Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/30302751/County-Lawyer-s-Motion-to-Compel-Testimony-From-Harold-Scull-s-Lawyer
Timestamp: 2016-08-30 21:30:36
Document Index: 378393799

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1991', '§ 1992', '§ 1987', '§2', '§3', '§4', '§5', '§6', '§7', '§8', '§9', '§10', '§ 11', '§13', '§ 14', '§2025', '§20', '§2025', '§2025', '§ 1987', '§ 1987', '§ 199', '§ 1991', '§ 1992', '§1992', '§15', '§ 1987', '§ 1987', 'arte 9']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more﻿2021 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA 8 9 10 Defendants. EI'rrJORSED FILED APR 20 2010 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA Gregory G. Spaulding, SBN 106606 Lisa Ann Hilario, SBN 148460 2 Lisa G. Carreno, SBN 247458 SPAULDING McCULLOUGH& TANSIL LLP 3 90 South E Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1867 4 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Telephone: (707) 524-1900 5 Facsimile: (707) 524-1906 6 Attomeys for Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA; 10 WEBER, 7 SALL Y LIEDHOLM, MICHAEL BREWSTER, and KAREN ST AGG-HOURlGAN 11 CLA Y M. GREENE, 1ANNETTE BIGGERSTAFF, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HAROLD SCULL, Deceased, l&M TENTATIVE RULINGS "J"a avallable after 2:00 p.rn. on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing: hUp;!I~'-N"w.SonomaSuperiorCourt.c!)m OR ("to7) 52'!-688~ Case No.: SPR-81815 Unlimited Civil Matter Assigned to Hon. Roberl Boyd for All Purposes NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF RONALD PRESTON AT DEPOSITION; FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Date: May 12, 2010 Time: 3:00 p.m. Dept: 17 Trial Date: 1 uly 16, 2010 12 13 Plaintiffs, 23 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 12,2010 at 3 :00 p.m. as soon thereafter as the 14 vs. 24 matter may be heard in Department 17 of the above-entitled Court, defendants County of Sonoma, 10 25 Weber, Sally Liedholm, Michael Brewster and Karen Stagg-Hourigan (collectively, the "County 26 defendants") will and hereby do move this Court for an Order: requiring third party witness Ronald 27 Preston to attend and testify at his deposition at the offices of Spaulding McCullough& Tansil LLP, 15 16 THE COUNTY OF SONOMA; 10 WEBER; SALL Y LIEDHOLM; KARIN STAGGI-IOURlGAN; MICHAEL BREWSTER; NORTH BAY AUCTIONS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, AGUA CALIENTE VILLA, an unknown business entity, KIM DILLINGHAM; And Does 1 through 50, inclusive, 28 within one week ofthe granting of this Motion. The County defendants further move this Court for I 17 18 19 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION: (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT: AND {3} REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 16 17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION: (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS an Order determining that Preston's failure to appear for deposition constitutes contempt punishable 2 under Code of Civil Procedure § 1991.1, and ordering Preston to make payment to the County 3 . defendants in the amount of $500, plus other damages recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure 4 § 1992. Finally, the County defendants move this Court for an Order awarding sanctions against 5 Preston and his attomey, John Kelly, under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2. 6 This Motion is made on the grounds that Preston was subpenaed for deposition on April 16, 7 2010 but he fai led to appear, the deposition having been unilaterally cancelled by Preston and his 8 attorney at the last minute and without any legitimate basis. Also, Preston and his attorney have 9 advised that Preston refuses to appear for his deposition unless the parties agree in advance to limit 10 the questions that he can be asked. 11 This Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed 12 herewith, the Declaration of Gregory G. Spaulding filed herewith, the complete tiles and records in 13 this matter, and any additional evidence submitted at the hearing 14 Dated: April 20, 2010 15 SPAULDING McCULLOUGH & TANSIL LLP Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA, JO WEBER, SALLY LIEDHOLM, MICHAEL BREWSTER and KAREN ST AGO-HOURIGAN 18 By: Grego(i0 .&Spaulding 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 6 hand. In May, 2008, the PG was contacted by a social worker at Kaiser Hospital concerning 7 Mr. Scull, aged 89, who had been admitted to Kaiser with injuries he reported were inflicted by 8 Mr. Greene, age 76, Mr. Scull's partner of approximately 20 years. Following an investigation, the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHOIUTIES 2 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 This case asserts claims arising out of interactions between plaintiff Clay Greene and Harold 4 Scull I , on the one hand, and representatives of the Sonoma County Office of the Public 5 Administrator, Public Guardian and Public Conservator ("Public Guardian" or "PG"), on the other 9 PG determined that Mr. Scull needed assistance to attend to his personal and medical needs and to 10 manage his financial affairs; that Mr. Scull was afraid of Mr. Greene; and that Mr. Scull did not want 11 to return to the home he shared with Mr. Greene. Accordingly, the PG found new housing for 12 Mr. Scull. [Declaration of Gregory G. Spaulding ("Spaulding Decl."), §2.] 13 In May, 2008, Mr. Scull voluntarily nominated the PG as conservator of his person and his 14 estate, and the PG filed a petition for temporary and permanent conservatorship of Mr. Scull's estate. 15 The PG was appointed temporary conservator of Mr. Scull's estate in June 2008, and the appointment 16 was made permanent in July, 2008. Also in May, 2008, Mr. Greene accepted the PG's offer of 1 7 assistance and he formally nominated the PG as his representative payee for Social Security 18 Administration benefits. [Spaulding Decl., §3.] 19 After Mr. Scull was moved to his new residence, Mr. Greene was advised to separate his 20 belongings from Mr. Scull's, so that Mr. Scull's property could be removed from the house. Because 21 there was not enough room at Mr. Scull's new residence for all of his belongings, and to provide 22 funds for his future care and maintenance, Mr. Scull consented to the PG's sale of his personal 23 property. Defendant North Bay Auctions LLC ("NBA") was engaged to assist with the sale. In June, 24 2008, Mr. Scull and Mr. Greene, along with representatives from NBA and the PG, met at the house 25 so that Mr. Scull could identify the personal property he wanted to take to his new home and so Mr. 26 27 28 I Mr. Scull died on August [3,2008. In this case, claims are asserted on his behalf by Jannette Biggerstaff, in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Harold Scull. 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (l) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY ;\ T DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS at two public auctions in August 2008. [Spaulding Decl., §4.] Throughout these events, Ronald Preston was the attorney for Mr. Scull personally, and also Green could identify and remove the property that belonged to him. The remaining property was sold 3 4 for his conserved estate. At the time of the events now at issue, Mr. Preston communicated with 5 representatives of the PG regarding Mr. Scull's situation, the sale ofMr. Scull's property and regarding other matters pertinent to plaintiffs' claims. [Spaulding Decl., §5.] 6 7 8 9 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs in this case are Clay Greene and Jannette Biggerstaff, as personal representative of the Estate of Harold Scull. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 4,2009. The Complaint alleges that in connection with their management of Mr. Scull's estate, the County defendants abused their authority and breached fiduciary duties owed to Mr. Scull and Mr. Greene. More specifically, they claim that the PG: failed to properly secure and preserve Mr. Scull's assets and personal property; improperly removed Mr. Scull's personal property from his residence; and sold and disposed of Mr. Scull's property without permission, authority or notice. After the Complaint was served, the parties agreed to explore a possible settlement before the defendants were required to respond, and before conducting discovery. A mediation was conducted on November 30, 2009; it was unsuccessful. In January, 2010, the County defendants filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike portions of the Complaint. A First Amended Complaint was filed in March 2010, on the eve of the hearing for the Demurrer and Motion to Strike. [Spaulding Decl., §6.] Also in January, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preference, claiming that both plaintiffs are over 70 years old, and both have significant health problems, so that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the their interests in the litigation. The Motion was initially denied based on deficiencies in plaintiffs' attorney's declaration filed in support of the Motion, but after plaintiffs' attorney submitted a supplemental declaration, the Court granted the Motion and set a trial date of July 16, J 2010.- [Spaulding Decl., §7.] J - The Court granted the Motion on March 30, 2010 without holding a hearing, even though the County defendants requested an opportunity to be heard. 4 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (1) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION: (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Before the Motion for Preference was granted, the parties had initiated discovery, serving 2 written discovery and noticing depositions. One of the first depositions noticed by the County 3 defendants was the deposition of Ronald Preston. As noted above, Mr. Preston was a witness to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 events at issue in this case, and he had conversations with PG representatives and corresponded with various County employees, regarding matters critical to plaintiffs' claims. In their Responses to Interrogatories, both plaintiffs identify Mr. Preston as a person with knowledge of facts that support many of plaintiffs' claims, including their claims that the County: failed to secure and protect plaintiffs' property from damage and lass; failed to inventory the property; allowed unknown third parties to have access to the property; failed to protect the property; sold property for less than its true value; did not allocate all of the proceeds from the sale of property to Greene; took possession of and 11 spent funds from Greene's Wells Fargo account without Greene's consent; presented Greene with 12 documents knowing that he was unable to understand what was being presented to him; and exerted 13 undue influence over Scull. [Spaulding Decl., §8.] The County defendants wanted to schedule Mr. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Preston's deposition early, because they anticipate that additional witnesses, documents and relevant information will be identified through his testimony, and the County defendants wanted to make sure that after his deposition was completed, they would still have time to serve follow up written discovery and to notice additional deposltiona' [Spaulding Decl., §9.] The County defendants' initial attempts to serve Mr. Preston with a subpena for his deposition were unsuccessful; Mr. Preston had recently retired from practice and could not be found at the 20 business address that the County had for him. On March 22, 2010, counsel for the County defendants 21 received a letter from plaintiffs' attorney advising that she had received a call from attorney John 22 Kelly, who told her that he would accept service of a subpena on Mr. Preston's behalf. Accordingly, on March 29, 2010, counsel for the County defendants' forwarded copies of the Deposition Subpena ("Subpena") and Notice of Taking Deposition to Mr. Kelly. The Subpena set Mr. Preston's deposition for April 16, 2010 at 10: 00 a.m., at the offices of the County defendants' counsel in Santa 7" _ _) 24 25 26 Rosa. [Spaulding Decl., §10 and Exhibits A and 8.] 27 28 3 May 12,2010 is the last day for the County defendants to serve written discovery by mail, and still complete discovery by the June 16, 20 I 0 discovery cutoff date. 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 2 After hearing nothing from Mr. Preston or Mr. Kelly for two weeks, on April 12, 2010, four days before the scheduled deposition date, counsel for the County defendants received a letter from Mr. Kelly, confirming Mr. Preston's availability on April 16; asking that the location of the deposition be moved to Sonoma; and asserting that because Mr. Preston had been attorney for Mr. Scull and for his estate, the documents requested by the Subpena were covered by the attorney client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Mr. Kelly suggested that the parties agree to a stipulated protective order concerning any documents or communications covered by those protections so the deposition could proceed on April 16. [Spaulding Decl., § 11 and Exhibit C.] On April 13,2010, counsel for the County defendants discussed Mr. Preston's request with plaintiffs' counsel (including current counsel for Mr. Scull's Estate), and it was agreed that any objections to the document requests and deposition questions could be handled as they arose at the deposition on April 16. In the meantime, they agreed to discuss the terms of a possible protective order. On April 14,2010, counsel for the County defendants faxed a letter to Mr. Kelly (with copies to all counsel) agreeing to change the location of the deposition; pointing out that the requested documents included documents that clearly were not subject to either the attorney client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine; and advised that after discussing Mr. Kelly's concerns with plaintiffs' counsel, the parties had agreed that any objections could be handled at Mr. Preston's deposition. The letter also enclosed a proposed Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order for Mr. Kelly's review. [Spaulding Decl., §13 and Exhibit D.] Counsel for the County defendants heard nothing further from Mr. Kelly until 4:57 p.m. on April 15,2010, when they received a faxed letter from Mr. Kelly advising that Mr. Preston would not appear for his deposition the next moming. Mr. Kelly did not address the parties' agreement to deal with objections at Mr. Preston's deposition. Instead, he complained about the proposed protective order because it only prevented disclosure of protected information outside of the litigation. Apparently, he had expected that it would limit the scope of Mr. Preston's deposition, although this is certainly not the normal function of a protective order. Mr. Kelly also suggested that Mr. Preston should not be deposed at all, stating that there had been no showing of why the deposition was not "improper;" that there are other means to obtain the information at issue because County employees 6 NOTICE or MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION or CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 could testify to the substance of their discussions with Mr. Preston; and that Mr. Preston's testimony 2 is not "crucial" to the case. After mischaracterizing counsel's April 14 letter and the County 3 defendants' stated position in various respects, Mr. Kelly concluded by stating that Mr. Preston would 4 be produced for deposition, but only if the County defendants agreed to limit the deposition questions 5 and document request to conversations and correspondence with agents and employees of the 6 County. [Spaulding Decl., § 14 and Exhibit E.] 7 III. ARGUMENT The County Defendants I-lave A Right To Depose Ronald Preston 8 A. 9 Under California law, the scope of discovery is very broad. A party can take the deposition or I 1 any person (Code of Civil Procedure §2025.0 1 0), and can obtain discovery with respect to any matter that is relevant to the subj ect matter of the action. Code of Civil Procedure §20 17.010. The fact that 12 the deponent is an attorney who represents or has represented a party does not preclude taking that person's deposition; even current opposing counsel can be deposed if he or she has knowledge of 13 14 relevant facts. Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, ("Weil & 15 Brown"), Ch. 8E-3. Ronald Preston was subpoenaed for deposition on April 16, 20 10. On April 12, 2010, Mr. 16 17 18 19 Preston's attorney, John Kelly, confirmed that Mr. Preston was available to have his deposition taken that day. Nevertheless, Mr. Preston did not appear for his deposition on April 16, 2010. The only reason given was that the County defendants had not agreed to limit the scope of their deposition 20 questions or of their requests for documents. However, Mr. Preston had no right to limit the scope of the deposition in advance, and the County was under no obligation to agree to do so. California's 21 22 discovery statutes plainly anticipate that depositions will proceed without prior restrictions or limitations, and that concerns that arise with respect 10 the propriety of the questions asked will be 24 addressed at the deposition itself. 25 Under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.460, a deponent can assert appropriate objections to his 26 or her deposition. If necessary to prevent abuse, a deponent can seek a protective order that certain 27 matters cannot be inquired into, or limiting the scope of the deposition. Code of Procedure 2025.420 28 (9),(10). The discovery statutes anticipate that the need for such an order may not arise until the 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 deposition is underway; under Code of Procedure 2025.470, a deponent can suspend a deposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 2 allow time to obtain such an order. 3 Where the objections are based on a claim of privilege, suspension of the deposition and a 4 protective order are not necessary, because the deponent's attorney can object to the question or 5 request, and instruct the deponent not to answer. Code of Civil Procedure §2025.460(a); Weil & 6 Brown, Ch. 8E-12. In this case, Mr. Preston and his attorney will be able to object to, and refuse to 7 answer, questions that seek disclosure of privileged information; similarly, he can refuse to produce 8 privileged documents.4 The County defendants are still entitled to take his deposition and ask their 9 questions. There is no basis for Mr. Kelly's assumption that the County defendants will seek only 10 information that is privileged or is available from other sources. With respect to this last claim, Mr. 11 Preston's recollection of his conversations and communications with County employees cannot be 12 obtained from other sources. Although County employees can be asked about their conversations 13 with Mr. Preston, their recollections may not be the same as his. Moreover, ifMr. Preston had 14 conversations with other individuals, the County defendants have no other way to obtain information 15 about those discussions. 16 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1, a court can make an order directing compliance with 17 a subpoena that requires the attendance of a witness or the production of records at a deposition. In 18 this case. Mr. Preston was properly subpoenaed to appear for deposition; he failed to appear without 19 having a legitimate basis for not doing so; and his attorney has advised that he will not appear for his 20 deposition unless the County defendants agree to limitations that Mr. Preston has no legal right to 21 demand. Accordingly, under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1, the County defendants are entitled to 22 an order directing Mr. Preston to appear for his deposition within a week of the granting of this 23 Motion, at the offices of Spaulding McCullough & Tansil LLP in Santa Rosa. 24 25 26 27 28 4 Of course, the County defendants can move to compel Mr. Preston to answer questions and produce documents if they believe that the information is not privileged. 8 20 1 B. Mr. Preston's Failure To Appear Pursuant To Subpoena Constitutes Contempt And Is 2 Punishable Under Code of Civil Procedure § 199 L 1 3 Code of Civil Procedure § 1991.1 provides: "[ dJisobedience to a subpoena requiring 4 attendance of a witness before an officer out of court in a deposition ... may be punished as 5 contempt, as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 2023.030." Section 2023.030 provides "[tjhe 6 court may impose a contempt sanction by an order treating the misuse of the discovery process as a 7 contempt of court." Finally, Code of Civil Procedure § 1992 provides: A person failing to appear 8 pursuant to a subpoena or a court order also forfeits to the party aggrieved the sum of five hundred 9 dollars ($500), and all damages that he or she may sustain by the failure of the person to appear 10 pursuant to the subpoena." 11 Under the foregoing provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the County defendants are 12 entitled to payment of$500 under §1992, plus all damages they have sustained as a result of ] 3 Mr. Preston's failure to appear. The County defendants have incurred attorneys' fees totaling 14 $3,311.50 in connection with the filing of both this Motion and the related Ex Parte Application, 15 which was required in order to have the Motion set for hearing in time for he deposition to be taken 16 before the last day for the County defendants to propound follow up discovery. [Spaulding Decl., 17 §15.] 18 C. 19 21 The County Defendants Are Entitled To An Award Of Sanctions Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2(a) provides that a court "in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, 22 including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or 24 26 27 28 without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive." The County defendants have incurred expenses totaling $3,31 ] .50 in connection with this Motion and the related Ex Parte Application. [Spaulding Decl., '[11.] Mr. Preston's failure to appear for his deposition pursuant to subpoena was without substantial justification. Accordingly, th County defendants are entitled to an award of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2, payable by Mr. Preston and his attomey, John Kelly, in the amount of $3,311.50. 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (1) TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION; (2) FOR DETERMINATION OF CONTEMPT: AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the County defendants respectfully request that this Court 3 grant the present Motion and enter an Order compelling the attendance and testimony of Ronald 4 Preston at his deposition in Santa Rosa at the office of Spaulding, McCullough & Tansil within one 5 week of the date the Court signs its Order granting the present Motion. The County defendant further 6 request an order requiring Mr. Preston and his attorney, John Kelly, to pay a penalty of $500, plus 7 damages and monetary sanctions of $3,311.50, to the County defendants, for the statutory penalty 8 plus reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this Motion and the related Ex Parte 9 Application. IODated: April 20, 2010 SPAULDING McCULLOUGH & T ANSIL LLP Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SONOMA, JO WEBER, SALLY LIED HOLM, MICHAEL BREWSTER and KAREN STAGG-HOURIGAN 12 13 14 By: 15 16 Greg01{SY::t)paulding 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ]0 USGS Report on Proposed Sand Barrier Berm to Mitigate Oil Spill's Impact on Louisiana MarshesSmelt Protections/Pumping Restrictions Findings May 27, 2010Salmon Protections/Pumping Restrictions Decision of May 18, 2010~$5 27 10 Findings of Fact Re PI Motion SmeltClay Greene ComplaintMarch 9, 2010 Board of Supervisors Budget UpdateFTA Letter to MTC and BART on Oakland Airport ConnectorBattle Report of the USS Aaron Ward23460664 Battle Report of the USS Aaron Ward May 3 1945Generating Failure - Environment CaliforniaSanctuary Memo
County Lawyer's Motion to Compel Testimony From Harold Scull's Lawyer by nytbayarea1.4K viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Government & Politics, BillsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less