mone1ary. issue, evidence or terminating sancfions related to D with Local the Privilege is Rule basisfor 2.LI7(B). the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which compiies The parties hove engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts pn'or Io filing this opposition: (Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of The issues or resoluiions reached via these efforts.) Defendant Ponoche Wafer District ("PWD") served o second se1 of wriflen discovery on Plaintiff Stephen W. Sloan (”Sioon") on or about April 10, 2020. Sloan served responses on June 8, 2020. On June 22, 2020, FWD seni o mee1 0nd confer Iefier to Sloan, addressing what PWD believed 10 be deficiencies in certain of Sloan's responses. These perceived deficiencies inciuded o response 1o one request for production, in which Sloan had responded by advising that his search for responsive documents was ongoing, as well as responses to interrogatories and requests for admission relating to contentions and The bases for those contentions that contained soleiy objections. The objections were thorough, so as n01 10 waive any ground for objection. PWD asserted ihoi ihe objections were boilerplate and frivolous, and did not constitute o basis for refusing to respond to those in1errogotories and requests. Counsel for PWD indicofed that a phone coll To discuss the matter would be forthcoming, bu’r no phone coll was received. PWD demanded further responses within four days. In response To PWD's meet and confer letter, on June 26, 2020, Sloan served amended responses, along wi1h o letter response. As explained in 1he accompanying letter, Sloan amended his responses to the Requests for Admission, Special Interrogotories, and Form Interrogoton'es to disclose whether or n01 Sloan mode cedoin contentions, but maintained his objeciion To providing further informafion pertaining to the contentions on the grounds 1h01 such information wos protected from disclosure by fhe attorney work produci doctrine. Counsel for Sloan invited counsel for PWD 10 contacf them 10 discuss the mofier fUdher, if PWD so desired, but heard nothing more from PWD on This matter until receiving PWD's Reques‘.‘ for Pre1rio| Discovery Conference. PCV-7l R0549 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAI.DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno County Superior Cour? Mandatory Local Rule 2.] .17 A brief summary of why the requested discovery should be denied, including the facts and legal arguments in support isas follows: (Excepfing a privilege log ifchecked above. no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, oromochmenfs shall be ofiochedJ PWD's interrogatories pertain 1o Sloan's position on con1en1ions tho’rnecessarily involve legal theories and reasoning. More specifically, PWD seeks Sloan's position and the underlying facts, witnesses, and documents cs ’ro four comenfions: thoi no excepfion To 1he claim presemufion requirement applies to Sloon's claim, (1) (2] that Sloan did not present a wriffen claim 10 PWD, (3) that the claim filing requirements were not excused, and (4) That 1he 1ime limit for presenfing the claim hos expired. These ore not simple, foct-based comentions. The claims requirement under The Governmem Cloims AC1 is highly Technical, with statutory and judicialIy-crecied triggers, thresholds, 0nd exceptions. Issues pertaining To applicable exceptions, the expiration of 1ime for submifling o claim, 0nd whefher a claim was excused or even submitted involve substantial inierprefofion of statutes 0nd case low, legal reasoning, and legal theory. Although a party's contentions mcy be discoverable, i1 is well setfled that discovery requests seeking the legal reasoning and theory behind c1 party's contention ore not proper. An attorney's work product includes “The product of [the aflomey's] effort, research, and thought in the preparation of his client's case." (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court ( 1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1253-54, fn. 4.) T'ne oHorney work product doctrine affords greater protection for on afiorney’s menial impressions, and covers reflecfions of on ofiorney's evaluations or inferpreTofions of the low or the facts. (See Hobbs v. Municipoi Coud ( 1991) 233 Col.App.3d 670, 692.) If creates on “absolute privilege against discovery of on attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal Theories." (In re Tobo’rho G. {1996) 45 Cal.AppAfh 1.159,1167.) "A party‘s contention may be The subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or 1heory behind The contention." (Sav—On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court ( I975) 15 Co|.3d 1, 5.) Nor may discovery be employed to ”elicit on opponent's legal reasoning or theories." (Burke v. Superior Coun of Sacramento County (1969) 71.Col.2d 276, 284—85 (noting tho? o party may be required to divulge whether if makes o certain contention, but need not divulge the legal theory or reasoning process underlying tho’r contention“ Sloan's amended responses disclose his contentions. Anything more consfiiutes absolutely privileged informofion proiected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine. Information penaining to The facts, witnesses. and documents underlying Those conienfions cannot be disclosed without necessarily “reveol[ing] the ofiorney‘s facfics, impressions, or evaluation of The case." (See Coifo v. Superior Court {201 2) 54 Col.4’rh 480. 502.) Sloan could n01 respond to the interrogatories 01 issue wi1hout disclosing oHorney—clien? privileged communications. Requiring Sloan's counsel to divulge ifs legal theories and reosonings, which ore similarly protected by The oflorney work product doctrine, is an invasion of that pro1ec1ion. Comrory to PWD's assertion. Sloan is not engaging in gamesmanship. It is True Thai Sloan‘s counsel suspects mot PWD does n01 seek information, but rather to elicit Sloan's legal reasoning 0nd Theories on matters that ore raised in PWD's mofion for summoryjudgment. It does appear that the discovery is on ofiempf to examine Sloan's argumenis in opposition to PWD's motion before the opposition is filed. However. even if the discovery is a legitimate attempt to obtain information. Sloan‘s basis for n01 responding is also legitimate, well founded, and supported by substantial authority, as the information sought is protected by 1he attorney work product docfine. It is understood that the filing of 1he Request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing o motion 1o compel discovery on the disputed issues for 1he number of days be1ween the filing of 1he request ond issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining 10 1he discovery dispute. Party received 1he REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 2020 Jul)! 2, Date Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1 .1 7(A)(1), this opposition is being filed within five (5) court days of service of 1he requesi tor CI Pretrial Discovery Conference, exiended five (5) days for service by mail, and hos been served on the opposing pony. Opposing Porfy was sewed with a copy of fhe OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: JUI 8,2020 Dofe July 8,2020 Kathryn L.Greene Doie Type or Pnni Nome ‘ ‘ PGWI R0549 onosmon Io Request ron PRHRIAL Discovenv CONFERENCE Fresmo Couniy Superior Court Mandatory Local Rule 2.1 .1 7 A r—A Ix) U.) UI I On the date set forth below, I W am a citizen 0f the United States and am employed in Stanislaus eighteen (18) years and not a party to this action; 101, Modesto, CA 95354. my business address is served the following documents: REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE, by placing a true copy thereof County. OPPOSITION T0 I am over the age of 100 Sycamore Avenue, Suite enclosed in a sealed envelope and served in the manner and/or manners described below to each of the parties herein and addressed as follows: ON Benjamin T. Nicholson Marshal] C. Whitney fl Gregory S. Mason Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP 00 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard 8050 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 110 Wayte & Carruth LLP Fresno, CA 93711 7647 North Fresno Street Telephone: (559) 753-2550 \D Fresno, CA 93720 Facsimile: (559) 753-2560 Telephone: (559) 433-1300 mwhitnex@wtjlaw.com O Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 Ben.Nicholson@mcconnickbarstow.com Greg.Mason@flcconnickbarstow.com BY MAIL: I caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in the mail at my business address, addressed to the addressee(s) designated. I am readily familiar with RODARAKIS & SOUSA, APC practices for collection and processing 0f correspondence and pleadings for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. X BY E-MAIL: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by electronic mail to the addressee(s) designated. BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such cnvelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) designated. NNNNNNNNNp—HHp—HHHHH—A BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: OOQQM¥WN~O©OOQQUI£WNH I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered via overnight courier service to the addresse6(s) designated. BY FACSIMILE: I caused said document to be transmitted to the telephone number(s) of the addressee(s) designated. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Modesto, California, on July 8,2020. Qfi, sanma' A 2 OPPOSITION T0 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE