Preview
1 Dwight Beckstrand (SBN 256006)
BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES
2 930 Wigeon Way E-FILED
Arroyo Grande, California 93420 11/9/2020 11:57 AM
3
P: (805) 235-7150 Superior Court of California
F: (800) 317-0357 County of Fresno
4
E: dwight@beckstrandlaw.com By: I. Herrera, Deputy
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
6 GoEngineer, Inc.
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR FRESNO COUNTY
9
10 GoENGINEER, INC., a Utah corporation, Case No. 20CECG00664
11 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
12 v.
13 Judge: Hon. Tyler D. Tharpe
VALLEY CAD, LLC, a California limited Dept.: 402
14 liability company, Action Filed: February 21, 2020
15 Trial Date: June 14, 2021
Defendant.
16
17
18 Plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel, responds briefly to Defendant’s Request for Pretrial
19 Discovery Conference (the “Request”), as follows:
20 1. Defendant has conducted two PMQ depositions to date.
21 2. A third PMQ deposition was scheduled in mid-July for Plaintiff’s COO. Before the deposition,
22 as a courtesy to Defendant, Plaintiff collected documents requested by Defendant to be produced at the July
23 deposition of the COO, and in fact produced many documents before the deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel
24 indicated that an email “dump” by Plaintiff’s IT staff had crashed counsel’s computer, causing Defendant’s
25 counsel to have to purchase a new computer. The deposition was postponed a week, then taken off calendar
26 pending “production” of the documents, in advance, even though the deposition subpoena merely required
27 that the documents be produced at the deposition. Nevertheless, without a PMQ deposition actually on the
28 calendar for Plaintiff’s COO, Plaintiff’s counsel provided 600 or more pages of emails from said email dump.
-1-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
1 Again, at the time of providing these additional documents, Defendant did not have a PMQ deposition on
2 calendar, but Plaintiff provided the documents in good faith.
3 3. Following some back-and-forth between counsel, the PMQ deposition for Plaintiff’s COO
4 was set for November 24, 2020, via Zoom.
5 4. In the email back-and-forth described in Paragraph 3, above, Plaintiff and its counsel had
6 indicated that the COO was available November 4, 5, and 10: dates that fell prior to the Request hearing, but
7 Defendant’s counsel asserted Defendant was unavailable for those dates. The Request hearing would have
8 been rendered moot had the COO’s PMQ deposition gone forward on one of the dates suggested by Plaintiff.
9 5. Defendant has conducted no written discovery.
10 6. Again, all of the documents produced in connection with the PMQ deposition for Plaintiff’s
11 COO were provided in advance of the deposition, not at the deposition, which is what is required under the
12 discovery statute. Moreover, as to the email documents produced months ago (that originally crashed
13 Plaintiff’s counsel’s computer), no PMQ deposition was even on calendar when said documents were
14 produced, in good faith.
15 7. One of Defendant’s contentions in the email back-and-forth in setting up the PMQ deposition
16 of the COO was that Defendant wanted Plaintiff’s counsel to verify the completeness of the “production” of
17 documents prior to the PMQ deposition in question. Surely that is a question for Defendant’s counsel to ask
18 of its witness once the PMQ deposition is taken on November 24. Plaintiff’s counsel is not a witness in this
19 action and is not the custodian of records for Plaintiff.
20 8. The Request should be withdrawn. The PMQ deposition in question is scheduled for
21 November 24. If Defendant has issues with the adequacy of production or the PMQ’s responses at said
22 deposition, Defendant may decide to renew its Request, but going through with the hearing on November 13,
23 2020, would be a waste of Court resources and time.
24 DATED this 9th day of November, 2020.
25 BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES
26
27 By
Dwight Beckstrand
28 Attorneys for Plaintiff
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
3
I am employed in San Luis Obispo County, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party
4 to the within action. My business address is 930 Wigeon Way, Arroyo Grande, California 93420. On
November 9, 2020, I served the documents named below on the parties in this action via email to
5 “jmigliazzo@mjfsmith.com” and as follows:
6
7 DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: NOTICE OF APPEAL
8 SERVED UPON: Michael J.F. Smith
A Professional Corporation
9 1391 West Shaw Avenue, Suite D
Fresno, CA 93711
10 Attn: John Migliazzo
11 (BY U.S. MAIL) I caused each such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the
United States mail at Arroyo Grande, California. I am readily familiar with the practice of Beckstrand
12 Law Offices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing, said practice being that in
13 the ordinary course of business, mail is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as
it is placed for collection.
14
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered to an authorized courier or driver to receive documents to
15 be delivered on the same date. A proof of service signed by the authorized courier will be filed with
the court upon request.
16
17 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I am readily familiar with the practice of Beckstrand Law Offices for
collection and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery and know that the document(s)
18 described herein will be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express
for overnight delivery.
19
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
20
true and correct.
21
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court, at whose
22 direction this service was made.
23 Executed on November 9, 2020, at Arroyo Grande, California.
24
25 Dwight Beckstrand
26
27
28
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE