Preview
Gau bf Cammll
Erwin Williams (206908)
Supar'
F
County of Bum
MCKERNAN, LANAM, BAKKE & WILLIAMS LLP I I
55 Independence Circle, Suite 106 L 12/14/2020 L
Chico, California 95973
Tel. (530) 877-4961 E E
Fax (530) 877-8163 D r an”. D
By y
Guardian Ad Litem for Edward F. Niderost y LED
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
ll
12 WAYNE A. COOK, TRUSTEE OF THE Case NO. 20CV00905
13
WAYNE A. COOK 1998 FAMILY TRUST
DATED 12/29/98, -
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
14 PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT THE
Plaintiff, DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. NIDEROST
15 -
‘
NOT BE TAKEN AND MEMORNDA
V.
16
Accompanying Documents:
17 EDWARD F. NIDEROST, et al.,
Declaration Of Erwin Williams, Guardian Ad
18
Defendants. Litem, in Support of Motion
19
20
/ Date: January 13, 2021
21
Time: 9:00 am.
22 Dept: 1
AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINTS. Judge: The Honorable Tamara L. Mosbarger
23 Date Action Filed: April 22, 2020
/ Trial Date: None Set
24
25 TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
26 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 13, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
27 matter may be heard in Department 1 this court, located at 1775 Concord Avenue, Chico, CA, EDWARD
28 F. NIDEROST, by and through his guardian ad litem Erwin Williams, Esq., (“Defendant”) will, and
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page l Case No. 20CV00905
hereby does, move for a protective order in connection with the deposition of EDWARD F. NIDEROST,
which is scheduled to be taken on Friday, December 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., at Duensing Deposition
Reporters, 2840 Cohasset Rd, Chico, CA 95973, pursuant to a notice of deposition served on November
24, 2020 by Plaintiff Wayne A. Cook, Trustee. Specically, Defendant will move for an order that the
deposition not be taken.
The motion will be made on the ground that there is good cause for the order in that the protective
order is required by justice to protect EDWARD F. NIDEROST from unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.
The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the memoranda below, the declaration of Erwin
10 Williams, guardian ad litem for EDWARD F. NIDEROST, and the papers, records, and le in this action,
11 and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
12 Notice is hereby given that the court follows the tentative ruing procedure set forth in Rule of
l3 Court 3 . l 308(a)(3). Tentative rulings on law and motion matters are made available on the court’s website
14 at wwwbuttecourtcagov and by telephone at (530) 532—7022.
15 "k
WWW”.MV-:W1\Z f; Ix;tea/ewe“
W Xr/iy g
l6 Dated: December 14, 2020 f x
MN
Erwin Willi ms ti
l7 Guardian AdELitem for Edward F. 'derost
18
Defendant set“;
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 2 Case No. 20CV00905
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE ORAL
I.
DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. NIDEROST (“‘MR. NIDEROST”) BECAUSE GOOD CAUSE HAS
BEEN SHOWN AND THE ORDER IS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE TO PROTECT MR. NIDEROST, A
PARTY, FROM UNWARRANTED ANNOYANCE, EMBARRASSMENT, OR OPPRES SION, OR
UNDUE BURDEN AND EXPENSE.
I
A. A PartV May Seek Protective Order
A party or deponent may seek a protective order from the court before, during or after a deposition.
10 (CCP’ §2025.420(a)).
11 B. Power of Court to Issue Protective Order
12 For good cause shown, the court may make any order concerning a deposition that justice
13 requires to protect any party, deponent, natural person, or organization from unwarranted annoyance,
14 embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2025.420(b)).
15 C. Particular Orders Available
l6 The protective orders that the court may issue under CCP §2025.420 are not limited to, but include,
17 that the deposition not be taken at all. (CCP §2025.420(b)(l)). Additionally, a protective order may be
18 based on a showing the burden or expense of discOvery outweighs the likelihood that the information
19 sought will lead to discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP §2017.020(a)).
20 D. Protective Order for Lack of Capacity to Testify
21 A person Innst have personal knowledge of the facts to which he testies. He must therefore have
22 the capacity to perceive and to recollect those facts. (CA Evidence Code §702). “The question to be
23 determined is Whether the proposed witness’s mental. . .defect is such that he was deprived of the ability
24 to perceive the event about which he is to testify or is deprived of the ability to recollect and communicate
25 with reference thereto. . . .” (People v. Jackson (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 248, 255). Competency is
26 determined by the court and “sound discretion demands the exercise of great caution” particularly in which
27 the question is not simply whether an act was done but the manner and details of the act. (Ibid.)
28
1
CCP means California Code of Civil Procedure.
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 3 Case No. 20CV00905
E. Adiudication of Capacity —-
The Conservatorship of Mr. Niderost
The appointment of a conservator is a judicial determination of incapacity. The establishment of
a conservatorship requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conservatee is substantially
unable to manage his own nancial resources or resist fraud or undue inuence. (PC2 §§1801(b) and
(e)). Substantial inability may not be proved solely by isolated incidents of negligence or improvidence.
(PC §l801(b)). The mere diagnosis of a mental or physical disorder shall not be sufcient in and of
itself to support a determination that a person is of unsound mind or lacks the capacity to do a certain
act. (PC §81 1(a)).
The court must find the conservatee has a deficit in one or more mental functions and a
lO correlation between the deficit(s) and the acts or decisions of the conservatee. (PC §8l 1(a)).
ll Mental functions include:
12 (1) Alertness and attention, including, but not limited to, the following:
l3 (A) Level of arousal or consciousness.
l4 (B) Orientation to time, place, person, and situation.
15 (C) Ability to attend and concentrate.
l6 (2) Information processing, including, but not limited to, the following:
l7 (A) Short- and long—term memory, including immediate recall.
18 (B) Ability to understand or communicate with others, either verbally or otherwise.
19 (C) Recognition of familiar obj ects and familiar persons.
20 (D) Ability to understand and appreciate quantities.
21 (E) Ability to reason using abstract concepts.
22 (F) Ability to plan, organize, and carry out actions in one’s own rational self-interest.
23 (G) Ability to reason logically.
24 (3) Thought processes. Deficits in these functions may be demonstrated by the presence of
25 the following:
26 (A) Severely disorganized thinking.
27 (B) Hallucinations.
28
2
PC means California Probate Code.
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 4 Case No. 20CV00905
(C) Delusions.
(D) Uncontrollable, repetitive, or intrusive thoughts.
A decit in the mental functions listed above may be considered only if the decit, by itself or in
combination with one or more other mental function decits, signicantly impairs the person’s ability to
understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her actions with regard to the type of act or
decision in question. (PC §81 l(b)).
Further, no conservatorship of the estate shall be granted by the court unless the court makes an
express nding that the granting of the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative needed for the
protection of the conservatee. (PC §1800.3(b)).
10 Mr. Niderost was conserved by order appointing temporary conservator of the estate on April 24,
ll 2020 and the subsequent appointment of probate conservator of the estate on August 4, 2020.
12 The appointment of a probate conservator means the court, in granting the order, determined Mr.
l3 Niderost has signicant mental decits, beyond mere isolated incidents of negligence or improvidence,
l4 and a correlation between those decit(s) and his acts or decisions. Further, the court determined it had
15 no other least restrictive option other than to grant the order.
16 Mr. Niderost’s capacity, or more specically his lack of capacity, has been adjudicated by the
17 court.
18 F. Balancing Burden Against Likelihood of Discovering Admissible Evidence
19 The court must limit the scope of discovery if, pursuant to a motion for protective order, it
20 determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood
21 that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (CCP §2017.020(a); see
22 Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 832, 842-843, 103 Cal. Rptr. 709,
23 500 P.2d 621; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 383—384, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90,
24 364 P.2d 266; Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 223; 61 Cal.
25 Rptr. 2d 567).
26 The deposition of Mr. Niderost, an incapacitated person, will expectedly result in inadmissible
27 evidence given the requisite ndings of mental deciencies in the appointment of a probate conservator.
28 The deposition of Mr. Niderost, a conservatee, would be unreasonably burdensome, not only given his
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 5 Case No. 20CV00905
incapacity, but also to his health, in consideration of the pandemic and related health orders, and would
result in additional, unnecessary litigation expense.
An order Mr. Niderost’s deposition not be taken is proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December l4, 2020 McKernan, Lanam, Bakke & Williams, LLP
f ”mt x
.
Erwin Willia s
,5 ”aw
{5, "‘1
\
\\
10 Guardian Ad Litem for Edward F.
yiderost
11
12
l3
l4
15
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 6 Case No. 20CV00905
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Butte County, California. I am over the age
of eighteen (1 8) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 55 Independence Circle,
Suite 106, Chico, California 95973. On December 14, 2020, l served the following:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THAT THE DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. NIDEROST
NOT BE TAKEN AND MEMORNDA
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and:
10 (a) depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service;
ll
(b) placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
12 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for
collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is
l3 placed for collection of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid.
l4
15
Via personal service.
l6 Via electronic transmittal.
17
Via facsimile transmission.
18
Name and address of person served:
19
Ray Sandelman, Esq. Sara M. Knolwes, Esq.
20 LLP
Attorney at Law Leland, Morrissey & Knowles,
2 1" 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95928
22 ravmond@sandelmanlaw.com sknowles@chicolawver.com
Counsel for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Wayne Counsel for John Denton, Conservator‘of the
23
A. Cook Estate of Edward F. Niderost and Successor
24 Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Living Trust
dated November 8, 1998
25
26
27
28
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Case No. 20CV00905
Larry Lushanko, Esq. David Grifth, Esq.
Law Ofces 0f Larry G. Lushanko Grifth, Horn & Sheehan, LLP
1241 E. Mission Road 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3
Fallbrook, CA 92028 Chico, CA 95928
ofce@lushankolaw.com david@davidgrifthlaw.com
Counsel for Cross~Defendant Lawrence Counsel for Cross—Defendant Randall Eugene
Patterson Culley
l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on December 14, 2020, at Chico, California?
. a“
~
‘5
M
f
~
x *‘ 1:
.
2‘
am“; ”$1
‘n
1‘ é
Rebecca Yuhaszk
‘
1‘
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order
Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Case No. 20CV00905
Preview
Gau bf Cammll Erwin Williams (206908) Supar' F County of Bum MCKERNAN, LANAM, BAKKE & WILLIAMS LLP I I 55 Independence Circle, Suite 106 L 12/14/2020 L Chico, California 95973 Tel. (530) 877-4961 E E Fax (530) 877-8163 D r an”. D By y Guardian Ad Litem for Edward F. Niderost y LED SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 ll 12 WAYNE A. COOK, TRUSTEE OF THE Case NO. 20CV00905 13 WAYNE A. COOK 1998 FAMILY TRUST DATED 12/29/98, - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR 14 PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT THE Plaintiff, DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. NIDEROST 15 - ‘ NOT BE TAKEN AND MEMORNDA V. 16 Accompanying Documents: 17 EDWARD F. NIDEROST, et al., Declaration Of Erwin Williams, Guardian Ad 18 Defendants. Litem, in Support of Motion 19 20 / Date: January 13, 2021 21 Time: 9:00 am. 22 Dept: 1 AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINTS. Judge: The Honorable Tamara L. Mosbarger 23 Date Action Filed: April 22, 2020 / Trial Date: None Set 24 25 TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 26 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 13, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 27 matter may be heard in Department 1 this court, located at 1775 Concord Avenue, Chico, CA, EDWARD 28 F. NIDEROST, by and through his guardian ad litem Erwin Williams, Esq., (“Defendant”) will, and Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page l Case No. 20CV00905 hereby does, move for a protective order in connection with the deposition of EDWARD F. NIDEROST, which is scheduled to be taken on Friday, December 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., at Duensing Deposition Reporters, 2840 Cohasset Rd, Chico, CA 95973, pursuant to a notice of deposition served on November 24, 2020 by Plaintiff Wayne A. Cook, Trustee. Specically, Defendant will move for an order that the deposition not be taken. The motion will be made on the ground that there is good cause for the order in that the protective order is required by justice to protect EDWARD F. NIDEROST from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the memoranda below, the declaration of Erwin 10 Williams, guardian ad litem for EDWARD F. NIDEROST, and the papers, records, and le in this action, 11 and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion. 12 Notice is hereby given that the court follows the tentative ruing procedure set forth in Rule of l3 Court 3 . l 308(a)(3). Tentative rulings on law and motion matters are made available on the court’s website 14 at wwwbuttecourtcagov and by telephone at (530) 532—7022. 15 "k WWW”.MV-:W1\Z f; Ix;tea/ewe“ W Xr/iy g l6 Dated: December 14, 2020 f x MN Erwin Willi ms ti l7 Guardian AdELitem for Edward F. 'derost 18 Defendant set“; 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 2 Case No. 20CV00905 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE ORAL I. DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. NIDEROST (“‘MR. NIDEROST”) BECAUSE GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN AND THE ORDER IS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE TO PROTECT MR. NIDEROST, A PARTY, FROM UNWARRANTED ANNOYANCE, EMBARRASSMENT, OR OPPRES SION, OR UNDUE BURDEN AND EXPENSE. I A. A PartV May Seek Protective Order A party or deponent may seek a protective order from the court before, during or after a deposition. 10 (CCP’ §2025.420(a)). 11 B. Power of Court to Issue Protective Order 12 For good cause shown, the court may make any order concerning a deposition that justice 13 requires to protect any party, deponent, natural person, or organization from unwarranted annoyance, 14 embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2025.420(b)). 15 C. Particular Orders Available l6 The protective orders that the court may issue under CCP §2025.420 are not limited to, but include, 17 that the deposition not be taken at all. (CCP §2025.420(b)(l)). Additionally, a protective order may be 18 based on a showing the burden or expense of discOvery outweighs the likelihood that the information 19 sought will lead to discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP §2017.020(a)). 20 D. Protective Order for Lack of Capacity to Testify 21 A person Innst have personal knowledge of the facts to which he testies. He must therefore have 22 the capacity to perceive and to recollect those facts. (CA Evidence Code §702). “The question to be 23 determined is Whether the proposed witness’s mental. . .defect is such that he was deprived of the ability 24 to perceive the event about which he is to testify or is deprived of the ability to recollect and communicate 25 with reference thereto. . . .” (People v. Jackson (1969) 273 Cal. App. 2d 248, 255). Competency is 26 determined by the court and “sound discretion demands the exercise of great caution” particularly in which 27 the question is not simply whether an act was done but the manner and details of the act. (Ibid.) 28 1 CCP means California Code of Civil Procedure. Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 3 Case No. 20CV00905 E. Adiudication of Capacity —- The Conservatorship of Mr. Niderost The appointment of a conservator is a judicial determination of incapacity. The establishment of a conservatorship requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conservatee is substantially unable to manage his own nancial resources or resist fraud or undue inuence. (PC2 §§1801(b) and (e)). Substantial inability may not be proved solely by isolated incidents of negligence or improvidence. (PC §l801(b)). The mere diagnosis of a mental or physical disorder shall not be sufcient in and of itself to support a determination that a person is of unsound mind or lacks the capacity to do a certain act. (PC §81 1(a)). The court must find the conservatee has a deficit in one or more mental functions and a lO correlation between the deficit(s) and the acts or decisions of the conservatee. (PC §8l 1(a)). ll Mental functions include: 12 (1) Alertness and attention, including, but not limited to, the following: l3 (A) Level of arousal or consciousness. l4 (B) Orientation to time, place, person, and situation. 15 (C) Ability to attend and concentrate. l6 (2) Information processing, including, but not limited to, the following: l7 (A) Short- and long—term memory, including immediate recall. 18 (B) Ability to understand or communicate with others, either verbally or otherwise. 19 (C) Recognition of familiar obj ects and familiar persons. 20 (D) Ability to understand and appreciate quantities. 21 (E) Ability to reason using abstract concepts. 22 (F) Ability to plan, organize, and carry out actions in one’s own rational self-interest. 23 (G) Ability to reason logically. 24 (3) Thought processes. Deficits in these functions may be demonstrated by the presence of 25 the following: 26 (A) Severely disorganized thinking. 27 (B) Hallucinations. 28 2 PC means California Probate Code. Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 4 Case No. 20CV00905 (C) Delusions. (D) Uncontrollable, repetitive, or intrusive thoughts. A decit in the mental functions listed above may be considered only if the decit, by itself or in combination with one or more other mental function decits, signicantly impairs the person’s ability to understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her actions with regard to the type of act or decision in question. (PC §81 l(b)). Further, no conservatorship of the estate shall be granted by the court unless the court makes an express nding that the granting of the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative needed for the protection of the conservatee. (PC §1800.3(b)). 10 Mr. Niderost was conserved by order appointing temporary conservator of the estate on April 24, ll 2020 and the subsequent appointment of probate conservator of the estate on August 4, 2020. 12 The appointment of a probate conservator means the court, in granting the order, determined Mr. l3 Niderost has signicant mental decits, beyond mere isolated incidents of negligence or improvidence, l4 and a correlation between those decit(s) and his acts or decisions. Further, the court determined it had 15 no other least restrictive option other than to grant the order. 16 Mr. Niderost’s capacity, or more specically his lack of capacity, has been adjudicated by the 17 court. 18 F. Balancing Burden Against Likelihood of Discovering Admissible Evidence 19 The court must limit the scope of discovery if, pursuant to a motion for protective order, it 20 determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood 21 that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (CCP §2017.020(a); see 22 Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 832, 842-843, 103 Cal. Rptr. 709, 23 500 P.2d 621; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 383—384, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90, 24 364 P.2d 266; Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 223; 61 Cal. 25 Rptr. 2d 567). 26 The deposition of Mr. Niderost, an incapacitated person, will expectedly result in inadmissible 27 evidence given the requisite ndings of mental deciencies in the appointment of a probate conservator. 28 The deposition of Mr. Niderost, a conservatee, would be unreasonably burdensome, not only given his Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 5 Case No. 20CV00905 incapacity, but also to his health, in consideration of the pandemic and related health orders, and would result in additional, unnecessary litigation expense. An order Mr. Niderost’s deposition not be taken is proper. Respectfully submitted, Dated: December l4, 2020 McKernan, Lanam, Bakke & Williams, LLP f ”mt x . Erwin Willia s ,5 ”aw {5, "‘1 \ \\ 10 Guardian Ad Litem for Edward F. yiderost 11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Page 6 Case No. 20CV00905 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Butte County, California. I am over the age of eighteen (1 8) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 55 Independence Circle, Suite 106, Chico, California 95973. On December 14, 2020, l served the following: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT THE DEPOSITION OF EDWARD F. NIDEROST NOT BE TAKEN AND MEMORNDA by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and: 10 (a) depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service; ll (b) placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below 12 following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business' practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is l3 placed for collection of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. l4 15 Via personal service. l6 Via electronic transmittal. 17 Via facsimile transmission. 18 Name and address of person served: 19 Ray Sandelman, Esq. Sara M. Knolwes, Esq. 20 LLP Attorney at Law Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, 2 1" 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95928 22 ravmond@sandelmanlaw.com sknowles@chicolawver.com Counsel for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Wayne Counsel for John Denton, Conservator‘of the 23 A. Cook Estate of Edward F. Niderost and Successor 24 Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Living Trust dated November 8, 1998 25 26 27 28 Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Case No. 20CV00905 Larry Lushanko, Esq. David Grifth, Esq. Law Ofces 0f Larry G. Lushanko Grifth, Horn & Sheehan, LLP 1241 E. Mission Road 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 Fallbrook, CA 92028 Chico, CA 95928 ofce@lushankolaw.com david@davidgrifthlaw.com Counsel for Cross~Defendant Lawrence Counsel for Cross—Defendant Randall Eugene Patterson Culley l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 14, 2020, at Chico, California? . a“ ~ ‘5 M f ~ x *‘ 1: . 2‘ am“; ”$1 ‘n 1‘ é Rebecca Yuhaszk ‘ 1‘ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order Deposition of Edward F. Niderost Not Be Taken Case No. 20CV00905