August 18, 2017
Law & Motion Department Tentative Rulings
  • Law and Motion Department Tentative Ruling Line:  (650) 261-5019
  • Other Judges' tentatives: please reference the appropriate Case Number and Case Caption below and contact the appropriate department.

Telephonic Appearances (CourtCall): If an appearance is required or if a party has provided timely notice of intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. to the court and all parties, any party may appear telephonically through CourtCall. To do so, you must contact CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day prior to the hearing. Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court. Please visit their website for more information. Please also see California Rule of Court No. 3.670.

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable RICHARD H. DuBOIS

Department 16

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 7A

 

Monday, August 14, 2017

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

 

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5019 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

2. You must give notice before 4:00 P.M. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral presentation.

 

Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court.

 

All Counsel are reminded to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1110.  The Court will expect all exhibits to be tabbed accordingly. 

 

    Case                  Title / Nature of Case

9:00

Line: 1

16-CIV-01390     LISA MALEY vs. GAVIN CHAN

 

 

lisa MALEY                             GREGORY C. CATTERMOLE

Gavin chan                             Michael welch

 

 

Motion to compel RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses, without objection, to the interrogatories on or before August 31, 2017. 

 

The request for sanctions is also GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(c).   Plaintiff shall pay defendant $450 on or before September 30, 2017. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

 



9:00

Line: 2

16-CIV-02520     HYEONG GEON LEE vs. DAVID S. HENSHAW, et al.

 

 

HYEONG GEON LEE                        PETER N. HADIARIS

David s. henshaw                       david s. henshaw

 

 

Motion to terminate sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

This matter is dropped from calendar at the request of the moving party.

 



9:00

Line: 3

CIV532930      GARY WANG, ET AL. VS. ROYAL DAVID ROBINSON, ET AL.

 

 

Gary WANG                              STEPHEN D. PAHL

ROYAL DAVID robinson                   marc d. BENDER

 

 

Motion to seal portion of court record

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s motion to seal the complaint is DENIED.  Defendants have not offered evidence sufficient to support all of the findings required by CRC 2.550(d).  Specifically, defendants have not established a substantial probability that their interest in protecting Amy Robinson’s professional reputation will be harmed absent sealing the complaint.  Moreover, the proposed sealing is not narrowly tailored.  Defendants have not shown that sealing the entire complaint is necessary. 

 

CRC 2.550(d) provides that an order sealing records may issue if the moving party establishes: 1) there is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record 2) that interest supports sealing 3) there is a substantial probability that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed 4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and 5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. 

An order sealing the record must specifically state the facts that support the findings and direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that need to be placed under seal.  All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.  CRC 2.550(e). 

Here, even if the court were to determine that defendant Amy Robinson has an overriding interest in protecting her professional reputation, they have not shown a substantial probability that this interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed.  Ms. Robinson’s declaration states that she is concerned the public nature of the complaint may harm her ability to get a job.  She states that in April of 2017 she submitted a job application to a large transportation company and that, in her experience, potential employers will conduct background checks which include review of lawsuits against her.  She then concludes that the nature of the allegations in the compliant may adversely affect her ability to gain employment.  This evidence does not indicate a substantial probability of harm. 

Furthermore, the proposed sealing is not narrowly tailored.  Defendants seek to seal the entire complaint without any explanation as to why every allegation is potentially harmful to Ms. Robinson’s reputation.  If defendants’ contention is that the allegations regarding financial misconduct by Ms. Robinson are too intertwined with the rest of the complaint, they have not stated or substantiated this fact. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

 

 



9:00

Line: 4 – 6 

CIV533737     PURCELL-MURRAY CO. INC. VS. KIM VIBE-PETERSEN, ET AL.

 

 

PURCELL-MURRAY CO. INC.                DARIUS OGLOZA

Kim VIBE-PETERSEN

 

 

4. PURCELL-MURRAY CO., INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE AS AGREED WITH RESPECT TO REPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET 1), AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Purcell-Murray Co., Inc. (“Purcell-Murray”) to Compel Compliance as agreed with respect to Defendant Scanomat A/S (“Scanomat”)’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set 1), is ruled on as follows:

 

The motion to request nos. 3, 4 and 5, is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide further responses, without objections, that are code-compliant.  (See C.C.P. secs. 2031.210(a), 2031.220.) 

 

The motion to request nos. 6, 7, and 16, is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide further responses that are code-compliant.  (See C.C.P. secs. 2031.210(a), 2031.220.)  In providing further responses, such responses are limited to the following TopBrewer models: (1) the Birmingham TopBrewer first seen by Purcell-Murray, (2) the first European model (to the extent it differs from the Birmingham prototype), (3) the residential U.S. TopBrewer model, and (4) the IceBank refrigerator.  This ruling is based on Scanomat’s representation that it does not intend to compare the commercial TopBrewer to the residential TopBrewer at trial, and only seeks to provide testimony regarding the backstory of how the parties’ relationship arose, as well as the modifications made to the commercial TopBrewer into the residential model sold to Purcell-Murray.  (See Scanomat’s Status Update filed August 7, 2017, p.8:10-23.)  Scanomat represents that it remains willing to enter into a stipulation to this effect.

 (Id.)

The motion to request nos. 9, 11, 12 and 17, is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide a further code-compliant response, without objection, to these requests.  In providing further responses, these requests are limited to the residential U.S. TopBrewer model and IceBank refrigerator.

 

The motion to request no. 10 is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide a further code-compliant response, without objection, to this request.  In providing further response, this request is limited to the residential U.S. TopBrewer model, as agreed to by Purcell-Murray.

 

The motion to request nos. 14 and 15 is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide further code-compliant responses, without objection, to these requests, and to provide all responsive documents, including actual copies of the Zendesk service tickets and any other internal documents relating to service issues.  In providing further responses, these requests are limited to service issues experienced worldwide for TopBrewers, but only as to the problems identified with the U.S. residential TopBrewer, which are: (1) Bluetooth connectivity issues; (2) broken propellers in the Icebank fridge; (3) Icebank fridge not cooling; (4) piston issues; and (5) diluted milk from the water used to flush the milk line.  Although Purcell-Murray claims that this list is not a fair reflection of the issues experienced, Purcell-Murray has not offered evidence as to any other problems experienced by Purcell-Murray’s customers. 

 

The motion to request no. 18 is GRANTED.  Scanomat has agreed to give Purcell-Murray the information regarding the total number of TopBrewers Scanomat sold worldwide, as well as the total number of commitments for sales worldwide produce sales information, from the beginning of TopBrewer sales to April 17, 2013.  Additionally, Scanomat is to provide information about the specific country or countries in which the sales were made.  Scanomat is ordered to provide a further, code-compliant response based on these limitations. 

 

The motion to request nos. 21, 22 and 23, is DENIED. 

 

The motion to request nos. 24, 25 and 26 is GRANTED.  Scanomat is to provide further code-compliant responses without objections to these requests.

 

Both Purcell-Murray’s and Scanomat’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

 

Scanomat is to provide further responses, and to produce all responsive documents to these requests, on or before August 31, 2017.  Further, Scanomat is to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) in producing any responsive documents, including labeling them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, plaintiff is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

5. PURCELL-MURRAY CO., INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL inspection responsive to demand for inspection (set 2), AND TO IMPOSE MONETARY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Purcell-Murray (“Purcell-Murray”) to Compel Inspection Responsive to Demand for Inspection (Set 2) from Defendant Scanomat A/S (“Scanomat”) and to Impose Monetary and Issue Sanctions is DROPPED as MOOT because the inspection has now taken place. 

 

6. PURCELL-MURRAY CO., INC.’S MOTION TO COmPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET 3) AND FURTHER PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET 3), AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

 

The Motion of Plaintiff Purcell-Murray (“Purcell-Murray”) to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set 3) and Requests for Production (Set 3) and for Sanctions is ruled on as follows: 

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE

 

The motion to special interrogatory no. 16 is GRANTED.  Scanomat is to provide further response without objections.  This interrogatory on its face is limited to residential TopBrewer models.

 

The motion to special interrogatory no. 17 is GRANTED.  Scanomat is to provide further response without objections.  However, this interrogatory is overbroad as it asks Scanomat to identify all modifications made to any commercial TopBrewer model for residential sale outside of the U.S.  Thus, this interrogatory is limited to identifying modifications made to any commercial TopBrewer model for residential sale outside of the U.S that have the same modifications made from the Birmingham TopBrewer model to the U.S. residential TopBrewer model.

 

The motion to special interrogatory nos. 18, 19 and 22, is GRANTED.  Scanomat is to provide further responses without objections.

 

The motion to special interrogatory nos. 20 and 21, is DENIED. These interrogatories are overly broad and unduly burdensome, and it appears that the burden and expense of having to respond to these interrogatories outweighs the likelihood that they will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

 

Scanomat is to provide further responses to these interrogatories on or before August 31, 2017.

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE

 

The motion to request nos. 28 and 29 is GRANTED.  Scanomat’s responses consist only of objections to these requests, but Scanomat indicates that it has produced responsive documents showing the re-design and adaptation of the residential, European TopBrewer for sale in the U.S. residential market.  Scanomat is to provide further responses consistent with its production, but no further production is required.

 

The motion to request no. 30 is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide a further code-compliant response, without objections, to this request.  Scanomat indicates that it has already provided responsive documents concerning the U.S. residential TopBrewer.  In providing further responses, this request is also limited to complaints experienced worldwide for TopBrewers, but only as to complaints regarding the problems identified with the U.S. residential TopBrewer, which are: (1) Bluetooth connectivity issues; (2) broken propellers in the Icebank fridge; (3) Icebank fridge not cooling; (4) piston issues; and (5) diluted milk from the water used to flush the milk line. 

 

The motion to request nos. 31 and 32, is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide further code-compliant responses without objections.

 

The motion to request nos. 33, 34 and 35, is GRANTED.  Scanomat is ordered to provide further code-compliant responses without objections.  In providing further responses, these requests are limited to the residential U.S. TopBrewer model.

 

Scanomat is to provide further responses, and to produce all responsive documents to these requests, on or before August 31, 2017.  Further, Scanomat is to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) in producing any responsive documents, including labeling them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

 

Both Purcell-Murray’s and Scanomat’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, plaintiff is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 



9:00

Line: 7 – 10  

CIV537691     AMBER LAUREL BAPTISTE VS. MICHAEL LEWIS GOGUEN

 

 

AMBER LAUREL BAPTISTE                  PATRICIA L. GLASER

MICHAEL LEWIS GOGUEN                   DIANE M. Doolittle

 

 

7. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NUMBERS 82 AND 83

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant / Cross-Complainant MICHAEL GOGUEN’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set 6), Requests #82 and 83, is DENIED.

 

With respect to this motion, Plaintiff and Morrell have submitted declarations stating that while Plaintiff may have fired Morrell during her negotiations with Defendant, the attorney-client relationship resumed after Plaintiff’s counsel in this case, Patricia Glaser, was relieved from representing Plaintiff.  Once a party asserting the attorney-client privilege shows that the communication was made in the course of an attorney-client relationship, “the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.”  Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.  Following the Court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents from Morrell, there is even less of a case for Defendant to get at these communications by way of document requests propounded on Plaintiff, particularly in light of the new declarations.

 

Even if it is deemed that Plaintiff and her attorneys’ post-Agreement communications with Morrell are not within the course of their attorney-client relationship, the communications are still nonetheless privileged under the Common Interest Doctrine.  Under said doctrine, an attorney can disclose work product to an attorney representing a separate client without waiving the attorney work product privilege if (1) the disclosure relates to a common interest of the attorneys' respective clients; (2) the disclosing attorney has a reasonable expectation that the other attorney will preserve confidentiality; and (3) the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the disclosing attorney was consulted.  Meza v. H. Muelstein & Co. Inc. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 969. 

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, Plaintiff is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

8. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant AMBER LAUREL BAPTISTE’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production (Set Three) is DENIED. The California Constitution establishes “privacy” as an “inalienable right.” Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 1.  The right of privacy “extends to the details of one’s personal life.” Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1019. A party seeking to intrude upon the constitutional right of privacy bears a heavy burden and “impairment of an interest of constitutional dimension passes constitutional muster only if it is necessary to achieve the compelling interest.” Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1855. 

The document requests at issue concern key third parties (referred to hereinafter as “Associates”), including other women who Plaintiff believes Defendant has treated identically to Plaintiff.  The requests for production included the following requests concerning various women believed to have been engaged in a sexual relationship with Defendant: 

1. Request Nos. 63, 69, 74, 79, 84, 89, 94, 99, 104, 109, 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 139 and 144 (the “Communication Requests”):  these Requests ask Defendant to produce his communications with the Associates, from January 1, 2000 to the present;

2.  

Request Nos. 64, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140 and 145:  these Requests ask for documents that relate to or refer to payments of money made to the Associates from January 1, 2000 to the present;

3. Request Nos. 65, 71, 76, 81, 86, 91, 96, 101, 106, 111, 116, 121, 126, 131, 136, 141 and 146:  these Requests ask for documents that refer or relate to any transfer of assets made to any of the Associates from January 1, 2000 to the present;

4. Request Nos. 66, 72, 77, 82, 87, 92, 97, 102, 107, 112, 117, 122, 127, 132, 137, 142 and 147:  these Requests ask for documents that refer or relate to any entity created on the Associates’ behalf by Defendant from January 1, 2000 to the present; and

5. Request Nos. 67, 73, 78, 83, 88, 93, 98, 103, 108, 113, 118, 123, 128, 133, 138, 143 and 148:  these Requests ask for documents that refer or relate to any payment of money or transfer of assets to entities created by or on behalf of the Associates from January 1, 2000 to the present.

 

With respect to similar discovery, this Court has already held that “given Defendant’s and the third parties’ Constitutional privacy rights, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the essentiality and direct relevance of the requested discovery to the claims/defenses at issue.” (See Order dated June 28, 2017.)  Plaintiff has not met this burden here. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, Defendant is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

9. MOTION TO COMPEL ADMISSIONS (SET TWO)

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set Two) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Requests 298, 301, and 305, to which Defendant raised no opposition.  The motion is DENIED as to the remainder of the requests for the same reasons set forth above.

 

Plaintiff does not hide her intent here.  She wants the discovery to argue to the jury that Defendant has a “reptilian nature” and “repulsive lifestyle,” which, she asserts, is that of “a billionaire” who “regularly pays the countless other women who he has sex with fantastic sums of money” and is “addicted to a depraved life style of high-end escorts.” (Mots. at 1-2.)  But Plaintiff’s candor about her objectives does not excuse their manifest impropriety.  The discovery she seeks invades the constitutional privacy rights of Defendant and nonparties concerning their sexual and medical histories and details of their financial lives.  And Plaintiff makes no showing that this information is essential for a fair resolution and directly relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses. 

 

Plaintiff argues that evidence regarding Defendant’s alleged donations to other charities of other women is relevant here because it would demonstrate that Defendant’s donation to Plaintiff’s fake charity, Every Girl Counts, was not procured through her fraud.  But such evidence is precisely the type of character and propensity evidence the Evidence Code prohibits.  And even if her relevance argument were logical, which it is not, Defendant testified under oath during his deposition that he did not make any donations to the charities of any of the 17 nonparties, and there is no evidence to the contrary.  Second, Plaintiff’s assertion that she is entitled to information about other payments to the 17 nonparties to show Defendant’s “habit and custom” likewise fails, as any other payments are not sufficiently similar or part of a “common scheme or plan.”  Indeed, Plaintiff does not claim she was a “high-end escort,” as she implies the 17 other women were.  (RFA Mot. at 2, RFP Mot. at 2.)  She does not claim that the $40 million under the Agreement was designed to fund a business, as she suggests Defendant did with other women. Rather, the agreement provided for the $40 million to be paid to her personally and directly. Moreover, she does not claim that her breach of contract claim is premised on a “sugar daddy relationship,” which she implies Defendant had with the 17 other women. (Mots. at 2.) Rather, she claims (falsely) it was “compensation for the horrors she suffered at his hands,” including forcible rape and intentional transmission of HPV. (Compl. ¶ 1.)  She does not offer any proof that he gave any of these women money because they too claimed to have high-risk HPV or had been raped by Defendant.  The circumstances are completely different, do not prove a “common design or plan,” and do not justify the requested discovery. 

 

Plaintiff argues that this discovery is necessary to defend against the extortion claim in Defendant’s Cross-Complaint; specifically, that it tends to prove the truth of the alleged facts that Plaintiff threatened to expose to Defendant’s friends, business associates, and family members.  However, the merits of the extortion claim have little, if anything, to do with the truth or falsity of the alleged facts Plaintiff threatened to expose.  See Penal Code §§ 518, 519; Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 327.  Extortion does not hinge on the truth or falsity of what Plaintiff allegedly threatened to expose.  Thus, Plaintiff has not met her heavy burden of demonstrating that her need for this discovery should outweigh the constitutional privacy rights of Defendant and these third parties.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, Plaintiff is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 

 

 

10. MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT MICHAEL GOGUEN’S MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENAS SERVED ON NONPARTIES BY BAPTISTE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas to Third Parties, which previously came on for hearing on June 14, 2017, is GRANTED as to the subpoenas served on third parties Alice Vasquez, Dorothy Lawrence, Fawn Madonia, Naomi King, Camille Vaglia, Jamie Stephenson, and Jordana Goguen. Following the prior hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff “the opportunity to submit a proposed narrowing of the deposition topics sought, and explanation of the direct relevance and essential need for the narrowed discovery.” Importantly, the Court instructed, “Such topics shall not include the sexual or medical history of any of the deponents.” (See Order dated June 28, 2017.) Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s instructions, and continues to seek impermissibly intrusive lines of questioning in connection with these proposed depositions without sufficient explanation or justification.  Contrary to the Court’s Order, the proposed areas of questioning impermissibly delve into: (1) whether Defendant told the deponents that he had herpes or a history of herpes; (2) whether Defendant had ever paid a deponent to have an abortion; (3) whether Defendant had fathered any of a deponent’s children; (4) whether Defendant made any financial arrangements regarding a deponent’s children; (5) whether Defendant had ever mentally or physically abused a deponent; and (6) whether Defendant’s ex-wife had ever worked as a stripper and/or as an escort.  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is granted in its entirety.

 

Plaintiff also submits a number of questions she wishes to ask deponents Naomi King and Dorothy Lawrence regarding whether Defendant has tempered with them as witnesses.  Despite the fact that both of these women have submitted declarations denying that any witness tampering has occurred, (Decl. Doolittle filed June 7, 2017, Exhs. A, B.) this area of inquiry may lead to relevant evidence and the motion to quash is DENIED for this very limited inquiry.

 

I note that there is a section in her supplemental brief where plaintiff sets forth proposed questions to deponent Chris Reynolds. However, any subpoena to Mr. Reynolds was not addressed in the prior motion and no subpoena has yet been issued to this individual. Accordingly, any consideration of the scope of Mr. Reynold’s deposition is premature at this time.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, Defendant is directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Richard H. DuBois, Department 16.

 


 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

© 2017 Superior Court of San Mateo County