On October 28, 2009 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chang, Michael,
and
Farmers Group, Inc,
Farmers Group, Inc., A California Corp,
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc,
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. A California Corporation,
Farmers Insurance Exchange Insurance Exchange,
Truck Insurace Exchange,
for (18) Unlimited Insurance Coverage
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
/
Lee J. Danforth, Esq. —SBN 73695
2 Carrie Dupic Huynh, Esq. — SBN 240252 $ AN MATEO COUNTY
CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH
3 A Professional Corporation, Lawyers Y Z013
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300
4 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Cler
Telephone: 592-5400
5 Facsimile:
(650)
(650) 592-5027 ~QEllK U
ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and
TRUCI< INSURANCE EXCHANGE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No. CIV 489065
12
Plaintiff,
13 MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND
vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
14 COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., MICHAELCHANG AND OF NON-PARTY
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCI< ROXANNE CHANG
16 INSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter-
Defendants request an order ofmonetary sanctions pursuant
insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive,
17
to CCP 2025.450 and 2023.030 of
(re: deposition
Defendants. plai nti+Michael Chang), and pursuant to CCP 3'3'987.2
18
and 1992 (re:deposition of non par@@ Roxanne Chang).
19
Date: June 17, 2013
Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Dept: Law & Motion
21
Trial: August 26, 2013
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions
Case No: CIV 489065
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS .
4 A. Brief Statement of the Case.
B. Non-Party Roxanne Chang Has Personal IMowledge Relevant to this Action ...
C. Defendants Have Exhausted Efforts to Meet and Confer About Depositions ...
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiff Waived His Objections to Defendants'eposition Notices
B. Roxanne Chang Failed to Properly Challenge the Deposition Subpoena ...
10 C. Even IfNot Waived, the Deponents'bjections Lack Merit and the
Depositions Should Be Compelled
D. The Deponents and Their Attorneys Should Be Sanctioned for Their Refusal
12 to Proceed with Depositions and for Their Misuse of the Discovery Process .....
III. CONCLUSION .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions
Case No: CIV 489065
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1010.6
4 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1013.
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1987.1 .12,14
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1987.2 .14,15
CaL Code Civ. Pro. $ 1992 .14,15
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2020.030 14
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2020.310
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2020.240 .14
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2023.010 .14
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2023.030 .14, 15
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.210 12
14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.220 14
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.230 14
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.290
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.410 .11, 12
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.450 .14,15
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions
Case No: CIV 489065
Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange ("Farmers" ) and Truck Insurance Exchange
2 ("Truck") (collectively, "defendants" ) respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities
3 in support of their motion to compel the depositions of plaintiff Michael Chang and of non-party
4 Roxanne Chang (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Changs" or "the deponents").
5 I. INTRODUCTION
6 After patiently enduring months of stalling by the deponents'wo attorneys, Gregg Garrison
7 and Herman Kalfen, defendants request court orders requiring the deponents to appear and testify on
8 deposition dates to be specified by this Court (defendants propose June 18 and 20, 2013). Defendants
9 noticed plaintiffs and Ms. Chang's depositions twice and the deponents refused to appear and refused
10 to provide alternative dates. By the time this motion is heard, nearly 5 months will have passed since
11 defendants first requested dates for these depositions. The case is now set for trial to begin August 26,
12 2013, just two months after defendants wish to take these depositions. It isessential that this discovery
13 be completed immediately so that defendants can propound further discovery and prepare for trial.
14 After the initial requests and proposals for deposition dates went ignored by the deponents'5
counsel, defendants noticed the Chang depositions for the end of February. This prompted the
16 deponents'ounsel to demand a discovery "stay," which defendants refused, although they agreed to
17 take the depositions off calendar. Defendants requested and proposed dates in March, and then in
18 April, and then finally in May, but the deponents'ttorneys continued in their silence and refused to
19 agree to any dates. Counsel gave brief responses here and there regarding related issues, and thus gave
20 the appearance that they might finally cooperate, but still theynever proposed jirm dates or responded to dates
21 that defendants proposed. Ultimately, defendants re-noticed the depositions for mid-May, and the
22 deponents refused to proceed, necessitating this motion to compel.
23 The facts detailed in Part II.C., below, show that plaintiff, Ms. Chang and their attorneys are
24 deserving of sanctions for their defiant, unjustified refusal to proceed with these depositions.
25 Defendants persisted, perhaps too patiently, in their follow-up with the deponents'ounsel. By late
26 March, the deponents'ttorneys were employing blatantly evasive tactics. Mr. Kalfen demanded
27 limitations (which he refused to specify) on defendants'ight to depose plaintiff, and he threatened that
28
Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions
Case No: CIV 489065
1 some sort of liability could befall certain "professionals" for "this conduct," seemingly referring to
2 defense counsel's insistence that plaintiff attend a deposition. Defendants repeatedly requested Mr.
3 Garrison's assistance with confirming dates, but he refused to discuss the issue and referred defense
4 counsel to Mr. I
Preview
/ Lee J. Danforth, Esq. —SBN 73695 2 Carrie Dupic Huynh, Esq. — SBN 240252 $ AN MATEO COUNTY CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH 3 A Professional Corporation, Lawyers Y Z013 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 4 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 Cler Telephone: 592-5400 5 Facsimile: (650) (650) 592-5027 ~QEllK U ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and TRUCI< INSURANCE EXCHANGE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No. CIV 489065 12 Plaintiff, 13 MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 14 COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFF FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., MICHAELCHANG AND OF NON-PARTY FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCI< ROXANNE CHANG 16 INSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Defendants request an order ofmonetary sanctions pursuant insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, 17 to CCP 2025.450 and 2023.030 of (re: deposition Defendants. plai nti+Michael Chang), and pursuant to CCP 3'3'987.2 18 and 1992 (re:deposition of non par@@ Roxanne Chang). 19 Date: June 17, 2013 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Dept: Law & Motion 21 Trial: August 26, 2013 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions Case No: CIV 489065 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS . 4 A. Brief Statement of the Case. B. Non-Party Roxanne Chang Has Personal IMowledge Relevant to this Action ... C. Defendants Have Exhausted Efforts to Meet and Confer About Depositions ... III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff Waived His Objections to Defendants'eposition Notices B. Roxanne Chang Failed to Properly Challenge the Deposition Subpoena ... 10 C. Even IfNot Waived, the Deponents'bjections Lack Merit and the Depositions Should Be Compelled D. The Deponents and Their Attorneys Should Be Sanctioned for Their Refusal 12 to Proceed with Depositions and for Their Misuse of the Discovery Process ..... III. CONCLUSION . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions Case No: CIV 489065 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Statutes Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1010.6 4 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1013. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1987.1 .12,14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 1987.2 .14,15 CaL Code Civ. Pro. $ 1992 .14,15 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2020.030 14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2020.310 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2020.240 .14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2023.010 .14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2023.030 .14, 15 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.210 12 14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.220 14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.230 14 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.290 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.410 .11, 12 Cal. Code Civ. Pro. $ 2025.450 .14,15 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions Case No: CIV 489065 Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange ("Farmers" ) and Truck Insurance Exchange 2 ("Truck") (collectively, "defendants" ) respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities 3 in support of their motion to compel the depositions of plaintiff Michael Chang and of non-party 4 Roxanne Chang (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Changs" or "the deponents"). 5 I. INTRODUCTION 6 After patiently enduring months of stalling by the deponents'wo attorneys, Gregg Garrison 7 and Herman Kalfen, defendants request court orders requiring the deponents to appear and testify on 8 deposition dates to be specified by this Court (defendants propose June 18 and 20, 2013). Defendants 9 noticed plaintiffs and Ms. Chang's depositions twice and the deponents refused to appear and refused 10 to provide alternative dates. By the time this motion is heard, nearly 5 months will have passed since 11 defendants first requested dates for these depositions. The case is now set for trial to begin August 26, 12 2013, just two months after defendants wish to take these depositions. It isessential that this discovery 13 be completed immediately so that defendants can propound further discovery and prepare for trial. 14 After the initial requests and proposals for deposition dates went ignored by the deponents'5 counsel, defendants noticed the Chang depositions for the end of February. This prompted the 16 deponents'ounsel to demand a discovery "stay," which defendants refused, although they agreed to 17 take the depositions off calendar. Defendants requested and proposed dates in March, and then in 18 April, and then finally in May, but the deponents'ttorneys continued in their silence and refused to 19 agree to any dates. Counsel gave brief responses here and there regarding related issues, and thus gave 20 the appearance that they might finally cooperate, but still theynever proposed jirm dates or responded to dates 21 that defendants proposed. Ultimately, defendants re-noticed the depositions for mid-May, and the 22 deponents refused to proceed, necessitating this motion to compel. 23 The facts detailed in Part II.C., below, show that plaintiff, Ms. Chang and their attorneys are 24 deserving of sanctions for their defiant, unjustified refusal to proceed with these depositions. 25 Defendants persisted, perhaps too patiently, in their follow-up with the deponents'ounsel. By late 26 March, the deponents'ttorneys were employing blatantly evasive tactics. Mr. Kalfen demanded 27 limitations (which he refused to specify) on defendants'ight to depose plaintiff, and he threatened that 28 Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Depositions Case No: CIV 489065 1 some sort of liability could befall certain "professionals" for "this conduct," seemingly referring to 2 defense counsel's insistence that plaintiff attend a deposition. Defendants repeatedly requested Mr. 3 Garrison's assistance with confirming dates, but he refused to discuss the issue and referred defense 4 counsel to Mr. I