Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02730/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02730-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA CLAYPOLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY

(Re: Docket No. 122)

The Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct are just that: guidelines. 

They only “encourage[]” counsel to comply with them, and the court “does not anticipate that 

these Guidelines will be relied upon as the basis for a motion.” A one-off lapse, then, may not be 

a big deal. Attorneys are people, and people make mistakes. But where, as here, an attorney 

repeatedly and unapologetically flouts guideline after guideline, it is a big deal—and the court has 

little choice but to do something about it.

Plaintiffs Silvia Guersenzvaig and the Estate of Joshua Claypole move to compel and for 

sanctions against Defendants California Forensic Medical Group and Taylor Fithian.1 They cite 

numerous violations by Defendants’ counsel, Peter Bertling, of not just the Guidelines for 

Professional Conduct, but also the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an order to follow those 

Rules. Defendants’ opposition consists only of a declaration from Bertling that fails to explain, let 

alone excuse, his conduct.2

Discovery is hard enough, even without conduct like that outlined below. Plaintiffs’ 

motion is GRANTED.

 

1

See Docket No. 122.

2

See Docket No. 133.

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 10
2

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367. The undersigned was 

assigned discovery matters in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

II.

“A lawyer should promptly and completely comply with all discovery requirements of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”3 In addition, “[a] lawyer should not delay producing 

documents to prevent opposing counsel from inspecting documents prior to scheduled depositions 

or for any other tactical reason.”4 

Plaintiffs deposed Defendants’ expert, Dr. Richard Hayward, on October 16.5 Along with 

the notice of deposition, Plaintiffs asked Hayward to produce all the documents he reviewed, 

relied on or created in the process of writing his report.6 At the deposition, Bertling presented a 

physically cracked and unusable disc.7 When Plaintiffs’ counsel informed him of the problem, 

Bertling promised to send over the documents digitally the same day.8

That production did not happen for another six weeks. Despite Bertling’s assurances, 

Defendants sent nothing over on October 16, the date of the deposition.9 Even after Plaintiffs’ 

counsel again prodded Bertling, on October 21, Defendants emailed four documents—Hayward’s 

expert report, Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure, Plaintiffs’ expert report and certain emails between 

Hayward and Defendants’ counsel—that they knew Plaintiffs already had.10

 

3 N.D. Cal. Guidelines for Professional Conduct, § 9.

4

Id.

5

See Docket No. 122-1, Ex. D.

6

See id., Ex. A at 2-5.

7

See id., Ex. C.

8

See id., Ex. D at 8:1-18.

9

See Docket No. 122-1 at ¶ 5.

10 See id. at ¶ 7; id., Ex. E.

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 10
3

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

When Plaintiffs’ counsel protested that the production was obviously incomplete, Bertling 

responded on October 26, “What do you believe we should be producing that has not already been 

produced? You already have many of the documents referred to by Dr. Hayward in his report.”11 

Plaintiffs’ counsel again reminded Bertling that “[t]he request for production included, inter alia, 

requests for all materials relied upon by Dr. Hayward . . . , notes from his jail visits, incident 

reports reviewed, as well as specific documents he referenced that had not previously been 

produced to Plaintiffs.”12 This time, Bertling did not answer at all, and Hayward produced 

nothing further.13

With no other recourse available, on November 10, Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(1) to compel Hayward to produce the documents.14 Almost two weeks later, Bertling’s 

colleague finally wrote to Plaintiffs’ counsel that the broken disc had contained a number of 

documents that Defendants believed Plaintiffs already had, but that Defendants could produce 

them again if necessary.

15

 But the very next day, Bertling filed his opposing declaration, in which 

he said that he had “recently learned” that Hayward did have some paper notes that Plaintiffs had 

not received before.

16

 He promised that Hayward would produce those notes by December 4.17 

Those notes, along with sign-in sheets for training sessions that Hayward relied on but Plaintiffs 

had never seen, finally arrived on December 8—the day after Plaintiffs had to submit their 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.18 Bertling offered no explanation, 

 

11 Id., Ex. E.

12 Id.

13 See Docket No. 122-1 at ¶ 7.

14 See Docket No. 122.

15 See Docket No. 139-2.

16 Docket No. 133 at ¶ 2.

17 See id. at ¶ 3.

18 See Docket Nos. 124, 142.

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 10
4

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

either in his declaration or at the hearing on this motion, for Defendants’ delay.

19

Plaintiffs also seek to depose Hayward again so that Plaintiffs can ask him about the newly 

produced documents. Remarkably, despite this record of delay, Defendants object to the need for 

any further deposition. Their arguments are not persuasive.

Hayward’s notes and the information about the training sessions certainly could have given 

rise to questions that Plaintiffs never got to ask at the first deposition. Defendants shall therefore 

make Hayward available for four more hours of deposition on any documents produced after the 

initial deposition within 14 days of this order. Plaintiffs are further awarded any fees and costs 

associated with taking the new deposition and filing this motion. And at least 7 days before the 

new deposition, Hayward must produce any remaining documents that he relied on and that are 

reasonably available to him or Defendants. This includes the sign-in sheets from training sessions 

as well as incident reports and other documents, to the extent Hayward has access to them and has 

not produced them already. Defendants have represented that Plaintiffs already have all the 

documents that were on the broken disc.20 If that is true, and confirmed in a sworn declaration, 

Hayward need not produce them again. However, Hayward must identify specifically any 

documents that he relied on but can no longer access.

III.

“A lawyer representing a deponent or another party should limit objections to those that 

are well founded and necessary for the protection of his or her client’s interest.”21 “An objection 

must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.”22 “Once a question is 

 

19 See Docket No. 133 at ¶¶ 2-3.

20 See Docket No. 139-2.

21 N.D. Cal. Guidelines for Professional Conduct, § 9.

22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2); see also Sec. Nat’l Bank of Sioux City v. Day, 800 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 

2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment) 

(“[A]rgumentative objections, suggestive objections, and directions to a deponent not to answer, 

improperly disrupt, prolong, and frustrate deposition testimony.”).

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 10
5

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

asked, a lawyer should not coach the deponent or suggest answers, whether through objections or 

other means.”

23

 “A lawyer should not direct a deponent to refuse to answer a question unless the 

question seeks privileged information, is manifestly irrelevant, or is calculated to harass.”24 

Bertling repeatedly ignored these standards. Plaintiffs’ motion quotes dozens of deposition 

excerpts that show Bertling making extremely long speaking objections,25 coaching witnesses,

26

 

23 N.D. Cal. Guidelines for Professional Conduct, § 9; see also Funk v. Town of Paradise, Case 

No. 09-cv-01000, 2011 WL 2580357, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2011) (sanctioning counsel for 

“appalling” behavior where counsel “repeatedly interrupted the proceedings, interjected editorial 

comments, and coached or suggested information to the witnesses”); Cotton v. City of Eureka, 

Case No. 08-cv-04386, 2010 WL 2889498, at *1-3 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2010) (noting that an 

attorney had violated Rule 30(c)(2) when she “interposed improper coaching objections and 

improper speaking objections”); BNSF Ry. Co. v. San Joaquin Valley Ry. Co., Case No. 08-cv01086, 2009 WL 3872043, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2009) (“[C]ounsel for the witness being 

deposed is prohibited from acting as an intermediary, interpreting questions, assisting the 

deponent with formulation of the answers, or deciding which questions should be answered.”).

24 N.D. Cal. Guidelines for Professional Conduct, § 9.

25 See, e.g., Docket No. 122-1, Ex. D at 119:11-21 (“Q. So in your opinion, is Dr. Fithian 

reporting what Mr. Claypole was stating, or is Dr. Fithian making a clinical judgment that Mr. 

Claypole was stable? MR. BERTLING: Lacks foundation. Calls for speculation. Dr. Fithian 

could have been asking a number of questions that caused him to come to that conclusion.”); id., 

Ex. G at 79:19-80:6 (“Q. Are you familiar with the September 28th, 2014, suicide of Mikol 

Stewart in Sonoma County Jail? A. What jail? Q. Sonoma County Jail. MR. BERTLING: So 

we are not going to go through any other suicides. We are here today for the treatment and care 

that he provided to Mr. Claypole. That’s what this deposition was for. The Court has allowed you 

to have a second—another deposition where that information was covered. We are not going to 

go over that today. You’ve asked nothing about Mr. Claypole, and it’s about time that you did.”); 

id. at 174:2-7 (“Q. Are you aware of whether any corrective action plan was identified or 

followed? MR. BERTLING: Lacks foundation that there was a need for any such corrective 

action plan to be identified or followed following the peer review of this case.”); id., Ex. H at 

62:23-63:8 (“Q: . . . Do you know how, either specifically for this contract or in general, CFMG 

would come to the determination of putting in a specific time frame like that in a specific county? 

MR BERTLING: Well, let me just object that it’s vague and ambiguous. Calls for speculation. 

This is also a juvenile facility as opposed to an adult facility with different titles and statutes that 

may be involved. But if you understand the question and can answer, please do, Dr. Fithian.”); 

see also Docket No. 122 at 6-10 (quoting other examples).

26 See, e.g., Docket No. 122-1, Ex. D at 119:15-21 (“Q. So in your opinion, is Dr. Fithian 

reporting what Mr. Claypole was stating, or is Dr. Fithian making a clinical judgment that Mr. 

Claypole was stable? MR. BERTLING: Lacks foundation. Calls for speculation. Dr. Fithian 

could have been asking a number of questions that caused him to come to that conclusion.”); id., 

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 10
6

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cutting off witnesses27 and even answering for them.

28

 Bertling makes no attempt to defend any of 

this conduct.29

Rule 30(d)(2) allows a court to “impose an appropriate sanction—including the reasonable 

expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or 

 

Ex. G at 139:9-141:22 (showing Bertling handing the witness a document to “help him respond” 

to a question); id. at 221:1-9 (“Q. Did you do any of that in Joshua Claypole’s case? A. I don’t 

believe I did, ma’am. MR. BERTLING: Lacks foundation that there was time to do that before 

committing suicide. . . . Q. And why didn’t you do that? A. Again, Counselor, Mr. Claypole was 

in custody, I think, for about 48 hours.”); id. at 226:16-21 (“Q. And given those stark conditions, 

prior to May 1st, 2013, did you ever recommend to the County of Monterey that they modify their 

safety cells? MR. BERTLING: Lacks foundation that there was any way to modify. But go 

ahead and answer her question.”); see also Docket No. 122 at 6-12 (quoting other examples).

27 See, e.g., Docket No. 122-1, Ex. H at 40:23-41:8 (“Q. Do you know if it began prior to May 

1st, 2013? A. No, I—again, I don’t know with any certainty that it began before 2013. 

Staffing— MR BERTLING: You have answered the question.”); id., Ex. J at 64:22-65:18 (“Q. 

And do you know whose decision it was as between CFMG and the County of Monterey that 

custody officers do the initial health screening when an inmate comes into the jail? A. You know, 

Counselor, that has been a pattern of practice since 1981. I think the intake health screening prior 

to coming on board was done by custody administration, custody staff. I think we continued that 

through the years. MR. BERTLING: You’ve answered the question. . . . I don’t think you want 

him to ramble.”).

28 See, e.g., Docket No. 122-1, Ex. D at 129:1-5 (“Q. Do you know if Dr. Fithian asked about any 

prior suicidal statements during his meeting with Mr. Claypole on the morning of May 2nd? MR. 

BERTLING: You mean other than what’s in his record where he said he denied it?”); id. at 133:3-

8 (“Q. In conducting a suicide risk assessment of Mr. Claypole, subsequent to those statements 

that he made to Ms. Spano, in your opinion, should a suicide risk assessment have involved asking 

Mr. Claypole about the statements that he’s made indicating suicidality? MR. BERTLING: Well, 

he did.”); id., Ex. G at 150:18-25 (“Q. And what evaluation did any medical or mental health staff

do of Josh at the time that he was placed back on suicide watch on May 3rd? MR. BERTLING: 

Other than what you just went over with Ms. Spano’s note?”); id. at 182:3-11 (“Q. Are you aware 

that the court found that conducting health and safety checks of inmates in segregation or 

lockdown units only once per hour violated correctional standards? MR. BERTLING: Objection. 

Lacks foundation, calls for speculation. That had nothing to do with CFMG. If you know. THE 

WITNESS: I think, again, I think Mr. Bertling is correct.”); id., Ex. I at 101:12-16 (“Q[:] What 

measures, if any, did CFMG or Dr. Fithian take to address that possibility? MR. BERTLING: 

You mean other than the fact that he was in a lock down cell being monitored by custody?”); see 

also Docket No. 122 at 6-16 (quoting other examples).

29 See Docket No. 133.

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 10
7

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.” By persisting in this behavior throughout 

discovery on behalf of his clients, Bertling crossed well into sanctionable territory.30 The court 

awards Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees and costs for the following depositions: (1) the Hayward 

deposition on October 16, 2015,31 (2) the Fithian deposition on August 31, 201532 and (3) the 

Fithian deposition on September 7, 2015.33 Defendants shall make full payment within 14 days.

IV.

“Lawyers owe a duty of professionalism to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, 

the courts, and the public as a whole.”34 “Those duties include, among others: civility, 

professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence, respect, courtesy, cooperation and 

competence.”35 “The practice of law before this [c]ourt must be free from prejudice and bias. 

Treatment free of bias must be accorded all other attorneys, litigants, judicial officers, jurors and 

support personnel.”36 One could defend some of Bertling’s conduct as merely vigorous 

 

30 See Lund v. Matthews, Case No. 13-cv-00144, 2014 WL 517569, at *4-6 (D. Neb. Feb. 7, 2014) 

(awarding sanctions where counsel whispered into deponent’s ear, made objections with 

commentary that coached the deponent’s answers and instructed the witness not to answer on the 

basis of an “asked and answered” objection); Craig v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., Case No. 08-cv00492, 2009 WL 690210, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2009) (awarding sanctions where counsel 

“disrupted the proceedings by making argumentative and suggestive objections, conducting 

private conversations with his client, instructing his client not to answer questions without 

asserting a privilege, and answering questions on behalf of his client”); Cordova v. United States, 

Case No. 05-cv-00563, 2006 WL 4109659, at *2 (D.N.M. July 30, 2006) (awarding sanctions 

where counsel coached the witness through speaking objections, conferred with the witness off the 

record during pending questions and impermissibly instructed the witness not to answer).

31 See Docket No. 122-1, Ex. D. 

32 See id., Ex. G.

33 See id., Ex. H. Plaintiffs also seek preclusive relief, but only the presiding judge can award that 

sanction.

34 N.D. Cal. Guidelines for Professional Conduct.

35 Id.

36 Civ. L.R. 11-4(b).

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 7 of 10
8

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

representation of his client, but Bertling also has stooped to an indefensible attack on opposing 

counsel.

At a contentious deposition, when Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Bertling not to interrupt her, 

Bertling told her, “[D]on’t raise your voice at me. It’s not becoming of a woman . . . .”37 There 

are several obvious problems with his statement, but, most saliently, Bertling endorsed the 

stereotype that women are subject to a different standard of behavior than their fellow attorneys. 

To make matters worse, in his declaration in opposition to this motion, Bertling offered only a 

halfhearted politician’s apology “if [he] offended” Plaintiff’s counsel, and he nevertheless tried to 

justify the comment because it “was made in the context of [Plaintiff’s counsel] literally yelling at 

[his] client and creating a hostile environment during the deposition.”38

A sexist remark is not just a professional discourtesy, although that in itself is regrettable 

and all too common. The bigger issue is that comments like Bertling’s reflect and reinforce the

male-dominated attitude of our profession. A recent ABA report found that “inappropriate or 

stereotypical comments” towards women attorneys are among the more overt signifiers of the 

discrimination, both stated and implicit, that contributes to their underrepresentation in the legal 

field.39 When an attorney makes these kinds of comments, “it reflects not only on the attorney’s 

lack of professionalism, but also tarnishes the image of the entire legal profession and disgraces 

our system of justice.”40

 

37 Docket No. 122-1, Ex. G at 28:5-21. In full, Bertling said, “Move on with your next question 

and don’t raise your voice at me. It’s not becoming of a woman or an attorney who is acting 

professionally under the rules of professional responsibility.” Id.

38 Docket No. 133 at ¶ 4. Other than his own characterization, Bertling offers no deposition 

excerpts or other evidence that suggests this.

39 Stephanie A. Scharf & Roberta A. Liebenberg, Am. Bar Ass’n, First Chairs at Trial: More 

Women Need Seats at the Table 14-15 (2015), available at

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/marketing/women/first_chairs2015.authcheckdam.p

df.

40 Cruz-Aponte v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., Case No. 09-cv-02092, 2015 WL 5006213, at *3 

(D.P.R. Aug. 17, 2015).

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 8 of 10
9

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Sanctions may not fully compensate Plaintiffs’ counsel for Bertling’s conduct, but they 

might deter it in the future. “District courts have the inherent power to sanction a lawyer for a 

‘full range of litigation abuses.’”41 Courts may exercise this power “even if procedural rules exist 

which sanction the same conduct.”42 Because the scope of the sanctioning power is so broad, the 

court must “exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates 

of due process.”43 Before it imposes sanctions, a court must “specifically find[] bad faith or 

conduct tantamount to bad faith.”44 And to satisfy due process, the court must ensure that the 

sanctioned party has notice of the challenged misconduct and the allegation of bad faith.

45

 Subject 

to these safeguards, the court may “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the 

judicial process.”46

Guided by these principles, the court finds that Bertling’s conduct was in bad faith. In 

light of his other discovery misconduct and his failure to tender any meaningful apology—despite 

opportunities to do so on the papers and at the hearing—the remark was emblematic of an

unacceptably disrespectful attitude towards Plaintiffs’ counsel. Furthermore, the requirements of 

due process have been satisfied: Bertling had a full and fair opportunity to oppose the motion on 

the papers and at the hearing.

The only question, then, is what sanction to impose. The court already has awarded 

Plaintiffs their fees and costs in bringing this motion as well as a portion of their attorney’s fees 

for the deposition during which Bertling made his sexist comment. Those sanctions help 

 

41 Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Chambers 

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991)).

42 Chambers, 501 U.S. at 49.

43 Id. at 50.

44 Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001).

45 See In re Deville, 361 F.3d 539, 548-50 (9th Cir. 2004).

46 Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44-45.

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 9 of 10
10

Case No. 14-cv-02730-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ violation of discovery rules and Bertling’s other conduct 

during depositions, but a specific and appropriate sanction for Bertling’s comment is required. To 

that end, within 28 days, Bertling shall donate $250 to the Women Lawyers Association of Los 

Angeles Foundation47—an organization in Bertling’s region dedicated to women in the legal 

profession—and submit a declaration to the court confirming his compliance with this order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

47 Bertling may make his donation online at https://wlala.siteym.com/donations/donate.asp?id=8677.

Case 5:14-cv-02730-BLF Document 161 Filed 01/12/16 Page 10 of 10