Preview
Richard Abel
1
707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301
2 Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: (707) 340-3894
3
4 Plaintiff, In pro per
5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456
12
Plaintiff; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER,
13 v.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO QUASH
14
THE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an
15 individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, Date:
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
16 through 100, inclusive; Time:
Dept: 19
17
Defendants. Trial Date: October 7, 2022
18
19 I, Richard Abel, declare:
20 1. I am the plaintiff in this action, and the moving party for this instant motion.
21 2. The following is based on my own personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could,
22 and would, testify competently thereto.
23 3. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order, or
24 in the Alternative to Quash the Notice of Deposition pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. sections
25 2025.410 and 2025.420, and to describe our efforts to meet and confer.
26 4. Prior to bringing this motion, I met and conferred with the counsel for Defendants in
27 good faith as described herein. Counsel still insists that they will only do the deposition in
28 person. Counsel refuses to accept my offer of doing a remote deposition as an alternative.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF RE: MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS
1
1 5. On March 15, 2022, counsel of record Aaron Schultz ("Schultz") for Defendants,
2 served me with a Notice of Deposition (the "Notice"), requesting that I appear for a deposition on
3 March 31, 2022 at an office building located at 131A Stoney (sic) Point Circle, Santa Rosa. A
4 true and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5 6. On March 19, 2022, I timely served Mr. Schultz with my objections to the Notice.
6 I elected to appear remotely, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2025.310 (a) and (b). I gave notice
7 that I will not appear in person at the deposition. A true and correct copy of my objections are
8 attached hereto as Exhibit B.
9 7. I also objected on grounds that the length of the deposition in the Notice exceeds the
10 statutory time limit. (Id.) The deposition notice required me to appear at the deposition on
11 March 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. "and thereafter from day to day until completed." I further objected
12 to production of documents on various grounds, including but not limited to, that the requests for
13 documents failed to specify with sufficient particularity the items to be produced, per Code Civ.
14 Proc. §2025.220. (Id.).
15 8. On March 22, 2022, I received a letter from someone at the Galloway law firm by the
16
name of Alexander Promm1 ("Promm"), who stated that I was required to appear in person at the
17
deposition. Mr. Promm also advised me: "The only way to relieve yourself of this obligation is to
18
seek a protective order and show good cause for a remote appearance." A true and correct copy
19
of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
20
9. On March 25, 2021, in response to Mr. Promm's letter, I sent a meet and confer letter
21
regarding the deposition to Mr. Schultz, the actual attorney of record for defendants and the one
22
who signed the Deposition Notice. I advised Mr. Schultz that I was ready to proceed with the
23
deposition, but I only would only attend the deposition remotely, based on the statute and due to
24
the health risks from the continuing COVID pandemic and emerging variants, such as the BA.2
25
omicron variant that is highly contagious. I requested instructions for electronic access to the
26
remote deposition from Mr. Schultz. I sent this letter by both email and fax. A true and correct
27
copy of my letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
28
1 Alexander Promm is not the attorney of record for any party in this action.
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF RE: MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS
2
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF RE: MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Richard Abel
1
707 Hahman Drive #9301
2 Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: (707) 340-3894
3
4 Plaintiff, in pro per
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456
12 Plaintiff; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION AND TO REQUEST FOR
v.
13 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
14 B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an
Date: March 31, 2022
individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN,
15
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
16 through 100, inclusive;
17
Defendants.
18
19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff”) objects to
20 the Notice of Deposition ("Notice") served on March 15, 2022 by defendants B. Edward
21 McCutchan, Junior; Robert Sunderland; and Sunderland/McCutchan LLP ("Defendants" herein);
22 on the grounds that the Notice fails to comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure and
23 with the requirements of statutory and Constitutional due process.
24 Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Notice on the following grounds:
25 1. The Notice fails to describe the areas to be covered during the deposition. (See CCP
26 §2025.220).
27 2. The length of the deposition in the Notice exceeds the statutory time limit. (See CCP
28 §2025.290).
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
1
1 3. Pursuant to CCP §2025.310 (a) and (b), Plaintiff hereby elects to appear remotely,
2 and will not appear in person at the deposition.
3 Objections to the Request for Production of Documents
4 Plaintiff's responses contained herein are based upon information available and/or
5 reasonably available to Plaintiff at this time. The responses contained herein are made without
6 prejudice to subsequently obtained information. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his
7 answers at a later time should additional facts and/or law become known which necessitate such
8 an amendment.
9 Plaintiff is engaged in continuing discovery in this case. Therefore, all responses
10 contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are presently available and
11 disclose only those contentions which presently occur to him. There are potential witnesses who
12 have not been deposed, documents which have not been reviewed or obtained, analysis which
13 has not been completed, and other discovery and investigation which has not been finished.
14 Discovery and investigation are continuing. Plaintiff therefore provides selected documents at
15 deposition without prejudice to present further documents at trial not yet obtained or analyzed.
16
The fact that Plaintiff has responded to part or all of the request for production of
17
documents here is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver of Plaintiff of all or any
18
part of any objection to any request for production of document. Plaintiff reserves his right to
19
supplement any response herein.
20
Documents to be Produced
21
Request No. 1: All bills, notes memoranda, or documents in support of or reflecting special
22
and/or general damages as prayed for in the Complaint (and if not complete, please produce
23 those items in your possession at this time.)
24 Response: Objections: 1. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce
25 documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court,
26 (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 2. This request seeks documents that are already in the
27 possession of defendants. 3. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
28 product privileges. 4. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
2
1 time frame is stated. 5. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
2 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 6. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
3 unintelligible as to the terms "bills" and "notes memoranda."
4
Request No. 2: All notes, records, documents, reports, correspondence, and memoranda
5 supporting the allegations of your Complaint, referring to the conduct of defendants
B.EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR.; ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; and SUNDERLAND/
6
McCUTCHAN, LLP
7
Response: Objections: 1. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of
8
defendants. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced
9
at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and
10
work product privileges. 4. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no
11
specific time or subject is stated. 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to
12
the terms "notes", "records", "reports", "correspondence" and "memoranda." 6. This request
13
improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
14
contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257).
15
Request No. 3: Documentation of any and all losses claimed by you due to the negligence of
16
defendants B. Edward McCutchan Jr.; Robert J. Sunderland; and Sunderland/McCutchan, LLP.
17
Response: Objections: 1. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to
18
the terms "documentation" and "losses." 2. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client
19
and work product privileges. 3. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession
20
of defendants. 4. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific time
21
frame is stated. 5. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
22
produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 6. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to
23
identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v.
24
Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257).
25
Request No. 4: The original of all claimed assignments of claims to you by plaintiffs in the
26
Liebling matter.
27
Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
28
product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
3
1 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
2 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to
3 identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v.
4 Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 5. This request seeks documents that are
5 already in the possession of defendants. 6. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
6 unintelligible as to the terms "claimed assignments" and "the Liebling matter."
7
Request No. 5: All correspondence with plaintiffs in the Liebling matter that you contend
8 provided you assignments of their interests in the Liebling matter.
9 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
10 product privileges. 2. This request invades Plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutional Right of
11 privacy. 3. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
12 4. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support
13 Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th
14 1257). 5. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific time or
15 subject is stated. 6. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
16 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 7. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
17 unintelligible as to the terms "correspondence", "provided you assignments", "interests", and "the
18 Liebling matter."
19
Request No. 6: All documents related to the assignments you are claiming in connection to the
20 Liebling matter.
21 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
22 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
23 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
24 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
25 unintelligible as to the terms "in connection to" and "the Liebling matter." 5. This request
26 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
27 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 6. This
28 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
4
Request No. 7: All correspondence with any and all plaintiffs in the Liebling matter.
1
Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
2
product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
3
time or subject is stated. 3. This request invades Plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutional Right
4
of privacy. 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced at
5
deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as
6
to the terms "correspondence" and "the Liebling matter." 6. This request improperly requires
7
Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See,
8
Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 7. This request seeks documents that
9
10
are already in the possession of defendants.
11 Request No. 8: All correspondence with any Defendant in the Liebling matter.
12 Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no
13 specific time or subject is stated. 2. This request invades Plaintiff's and other third parties'
14 Constitutional Right of privacy. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the
15 item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous
16 and/or unintelligible as to the terms "correspondence" and "the Liebling matter." 5. This request
17 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
18 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 6. This
19 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 7. This request
20 invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product privileges.
21
Request No. 9: All notes, records, documents, or correspondence (or any copies thereof)
22 relating to you maintained by or made by defendants.
23 Response: Objections: 1. Calls for speculation. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome,
24 and oppressive in that no specific time or subject is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with
25 sufficient particularity the item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This
26 request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
27 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 5. This
28 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
5
Request No. 10: All fee agreements sent to you by defendants from 2009 forward concerning
1
the Liebling matter.
2
Response: Objections: 1. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of
3
defendants. 2. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product privileges.
4
3. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific time frame is stated.
5
4. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced at deposition.
6
(See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to the terms
7
"fee agreements", "forward", and "the Liebling matter." 6. This request improperly requires
8
Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See,
9
Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257).
10
Request No. 11: All emails and status reports sent to you by defendants from 2009 forward
11
concerning the Liebling matter.
12
Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no
13
specific time or subject is stated. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the
14
item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request is vague, ambiguous
15
and/or unintelligible as to the terms "status reports", "forward", and "the Liebling matter."
16
4. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support
17
Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th
18
1257). 5. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
19
Request No. 12: All billings concerning you by defendants from 2009 forward concerning the
20
Liebling matter.
21
Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that the
22
time frame is over twelve years. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the
23
item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request is vague, ambiguous
24
and/or unintelligible as to the terms "billings", "forward", and "the Liebling matter." 4. This
25
request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
26
contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 5. This
27
request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
28
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
6
Request No. 13: All communications between you and defendants concerning assignment from
1
former plaintiffs in the Liebling matter.
2
Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
3
product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
4
time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
5
produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
6
unintelligible as to the terms "communications", "former plaintiffs and "the Liebling matter."
7
5. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support
8
Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th
9
1257). 6. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
10
Request No. 14: All correspondence and documents between you and any former plaintiff in the
11
Liebling action concerning your desire to obtain an assignment from them of their claims or
12 judgments in the Liebling action.
13 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
14 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
15 time frame is stated. 3. This request invades Plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutional Right of
16 privacy. 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced at
17 deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as
18 to the terms "any former plaintiff" and "your desire." 6. This request improperly requires
19 Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See,
20 Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257).
21
Request No. 15: All filed judgments and orders in the Liebling matter from January 1, 2014
22 through the date of your deposition.
23 Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in the time
24 range is more than eight (8) years. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the
25 item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request is vague, ambiguous
26 and/or unintelligible as to the terms "correspondence" and "the Liebling matter." 4. This request
27 calls for public records which are equally available to defendants from the court clerk' office.
28 5. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
7
Request No. 16: All documents attempting to obtain a writ of execution against Robert
1
Zuckerman in the Liebling matter.
2
Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
3
product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
4
time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
5
produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
6
unintelligible as to the terms "documents attempting" and "the Liebling matter." 5. This request
7
calls for public records which are equally available to defendants from the court clerk.
8
Request No. 17: All documents you filed in connection with the Robert Zuckerman bankruptcy
9
including Robert Zuckerman's appeal to the BAP.
10
Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work
11
product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific
12
time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be
13
produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or
14
unintelligible as to the terms "Robert Zuckerman's appeal" and "BAP." 5. This request
15
improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
16
contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 7. This
17
request calls for public records which are equally available to defendants from the court clerk.
18
Request No. 18: All letters, emails, correspondence and documents demonstrating that you
19
received written assignments from former clients before January 1, 2014.
20
Response: Objections: 1. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to the
21
terms "correspondence" and "former clients." 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and
22
oppressive in that no specific time frame is stated. 3. This request invades Plaintiff's and third
23
parties' Constitutional Right of privacy. 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient
24
particularity the item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request
25
improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's
26
contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 6. This
27
request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 7. This request
28
invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product privileges.
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS
8
Exhibit C
Exhibit C
Alexander D. Promm, Esq.
Associate
apromm@glattys.com
March 22, 2022
VIA US MAIL and E-MAIL
Mr. Richard Abel
P. O. Box 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
perere1@gmail.com
Re: Abel v. McCutchan
Dear Mr. Abel:
I am writing in response to your meet and confer letter concerning your objections to the notice of
your deposition on March 31, 2022.
Specifically, you state: “The Notice fails to describe the areas to be covered during the deposition.
(See CCP §2025.220).”
CCP §2025.220 contains no reference to the description of areas to be covered in the deposition.
Perhaps you were confused by the statement “…specification with reasonable particularity of any
materials or category of materials, including any electronically stored information, to be produced
by the deponent.” CCP §2025.220 (a)(4). Regardless, the deposition notice is sufficient in this
respect and your objection thereto is improper.
In your objection to this notice you further state: “Pursuant to CCP §2025.310 (a) and (b), Plaintiff
hereby elects to appear remotely, and will not appear in person at the deposition.”
Had you read the Code of Civil Procedure section that you referenced, you would have seen that
this section cannot be used to combat in-person appearance at your deposition. The code section
is quite clear: First, Section (a) of CCP §2025.310 provides that “A person may take, and any
person other than the deponent may attend, a deposition by telephone or other remote
electronic means.” Clearly this section states that we, or another party or attorney may appear
remotely with the specific carve out that the deponent must appear in person.
To further bolster this understanding, Section (b) states: “…A party deponent shall appear at the
deposition in person and be in the presence of the deposition officer.” You, being a party in this
lawsuit, are required to appear in person for this deposition even according to your cited law.
956-10761/ADP/1233193
Re: Abel v. McCutchan
March 22, 2022
Page 2
The only way to relieve yourself of this obligation is to seek a protective order and show good
cause for a remote appearance. However, be reminded that the Courts will not see the fear of
COVID as good cause, especially as you have seen fit to appear in the courtroom in person
without prompting. We will oppose any attempt to attempt to avoid this deposition proceeding as
stated in the notice.
If you have any further law to bolster your position, please feel free to provide it, but at this stage,
if you do not appear for your deposition in person, we will compel your attendance.
Very truly yours,
GALLOWAY, LUCCHESE, EVERSON & PICCHI
By:
Alexander D. Promm, Esq.
ADP:adp
956-10761/ADP/1233193
Exhibit D
Exhibit D
Richard Abel
707 Hahman Drive No. 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Tel./Text (707) 340-3894
E-mail: perere1@gmail.com
March 25, 2022
Sent via E-mail and Fax
Aaron Schultz
Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi
2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Suite 350
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Meet and Confer for the deposition scheduled for March 31, 2022
Dear Mr. Schultz:
This is a meet and confer letter regarding the improper deposition notice that you sent me
around March 15. Today, I received a letter from a "Alexander Promm" which appears to have come
from the Galloway law company. If you are not aware of this letter, please let me know. Given that
you are the attorney of record, I am responding to this apparent letter from Galloway law company.
The letter demands that I appear in person at the deposition on March 31.
Timely objections to the deposition notice were served to you last week, advising you that the
deposition must be conducted remotely. I have no information about who will be in the room, their
health status, vaccination status, the total number of people who will attend, nor the size of the room.
In person would also require everyone to wear masks for 7 or 8 hours, including you. The same
information may be obtained at less cost and less inconvenience by remote deposition.
The deposition may proceed on March 31, but only if it is conducted as a remote deposition. I
do not plan to be there in person. Given that Code Civ.Proc. §§ 2025.310 (a) and (b), does not require
the deponent to appear in person, I elected to appear remotely in the objection served you.
So that there's no misunderstanding, I am making it clear now that I will not be there in person.
Please send me the specific electronic access instructions for accessing the deposition on Zoom. I do
not have this information.
Very truly yours,
Richard Abel
Richard Abel, Plaintiff
Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Aaron T. Schultz, Esq.
Shareholder
aschultz@glattys.com
March 28, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Richard Abel
P. O. Box 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Email: perere1@gmail.com
Re: Abel v. McCutchan
Dear Mr. Abel:
You know very well that Mr. Promm is an associate at our office. You have corresponded with
him on multiple occasion and as an associate in this firm he is entitled to communicate with you
on behalf of our clients in this matter and has and will continue to represent them in this matter.
As Mr. Promm stated in his letter, the code compels you to appear at the location stated, in person.
You did not bring a protective order, not did you meet and confer with respect to a protective order
and so you do not have the option simply to not show at the required location. There is no
requirement that our deposition notice provide information beyond what is stated on that notice,
or to take into account or provide the additional information you indicate in your letter. I would
note that I do not believe that the current health requirements in Sonoma County would require
masking during the deposition, and if they did, I have taken depositions earlier during the
pandemic with masks. As I expect you know, these are issues that you would have needed to
addressed by bringing a protective order, not through an objection to the deposition notice or
letter.
If you do not contact our office by noon tomorrow (Tuesday, March 29, 2022) and state that you
are agreeing to proceed with the deposition in person, this Thursday, we will take the deposition
off calendar and proceed with proceed with a Motion to Compel your attendance and ask for
sanctions.
Very truly yours,
GALLOWAY, LUCCHESE, EVERSON & PICCHI
By:
Aaron T. Schultz, Esq.
ATS:vlb
956-10761/ATS/1233858
Preview
Richard Abel 1 707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301 2 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Telephone: (707) 340-3894 3 4 Plaintiff, In pro per 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456 12 Plaintiff; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, 13 v. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO QUASH 14 THE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an 15 individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, Date: LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 16 through 100, inclusive; Time: Dept: 19 17 Defendants. Trial Date: October 7, 2022 18 19 I, Richard Abel, declare: 20 1. I am the plaintiff in this action, and the moving party for this instant motion. 21 2. The following is based on my own personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could, 22 and would, testify competently thereto. 23 3. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order, or 24 in the Alternative to Quash the Notice of Deposition pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. sections 25 2025.410 and 2025.420, and to describe our efforts to meet and confer. 26 4. Prior to bringing this motion, I met and conferred with the counsel for Defendants in 27 good faith as described herein. Counsel still insists that they will only do the deposition in 28 person. Counsel refuses to accept my offer of doing a remote deposition as an alternative. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF RE: MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS 1 1 5. On March 15, 2022, counsel of record Aaron Schultz ("Schultz") for Defendants, 2 served me with a Notice of Deposition (the "Notice"), requesting that I appear for a deposition on 3 March 31, 2022 at an office building located at 131A Stoney (sic) Point Circle, Santa Rosa. A 4 true and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5 6. On March 19, 2022, I timely served Mr. Schultz with my objections to the Notice. 6 I elected to appear remotely, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2025.310 (a) and (b). I gave notice 7 that I will not appear in person at the deposition. A true and correct copy of my objections are 8 attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9 7. I also objected on grounds that the length of the deposition in the Notice exceeds the 10 statutory time limit. (Id.) The deposition notice required me to appear at the deposition on 11 March 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. "and thereafter from day to day until completed." I further objected 12 to production of documents on various grounds, including but not limited to, that the requests for 13 documents failed to specify with sufficient particularity the items to be produced, per Code Civ. 14 Proc. §2025.220. (Id.). 15 8. On March 22, 2022, I received a letter from someone at the Galloway law firm by the 16 name of Alexander Promm1 ("Promm"), who stated that I was required to appear in person at the 17 deposition. Mr. Promm also advised me: "The only way to relieve yourself of this obligation is to 18 seek a protective order and show good cause for a remote appearance." A true and correct copy 19 of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 20 9. On March 25, 2021, in response to Mr. Promm's letter, I sent a meet and confer letter 21 regarding the deposition to Mr. Schultz, the actual attorney of record for defendants and the one 22 who signed the Deposition Notice. I advised Mr. Schultz that I was ready to proceed with the 23 deposition, but I only would only attend the deposition remotely, based on the statute and due to 24 the health risks from the continuing COVID pandemic and emerging variants, such as the BA.2 25 omicron variant that is highly contagious. I requested instructions for electronic access to the 26 remote deposition from Mr. Schultz. I sent this letter by both email and fax. A true and correct 27 copy of my letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 28 1 Alexander Promm is not the attorney of record for any party in this action. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF RE: MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS 2 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF RE: MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit B Richard Abel 1 707 Hahman Drive #9301 2 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Telephone: (707) 340-3894 3 4 Plaintiff, in pro per 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456 12 Plaintiff; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND TO REQUEST FOR v. 13 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 14 B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an Date: March 31, 2022 individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, 15 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 16 through 100, inclusive; 17 Defendants. 18 19 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff”) objects to 20 the Notice of Deposition ("Notice") served on March 15, 2022 by defendants B. Edward 21 McCutchan, Junior; Robert Sunderland; and Sunderland/McCutchan LLP ("Defendants" herein); 22 on the grounds that the Notice fails to comply with the California Code of Civil Procedure and 23 with the requirements of statutory and Constitutional due process. 24 Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Notice on the following grounds: 25 1. The Notice fails to describe the areas to be covered during the deposition. (See CCP 26 §2025.220). 27 2. The length of the deposition in the Notice exceeds the statutory time limit. (See CCP 28 §2025.290). PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 1 1 3. Pursuant to CCP §2025.310 (a) and (b), Plaintiff hereby elects to appear remotely, 2 and will not appear in person at the deposition. 3 Objections to the Request for Production of Documents 4 Plaintiff's responses contained herein are based upon information available and/or 5 reasonably available to Plaintiff at this time. The responses contained herein are made without 6 prejudice to subsequently obtained information. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his 7 answers at a later time should additional facts and/or law become known which necessitate such 8 an amendment. 9 Plaintiff is engaged in continuing discovery in this case. Therefore, all responses 10 contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are presently available and 11 disclose only those contentions which presently occur to him. There are potential witnesses who 12 have not been deposed, documents which have not been reviewed or obtained, analysis which 13 has not been completed, and other discovery and investigation which has not been finished. 14 Discovery and investigation are continuing. Plaintiff therefore provides selected documents at 15 deposition without prejudice to present further documents at trial not yet obtained or analyzed. 16 The fact that Plaintiff has responded to part or all of the request for production of 17 documents here is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver of Plaintiff of all or any 18 part of any objection to any request for production of document. Plaintiff reserves his right to 19 supplement any response herein. 20 Documents to be Produced 21 Request No. 1: All bills, notes memoranda, or documents in support of or reflecting special 22 and/or general damages as prayed for in the Complaint (and if not complete, please produce 23 those items in your possession at this time.) 24 Response: Objections: 1. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce 25 documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, 26 (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 2. This request seeks documents that are already in the 27 possession of defendants. 3. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 28 product privileges. 4. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 2 1 time frame is stated. 5. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 2 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 6. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 3 unintelligible as to the terms "bills" and "notes memoranda." 4 Request No. 2: All notes, records, documents, reports, correspondence, and memoranda 5 supporting the allegations of your Complaint, referring to the conduct of defendants B.EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR.; ROBERT J. SUNDERLAND; and SUNDERLAND/ 6 McCUTCHAN, LLP 7 Response: Objections: 1. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of 8 defendants. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced 9 at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and 10 work product privileges. 4. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no 11 specific time or subject is stated. 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to 12 the terms "notes", "records", "reports", "correspondence" and "memoranda." 6. This request 13 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 14 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 15 Request No. 3: Documentation of any and all losses claimed by you due to the negligence of 16 defendants B. Edward McCutchan Jr.; Robert J. Sunderland; and Sunderland/McCutchan, LLP. 17 Response: Objections: 1. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to 18 the terms "documentation" and "losses." 2. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client 19 and work product privileges. 3. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession 20 of defendants. 4. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific time 21 frame is stated. 5. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 22 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 6. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to 23 identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. 24 Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 25 Request No. 4: The original of all claimed assignments of claims to you by plaintiffs in the 26 Liebling matter. 27 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 28 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 3 1 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 2 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to 3 identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. 4 Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 5. This request seeks documents that are 5 already in the possession of defendants. 6. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 6 unintelligible as to the terms "claimed assignments" and "the Liebling matter." 7 Request No. 5: All correspondence with plaintiffs in the Liebling matter that you contend 8 provided you assignments of their interests in the Liebling matter. 9 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 10 product privileges. 2. This request invades Plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutional Right of 11 privacy. 3. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 12 4. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support 13 Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 14 1257). 5. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific time or 15 subject is stated. 6. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 16 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 7. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 17 unintelligible as to the terms "correspondence", "provided you assignments", "interests", and "the 18 Liebling matter." 19 Request No. 6: All documents related to the assignments you are claiming in connection to the 20 Liebling matter. 21 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 22 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific 23 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 24 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 25 unintelligible as to the terms "in connection to" and "the Liebling matter." 5. This request 26 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 27 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 6. This 28 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 4 Request No. 7: All correspondence with any and all plaintiffs in the Liebling matter. 1 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 2 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific 3 time or subject is stated. 3. This request invades Plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutional Right 4 of privacy. 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced at 5 deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as 6 to the terms "correspondence" and "the Liebling matter." 6. This request improperly requires 7 Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, 8 Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 7. This request seeks documents that 9 10 are already in the possession of defendants. 11 Request No. 8: All correspondence with any Defendant in the Liebling matter. 12 Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no 13 specific time or subject is stated. 2. This request invades Plaintiff's and other third parties' 14 Constitutional Right of privacy. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the 15 item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous 16 and/or unintelligible as to the terms "correspondence" and "the Liebling matter." 5. This request 17 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 18 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 6. This 19 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 7. This request 20 invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product privileges. 21 Request No. 9: All notes, records, documents, or correspondence (or any copies thereof) 22 relating to you maintained by or made by defendants. 23 Response: Objections: 1. Calls for speculation. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, 24 and oppressive in that no specific time or subject is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with 25 sufficient particularity the item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This 26 request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 27 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 5. This 28 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 5 Request No. 10: All fee agreements sent to you by defendants from 2009 forward concerning 1 the Liebling matter. 2 Response: Objections: 1. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of 3 defendants. 2. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product privileges. 4 3. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific time frame is stated. 5 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced at deposition. 6 (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to the terms 7 "fee agreements", "forward", and "the Liebling matter." 6. This request improperly requires 8 Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, 9 Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 10 Request No. 11: All emails and status reports sent to you by defendants from 2009 forward 11 concerning the Liebling matter. 12 Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no 13 specific time or subject is stated. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the 14 item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request is vague, ambiguous 15 and/or unintelligible as to the terms "status reports", "forward", and "the Liebling matter." 16 4. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support 17 Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 18 1257). 5. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 19 Request No. 12: All billings concerning you by defendants from 2009 forward concerning the 20 Liebling matter. 21 Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that the 22 time frame is over twelve years. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the 23 item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request is vague, ambiguous 24 and/or unintelligible as to the terms "billings", "forward", and "the Liebling matter." 4. This 25 request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 26 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 5. This 27 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 28 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 6 Request No. 13: All communications between you and defendants concerning assignment from 1 former plaintiffs in the Liebling matter. 2 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 3 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific 4 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 5 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 6 unintelligible as to the terms "communications", "former plaintiffs and "the Liebling matter." 7 5. This request improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support 8 Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 9 1257). 6. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 10 Request No. 14: All correspondence and documents between you and any former plaintiff in the 11 Liebling action concerning your desire to obtain an assignment from them of their claims or 12 judgments in the Liebling action. 13 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 14 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific 15 time frame is stated. 3. This request invades Plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutional Right of 16 privacy. 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be produced at 17 deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as 18 to the terms "any former plaintiff" and "your desire." 6. This request improperly requires 19 Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's contentions and claims. (See, 20 Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 21 Request No. 15: All filed judgments and orders in the Liebling matter from January 1, 2014 22 through the date of your deposition. 23 Response: Objections: 1. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in the time 24 range is more than eight (8) years. 2. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the 25 item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 3. This request is vague, ambiguous 26 and/or unintelligible as to the terms "correspondence" and "the Liebling matter." 4. This request 27 calls for public records which are equally available to defendants from the court clerk' office. 28 5. This request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 7 Request No. 16: All documents attempting to obtain a writ of execution against Robert 1 Zuckerman in the Liebling matter. 2 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 3 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific 4 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 5 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 6 unintelligible as to the terms "documents attempting" and "the Liebling matter." 5. This request 7 calls for public records which are equally available to defendants from the court clerk. 8 Request No. 17: All documents you filed in connection with the Robert Zuckerman bankruptcy 9 including Robert Zuckerman's appeal to the BAP. 10 Response: Objections: 1. This request invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work 11 product privileges. 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive in that no specific 12 time frame is stated. 3. This request fails to specify with sufficient particularity the item to be 13 produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 4. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or 14 unintelligible as to the terms "Robert Zuckerman's appeal" and "BAP." 5. This request 15 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 16 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 7. This 17 request calls for public records which are equally available to defendants from the court clerk. 18 Request No. 18: All letters, emails, correspondence and documents demonstrating that you 19 received written assignments from former clients before January 1, 2014. 20 Response: Objections: 1. This request is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible as to the 21 terms "correspondence" and "former clients." 2. This request is overbroad, burdensome, and 22 oppressive in that no specific time frame is stated. 3. This request invades Plaintiff's and third 23 parties' Constitutional Right of privacy. 4. This request fails to specify with sufficient 24 particularity the item to be produced at deposition. (See CCP §2025.220). 5. This request 25 improperly requires Plaintiff to identify and produce documents that support Plaintiff's 26 contentions and claims. (See, Rifkind v. Superior Court, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257). 6. This 27 request seeks documents that are already in the possession of defendants. 7. This request 28 invades upon Plaintiff's attorney-client and work product privileges. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS 8 Exhibit C Exhibit C Alexander D. Promm, Esq. Associate apromm@glattys.com March 22, 2022 VIA US MAIL and E-MAIL Mr. Richard Abel P. O. Box 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 perere1@gmail.com Re: Abel v. McCutchan Dear Mr. Abel: I am writing in response to your meet and confer letter concerning your objections to the notice of your deposition on March 31, 2022. Specifically, you state: “The Notice fails to describe the areas to be covered during the deposition. (See CCP §2025.220).” CCP §2025.220 contains no reference to the description of areas to be covered in the deposition. Perhaps you were confused by the statement “…specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or category of materials, including any electronically stored information, to be produced by the deponent.” CCP §2025.220 (a)(4). Regardless, the deposition notice is sufficient in this respect and your objection thereto is improper. In your objection to this notice you further state: “Pursuant to CCP §2025.310 (a) and (b), Plaintiff hereby elects to appear remotely, and will not appear in person at the deposition.” Had you read the Code of Civil Procedure section that you referenced, you would have seen that this section cannot be used to combat in-person appearance at your deposition. The code section is quite clear: First, Section (a) of CCP §2025.310 provides that “A person may take, and any person other than the deponent may attend, a deposition by telephone or other remote electronic means.” Clearly this section states that we, or another party or attorney may appear remotely with the specific carve out that the deponent must appear in person. To further bolster this understanding, Section (b) states: “…A party deponent shall appear at the deposition in person and be in the presence of the deposition officer.” You, being a party in this lawsuit, are required to appear in person for this deposition even according to your cited law. 956-10761/ADP/1233193 Re: Abel v. McCutchan March 22, 2022 Page 2 The only way to relieve yourself of this obligation is to seek a protective order and show good cause for a remote appearance. However, be reminded that the Courts will not see the fear of COVID as good cause, especially as you have seen fit to appear in the courtroom in person without prompting. We will oppose any attempt to attempt to avoid this deposition proceeding as stated in the notice. If you have any further law to bolster your position, please feel free to provide it, but at this stage, if you do not appear for your deposition in person, we will compel your attendance. Very truly yours, GALLOWAY, LUCCHESE, EVERSON & PICCHI By: Alexander D. Promm, Esq. ADP:adp 956-10761/ADP/1233193 Exhibit D Exhibit D Richard Abel 707 Hahman Drive No. 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Tel./Text (707) 340-3894 E-mail: perere1@gmail.com March 25, 2022 Sent via E-mail and Fax Aaron Schultz Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi 2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Suite 350 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Re: Meet and Confer for the deposition scheduled for March 31, 2022 Dear Mr. Schultz: This is a meet and confer letter regarding the improper deposition notice that you sent me around March 15. Today, I received a letter from a "Alexander Promm" which appears to have come from the Galloway law company. If you are not aware of this letter, please let me know. Given that you are the attorney of record, I am responding to this apparent letter from Galloway law company. The letter demands that I appear in person at the deposition on March 31. Timely objections to the deposition notice were served to you last week, advising you that the deposition must be conducted remotely. I have no information about who will be in the room, their health status, vaccination status, the total number of people who will attend, nor the size of the room. In person would also require everyone to wear masks for 7 or 8 hours, including you. The same information may be obtained at less cost and less inconvenience by remote deposition. The deposition may proceed on March 31, but only if it is conducted as a remote deposition. I do not plan to be there in person. Given that Code Civ.Proc. §§ 2025.310 (a) and (b), does not require the deponent to appear in person, I elected to appear remotely in the objection served you. So that there's no misunderstanding, I am making it clear now that I will not be there in person. Please send me the specific electronic access instructions for accessing the deposition on Zoom. I do not have this information. Very truly yours, Richard Abel Richard Abel, Plaintiff Exhibit E Exhibit E Aaron T. Schultz, Esq. Shareholder aschultz@glattys.com March 28, 2022 VIA EMAIL Mr. Richard Abel P. O. Box 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Email: perere1@gmail.com Re: Abel v. McCutchan Dear Mr. Abel: You know very well that Mr. Promm is an associate at our office. You have corresponded with him on multiple occasion and as an associate in this firm he is entitled to communicate with you on behalf of our clients in this matter and has and will continue to represent them in this matter. As Mr. Promm stated in his letter, the code compels you to appear at the location stated, in person. You did not bring a protective order, not did you meet and confer with respect to a protective order and so you do not have the option simply to not show at the required location. There is no requirement that our deposition notice provide information beyond what is stated on that notice, or to take into account or provide the additional information you indicate in your letter. I would note that I do not believe that the current health requirements in Sonoma County would require masking during the deposition, and if they did, I have taken depositions earlier during the pandemic with masks. As I expect you know, these are issues that you would have needed to addressed by bringing a protective order, not through an objection to the deposition notice or letter. If you do not contact our office by noon tomorrow (Tuesday, March 29, 2022) and state that you are agreeing to proceed with the deposition in person, this Thursday, we will take the deposition off calendar and proceed with proceed with a Motion to Compel your attendance and ask for sanctions. Very truly yours, GALLOWAY, LUCCHESE, EVERSON & PICCHI By: Aaron T. Schultz, Esq. ATS:vlb 956-10761/ATS/1233858