Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): F4R COURT USE ONLY
Daniel V. Kohls (SBN167987j/Leighton B. Koberiein (SBN 252891)
HANSEN KOHLS SOMMER &JACOB, LLP E-FILED
1520 Eureka Rd., Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95661 12/30/2020 10:03 AM
TELEPHONE NO: (91 b) 781-255 FAX NO: (9~6) 781-5339
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Fire Insurance Exchan e
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA •COUNTY OF FRESNO
By: C. York, Deputy
Civil Division
1130 O Street
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Funez
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Fire Insurance Exchange, et ai.
CASE NUM&ER:
OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
19CECG02755
~ Plaintiff(s) ~✓ Defendant(s) ~ Cross-complainants) Cj Cross-defendants) ~ Other(s) Opposition to
request a Pretrial Discovery Conference filed by Piaintirf Edward Funez Ott December 22, 2020.
This opposition relates to:
❑ A dispute regarding a request for production of documents, set propounded on
❑ A dispute regarding form or special interrogatories, set propounded on
❑ A dispute regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled far
❑ A dispute regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition questions
related to the deposition of scheduled for
~✓ A dispute regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to Request for Admission
~ Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies
with Local Rule 2.1.17(B).
The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this opposition:
(Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via
these efforts.)
On December 16, 2020 Plaintiff's counsel sent a meet and confer letter demanding further responses to the
requests for admission, set one served on Defendant Fire Insurance Exchange ("Fire"). The meet and confer
letter was for requests for admission 1-2, 3-4, and 9. Counsel for Fire responded in writing and then telephone
and agreed to provide further responses to 3-4 and 9, which it did on December 28, 2020. Fire refused to
provide further responses to numbers l and 2 because these requests are an improper use of discovery.
PCV-71 R05-19 Fresno County Superior Caurt
OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rile 2.1.17
Mandatory
A brief summary of why the requested discovery should be denied, including the facts and legal arguments in
support is as follows:
(Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be
attached.)
Requests far admission numbers 1-2 do not seek matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to
fact. Rather, the requests quite plainly seek attorney work-product and trial strategy. Such information is not
properly discoverable and Plaintiff is not entitled to a response. Nonetheless, Fire did provide responses
admitting and denying facts related to numbers 1-2.
The court should deny the request to for a pretrial discovery conference because Plaintiff is not entitled to the
information sought in the requests for admission and is not entitled to sanctions. There is simply no basis for a
discovery motion or sanctions regarding the requests for admission.
It is understood that the filing of the Request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a
motion to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filing of the request
and issuance by the Courf of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute.
Party received the REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: December 21 2020
Date
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A) (1), this opposition is being filed within five (5) court days of service of the request
for a Pretrial Discovery Conference, extended five (5) days for service by mail, and has been served on the
opposing party.
Opposing Party was served with a copy of the OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
on: 12/30/2020
Date
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
December 30, 2020 Leighton B. Koberlein ~~~~~~
Date Type or Print Name or Pa
Signature of Party or Attorney y
PCV-71 R05-19 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno County Superior Court
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
STATE -0F CALIFORNIA )
ss. PROOF OF SERVICE
2 COUNTY OF PLACER )
3 I am a citizen of the United States and am employed within the county aforesaid; I am over
the age of eighteen years and nod a party to the within action; my business address is Hansen, Kohls,
4 Sommer &Jacob, LLP, 1520 Eureka Road, Suite 100, Roseville, California 95661.
5 On the date mentioned below, I served the following document(s):
6 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
7 on the interested parties in said action addressed as follows:
J. Edward Kerley Attorney for Plaintiff
8 Dylan L. Schaffer
Nicholas J. Peterson
9 Kerley Schaffer LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 500
10 Oakland, CA 94612
Tel; (510) 379-5801/Fax: (510) 228-0350
11 edward(c~kslaw.us
dvlan;E~kslaw.us
12 nick~a~kslaw.tis
serviccrc~kslaw~.us
13
Patrick S. Schoenburg Attorneys for Defendant Benevento's
14 Alexi P. Antoniou Cleaning &Restoration Service Inc. dba
Wood Smith Henning &Berman LLP Service Master by Benevento
15 7~~8 North Fresno Street, Suite 250
Fresno, CA 93720-2952
16 Tel: (559) 437-2860/Fax: (559) 4~8-1350
pschoenburg~a~wshblaw.com
17 aantoniouna wshblaw.cc~m
18 Michelle R. Ferber Attorneys for Defendant American
Connor M. Day Contractors Indemnity Company
19 Ferber Law, A Professional Corporation
2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 385
20 San Ramon, CA 94583
Tel: (925) 355-9088/Fax: (925) 263-1676
21 cdavra~ferberlativ.com
mferber~a~fer•berlaw.com
22
O BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY -- by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a Federal
23 Express or Express Mail envelope addressed as set forth above. I am readily familiar with
this office's practice whereby the package is sealed, with fees prepaid, and placed in a
24 designated Federal Express or U.S. Mail depository on the same business day.
25 (X) BY EMAIL -- by emailing a true and correct copy to the email addresses
identified above.
26
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of State of Califo n at t the foregoing
27 is true and correct. Executed on December 30, 2020, at eville, C~liforn' .
28 us~ Schiele
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): F4R COURT USE ONLY Daniel V. Kohls (SBN167987j/Leighton B. Koberiein (SBN 252891) HANSEN KOHLS SOMMER &JACOB, LLP E-FILED 1520 Eureka Rd., Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95661 12/30/2020 10:03 AM TELEPHONE NO: (91 b) 781-255 FAX NO: (9~6) 781-5339 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Fire Insurance Exchan e Superior Court of California County of Fresno SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA •COUNTY OF FRESNO By: C. York, Deputy Civil Division 1130 O Street Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Funez DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Fire Insurance Exchange, et ai. CASE NUM&ER: OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19CECG02755 ~ Plaintiff(s) ~✓ Defendant(s) ~ Cross-complainants) Cj Cross-defendants) ~ Other(s) Opposition to request a Pretrial Discovery Conference filed by Piaintirf Edward Funez Ott December 22, 2020. This opposition relates to: ❑ A dispute regarding a request for production of documents, set propounded on ❑ A dispute regarding form or special interrogatories, set propounded on ❑ A dispute regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled far ❑ A dispute regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for ~✓ A dispute regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to Request for Admission ~ Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies with Local Rule 2.1.17(B). The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this opposition: (Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via these efforts.) On December 16, 2020 Plaintiff's counsel sent a meet and confer letter demanding further responses to the requests for admission, set one served on Defendant Fire Insurance Exchange ("Fire"). The meet and confer letter was for requests for admission 1-2, 3-4, and 9. Counsel for Fire responded in writing and then telephone and agreed to provide further responses to 3-4 and 9, which it did on December 28, 2020. Fire refused to provide further responses to numbers l and 2 because these requests are an improper use of discovery. PCV-71 R05-19 Fresno County Superior Caurt OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rile 2.1.17 Mandatory A brief summary of why the requested discovery should be denied, including the facts and legal arguments in support is as follows: (Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be attached.) Requests far admission numbers 1-2 do not seek matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. Rather, the requests quite plainly seek attorney work-product and trial strategy. Such information is not properly discoverable and Plaintiff is not entitled to a response. Nonetheless, Fire did provide responses admitting and denying facts related to numbers 1-2. The court should deny the request to for a pretrial discovery conference because Plaintiff is not entitled to the information sought in the requests for admission and is not entitled to sanctions. There is simply no basis for a discovery motion or sanctions regarding the requests for admission. It is understood that the filing of the Request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filing of the request and issuance by the Courf of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute. Party received the REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: December 21 2020 Date Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A) (1), this opposition is being filed within five (5) court days of service of the request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference, extended five (5) days for service by mail, and has been served on the opposing party. Opposing Party was served with a copy of the OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 12/30/2020 Date declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. December 30, 2020 Leighton B. Koberlein ~~~~~~ Date Type or Print Name or Pa Signature of Party or Attorney y PCV-71 R05-19 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno County Superior Court Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 STATE -0F CALIFORNIA ) ss. PROOF OF SERVICE 2 COUNTY OF PLACER ) 3 I am a citizen of the United States and am employed within the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and nod a party to the within action; my business address is Hansen, Kohls, 4 Sommer &Jacob, LLP, 1520 Eureka Road, Suite 100, Roseville, California 95661. 5 On the date mentioned below, I served the following document(s): 6 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 7 on the interested parties in said action addressed as follows: J. Edward Kerley Attorney for Plaintiff 8 Dylan L. Schaffer Nicholas J. Peterson 9 Kerley Schaffer LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 500 10 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel; (510) 379-5801/Fax: (510) 228-0350 11 edward(c~kslaw.us dvlan;E~kslaw.us 12 nick~a~kslaw.tis serviccrc~kslaw~.us 13 Patrick S. Schoenburg Attorneys for Defendant Benevento's 14 Alexi P. Antoniou Cleaning &Restoration Service Inc. dba Wood Smith Henning &Berman LLP Service Master by Benevento 15 7~~8 North Fresno Street, Suite 250 Fresno, CA 93720-2952 16 Tel: (559) 437-2860/Fax: (559) 4~8-1350 pschoenburg~a~wshblaw.com 17 aantoniouna wshblaw.cc~m 18 Michelle R. Ferber Attorneys for Defendant American Connor M. Day Contractors Indemnity Company 19 Ferber Law, A Professional Corporation 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 385 20 San Ramon, CA 94583 Tel: (925) 355-9088/Fax: (925) 263-1676 21 cdavra~ferberlativ.com mferber~a~fer•berlaw.com 22 O BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY -- by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a Federal 23 Express or Express Mail envelope addressed as set forth above. I am readily familiar with this office's practice whereby the package is sealed, with fees prepaid, and placed in a 24 designated Federal Express or U.S. Mail depository on the same business day. 25 (X) BY EMAIL -- by emailing a true and correct copy to the email addresses identified above. 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of State of Califo n at t the foregoing 27 is true and correct. Executed on December 30, 2020, at eville, C~liforn' . 28 us~ Schiele