Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/02/2020 01:04 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Gonzalez,Deputy Clerk 1 (Stanley L. Friedman (SBN 120551) 445 S. Figueroa Street, 31* Floor 2 |[Los Angeles, California 90071-1631 Telephone No. (213) 629-1500 3 || Attorney for Respondents and Defendants Sheriff Alex Villanueva and 4 | Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 5 [|Gregory W. Smith (SBN 134385) Law Offices of Gregory W. Smith 6 [9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 345E Beverly Hills, California 90212 7 | Telephone No. (310) 777-7894 Attorney for Defendant/Respondent 8 || Caren Carl Mandoyan 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 11 12 |[COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ) Case 19STCP00630 ) [Deemed Related to Case No. 13 Petitioner/Plaintiff, ) 19STCP02773] ) 14 Vs. ) REPLY MEMORANDUM IN ) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 15 |[ALEX VILLANUEVA, Sheriff of Los Angeles ) PRECLUDE TESTIMONY AT County Sheriff’s Department; CAREN CARL ) TRIAL BASED ON DISCOVERY 16 |[MANDOYAN, an individual; LOS ANGELES ) MISCONDUCT, OR IN THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and ) ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL 17 ||DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ) ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION ) TESTIMONY OF COUNTY’S 18 Respondents/Defendants ) PERSON MOST QUALIFIED ) PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. 19 ) SECTION 2025.480 ) 20 ) Date: July 10, 2020 ) Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 86 21 ) ) [Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. 22 ) Mitchell L. Beckloff] ) 23 ) Action Filed: March 4, 2019 ) Motion Filed: December 2, 2019 24 ) Trial Date: August 28, 2020 ) 25 ) 26 27 28 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O TABLE OF CONTENTS A. THE PETITION . Lo eee B. THE HEARING ON THE COUNTY MOTION TOQUASH. . ................... C. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT REACHED THE FAR-REACHING ORDERS ANNOUNCED BY COUNTY COUNSEL THEN IT ERRED AND COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY NOW ATTEMPTS TO LEAD THIS HONORABLE COURT INTO ADDITIONAL ERROR BY FURTHER RESTRICTING RELEVANT DISCOVERY .::cuxsscesssnssnsssamnsssss umma D. COUNTY COUNSEL’S OPENING BRIEF IS BASED ON THE MATTERS IT INSTRUCTED ITS WITNESSES NOT TO ANSWER ......................... E. MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIRA HASHMALL................ ConclUSION . . o.oo © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O TABLE OF AUTHORITIES California Cases: Flagship Theaters of Palm Des., LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc., (2011) 198 Cal. App.4th 1366. . . o.oo eee eee 4 Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court, (1997353 Cal ARPA LIL: sumsus sonoma sss ammassss nasa ss anes sss uses 4,9 Marriage of Heggie, (2002) 99 Cal AAPA ZB « § sinmma sss smmms os 6 mumnss 5 MHuBA 535 BEEN {68 BEBE ES 10 Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60. . . Loo 9 California Code: California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30. ....... ieee 3 California Rule: California Rule of Court 3.1113... 10 Treatises: The Rutter Group California Practice Guide (2020): Civil Procedure Before Trial, The Rutter Group California Practice Guide (2020): Civil Procedure Before Trial, Chap. O(D)-B «oo 10 i A. THE PETITION. On March 15, 2019, the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) filed its unverified Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Petition”) against Defendants Alex Villanueva, the elected Sheriff of Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff”) as well as Caren Carl Mandoyan (“Mr. Mandoyan”), alleging causes of action for: (1.) Writ of Mandate; and (2.) various requests for Declaratory Relief. © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O In the Petition, the County alleged: [a.] facts regarding the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (the “Commission”) (1 4-8); [b.] its interpretation of the County Charter (4 8, 10, 25, 27, 28, 29); [c.] facts regarding the County Board of Supervisors (9 8, 69, 70); [d.] its interpretation regarding the County Civil Service Rules (4 10, 31-36); [e.] facts regarding the County Director of Personnel (9 11, 31); [f.] its opinion regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement (passim); [g.] its interpretation of the California Constitution (§ 27); [h.] the legal authority of the Board over the Sheriff ( 30); [1.] its interpretation regarding the Civil Service Commission (9 37-40); [j.] its interpretation regarding the County Code (19 41-44); [k.] its interpretation regarding the Department’s Manual of Policy and Procedures (19 45-46); [1.] facts regarding the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission (9 68); [m.] that the ACLU of Southern California had both an unfavorable view of facts alleged in the Petition and its legal interpretation regarding those facts (9 71-72); and [n.] facts regarding the Los Angeles branch of the National Lawyers Guild, Justice LA and the Youth Justice Coalition ( 68). 1 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O B. THE HEARING ON THE COUNTY’S MOTION TO QUASH. On August 7, 2019, this Honorable Court granted, in part, the County’s Motion to Quash Deposition Notices. Without much comment, this Court quashed the Sheriff’s deposition notices of the County’s elected officials and department heads and denied the motion to quash as to Deputy County Counsel “Elizabeth Miller, Christopher Avo Keosian, and Person Most Qualified (PMQ) of the County’s Department of Human Resources Deposition.” See Minute Order dated August 7, 2019. The only other Order issued that day was this Honorable Court’s Order limiting the length of these three depositions to two hours.'** See Minute Order dated August 7, 2019. From this short and straightforward Order, the County resorts to a Ouija Board to invent facts and draws inferences from those invented facts and then announces Orders never issued by this Honorable Court. The Court’s Order contains no restriction regarding: “the material facts in dispute regarding authorization of the settlement agreement between the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Caren Carl Mandoyan, as well as any relevant files at the Department of Human Resources.” See Minute Order dated August 7, 2019.> Not only is such language the ultimate in bootstrapping but, as set forth below, would not be permitted by law. 1 No such time limitation was placed on the County in taking its depositions. 2 In the County’s Opposition, it faults Sheriff’s Counsel for not arranging for a Court Reporter. However, on June 25, 2020, this Honorable Court heard argument on Mr. Mandoyan’s Ex Parte Application and the County there arranged for a Court Reporter for the Hearing. As such, no negative inference should be drawn from the lack of a Court Reporter. 3 The County’s Opposition cites this language from Ms. Hashmall’s Notice of Hearing. Opposition, p. 10, 11. 20 - 22. County Counsel included this language in her Notice of Hearing. To the extent that the Court intends to rely on such language, then Ms. Hashmall becomes a fact witness in the case and leave is respectfully sought to notice Ms. Hashmall’ deposition. 2 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O C. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE COURT REACHED THE FAR- REACHING ORDERS ANNOUNCED BY COUNTY COUNSEL THEN IT ERRED AND COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY NOW ATTEMPTS TO LEAD THIS HONORABLE COURT INTO ADDITIONAL ERROR BY FURTHER RESTRICTING RELEVANT DISCOVERY. The County included the above-stated matters in its Petition thus framing the issues and placing such issues in dispute. Because both the Sheriff and Mr. Mandoyan filed general denials (respectively, on May 17, 2019 and September 13, 2019) every allegation in the Petition was “put[] in issue.” See California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d) (“a general denial . . . puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint.”) To the extent that the County wanted to limit discovery on certain matters, it should have omitted those matters from its Petition and/or proceeded with a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. “[10:51] Although motions for summary judgment or adjudication are designed to ‘pierce’ the pleadings (see q 10:1), ‘[t]he pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion.” [Hutton v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Co. (2013) 213 CA4th 486, 493, 152 CR3d 584, 590; see Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 CA5th 438, 444, 221 CR3d 701, 705-706] 1. [10:51.1] Pleadings Limit Issues: A summary judgment motion must show that the ‘material facts’ are undisputed (CCP § 437¢(b)(1)). The pleadings serve as the ‘outer measure of materiality’ in a summary judgment motion, and the motion may not be granted or denied on issues not raised by the pleadings. [Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 CA4th 1242, 1258, 78 CR3d 372, 386; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 CA4th 60, 74, 103 CR3d 906, 918 - ‘the pleadings determine the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion’; Hutton v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Co., supra, 213 CA4th at 493, 152 CR3d at 590 - summary judgment defendant need only ‘negate plaintiff's theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings’ (emphasis in original); Johnson v. Raytheon Co., Inc. (2019) 33 CA5th 617, 636, 245 CR3d 282, 297 (citing text); see 9 10:257 ff.]” [Emphasis added. ] The Rutter Group California Practice Guide (2020): Civil Procedure Before Trial, Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication [CCP § 437c], Chap. 10-b. To now limit issues based on County Counsel’s wishful and far-reaching interpretation of what the Court said or held in plain vanilla discovery rulings, with no available record, and then to extrapolate therefrom far-reaching orders of issue preclusion stretches credulity and would vitiate California’s codes regarding when and how a court may adjudicate issues. 3 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O The result turns further absurd, as set forth in the next section, because the topics upon which County Counsel instructed its witness not to answer form the basis of the County’s Opening Brief. D. COUNTY COUNSEL’S OPENING BRIEF IS BASED ON THE MATTERS IT INSTRUCTED ITS WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER. The County attempts to lead this Honorable Court into error by first blocking inquiry into relevant issues during discovery and then basing nearly its entire Opening Brief on the matters it blocked.” See Opening Brief, filed March 9, 2020. The following (blocked) questions are drawn from this Motion’s Separate Statement and are juxtaposed with the related sections of the County’s Opening Brief: Question No. 1: “With respect to matters that are in front of the Civil Service Commission, do you sometimes settle those matters as part of your job? Opening Brief: The County extensively quotes from, and relies upon, the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission Rules and argues that pursuant to said rules, “The Sheriff Had No Authority to Reinstate, or Rehire, Mandoyan.” See Opening Brief, p. 16, 11. 12-13. It is disingenuous for the County to now argue that said question, which is plainly foundational to further questions, is irrelevant or violative of an Order never issued. 4 See Flagship Theaters of Palm Des., LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc., (2011) 198 Cal. App.4th 1366, 1383 (“Appellate courts must keep liberal policies of discovery statutes in mind when reviewing decisions denying or granting discovery. [Citation.] Absent a showing that substantial interests will be impaired by allowing discovery, liberal policies of discovery rules will generally counsel against overturning a trial court's decision granting discovery [citation] and militate in favor of overturning a decision to deny discovery. [Citation.]” [Emphasis in original.]); Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court, (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 (“California's pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side's evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.”) 4 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O Question No. 2. Opening Brief: Question No. 3. Opening Brief: Question No. 4: Opening Brief: Question No. 5: Opening Brief: “With respect to disciplinary proceedings that your advocacy division participates in, do you ever settle those matters?” The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to disciplinary proceedings. See Opening Brief, p. 9,11. 5, 19; p. 11, 1, 8; p. 16, 11. 14-25; p. 17, fn. 5; p. 21, 11.1-9. “With respect to matters that are settled by your division at the disciplinary stage, is County Counsel's approval required?” The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to disciplinary proceedings. See Opening Brief, p. 9,11. 5, 19; p. 11, 1, 8; p. 16, 11. 14-25; p. 17, fn. 5; p. 21, 111-9. The County also extensively cites facts and argues in regard to the need for County Counsel’s approval. See Opening Brief, p. 9, 11. 15-19; p. 11, 11. 9- 13; p. 13,11. 10-14. “Now, turning first to disciplinary proceedings, the attorneys who handle those proceedings for the sheriff's department, do they work in conjunction with the sheriff on those proceedings? The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to disciplinary proceedings. See Opening Brief, p. 9,11. 5, 19; p. 11, 1, 8; p. 16, 11. 14-25; p. 17, fn. 5; p. 21, 111-9. “With respect to disciplinary proceedings that are brought by LASD where they're represented by the advocacy division, do you understand who control those disciplinary proceedings? The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to disciplinary proceedings. See Opening Brief, p. 9,11. 5, 19; p. 11, 1, 8; p. 16, 11. 14-25; p. 17, fn. 5; p. 21, 111-9. 5 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O Question No. 6: Opening Brief: Question No. 7: Opening Brief: Question No. 8: Opening Brief: Question No. 9: Opening Brief: Question No. 10: Opening Brief: “If a disciplinary proceeding is underway and someone within authority within LASD instructs the advocacy counsel to stop with the proceedings, is that appropriate?” The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to disciplinary proceedings. See Opening Brief, p. 9,11. 5, 19; p. 11, 1, 8; p. 16, 11. 14-25; p. 17, fn. 5; p. 21, 111-9. “Are there people within LASD who have the authority to say, you may stop this disciplinary proceeding?” The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to disciplinary proceedings. See Opening Brief, p. 9,11. 5, 19; p. 11, 1, 8; p. 16, 11. 14-25; p. 17, fn. 5; p. 21, 1L.1-9. “With respect to this type of review document, is this a document [the report of the review of the Truth and Reconciliation Panel] that would be sent to HR in the normal course of sheriff's department business?” The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Panel. See Opening Brief, p. 9, 11. 15-19; p. 10, 11. 7-22; p. 14, 11. 20-26; p. 15, 11. 14-16; p. 15, 11. 20-26; p. 16, 11. 1-11. The County also cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. “Is there any reason why this document would be sent to DHR with respect to Mr. Mandoyan's case?” The County cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. “As the person most qualified, do you have an understanding as to who has authority to settle suits that are brought against the County?” The County cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opening Brief, pp.7-15, 21. 6 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O Question No. 11: Opening Brief: Question No. 12: Opening Brief: Question No. 13: Opening Brief: Question No. 14: “Do you know whether County Counsel approval of Mr. Mandoyan's Settlement Agreement had to be in writing?” The County cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opening Brief, pp.7-15, 21. The County also extensively cites facts and argues in regard to the need for County Counsel’s approval. See Opening Brief, p. 9, 11. 15-19; p. 11, 11. 9- 13; p. 13, 1 “Has human resources ever objected to a settlement that was entered into without County Counsel approval?” The County cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. The County also cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opp, pp.7-15, 21. The County also extensively cites facts and argues in regard to the need for County Counsel’s approval. See Opening Brief, p. 9, 11. 15-19; p. 11, 11. 9- 13; p. 13, 1 “Did human resources object to Mr. Mandoyan's settlement?” The County cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. The County also cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opening Brief, pp.7-15, 21. “With respect to Mr. Mandoyan's Settlement Agreement, do you have an understanding as to who had to be a signatory for that Settlement Agreement?” 7 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O Opening Brief: Question No. 15: Opening Brief: Question No. 16: Opening Brief: The County cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. The County also cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opening Brief, pp.7-15, 21. The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to the need for County Counsel approval. See Opening Brief, p. 9, 11. 15-19; p. 11, 11. 9- 13; p. 13, 1 “Do you know whether in your role as the HR department, Sheriff Villanueva had the authority or those under his command to enter a Settlement Agreement with Mr. Mandoyan?”’ The County cites facts and argues extensively as to whether the Sheriff or those under his command had authority to enter into a Settlement Agreement with Mr. Mandoyan. See Opening Brief, pp.11-13, 15-19, 21. The County also cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. The County also cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opening Brief, pp.7-15, 21. “Do you know whether anyone from Mr. -- from the sheriff's service department within the advocacy department, would have the authority to enter into a settlement with respect to Mr. Mandoyan's case?” The County cites facts and argues extensively in regard to whether Sheriff Villanueva or those under his command had authority to enter into a Settlement Agreement with Mr. Mandoyan. See Opening Brief, pp.11-13, 15-19, 21. The County also cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. 8 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified © 00 N N O O U 1 BA W N N B= N N N N N N N N N N RFR RB RBH BB BB BB HH BH p 9 0 pm 0 N N Oo Ul A W N RBH O VW 0 N N O U dM W N RL O The County also cites facts and argues extensively in regard to who has authority to settle suits brought against the County. See Opening Brief, pp.7-15, 21. Question No. 17: “Who from County Counsel was involved in the creation of this memo?” Opening Brief: The County relies on this memorandum and argues that the rehiring did not “conform” with the Department’s own “hiring guidelines.” See Opening Brief, p 19, 11. 10-17. Question No. 18: “Any outside counsel involved in the creation of this memo?” Opening Brief: The County relies on this memorandum and argues that the rehiring did not “conform” with the Department’s own “hiring guidelines.” See Opening Brief, p 19, 11. 10-17. Question No. 19: “Was human resources aware of the truth and reconciliation panel that had been created?” Opening Brief: The County extensively cites facts and argues in regard to Truth and Reconciliation Panel. See Opening Brief, p. 9, 11. 15-19; p. 10, 11. 7-22; p. 14, 11. 20-26; p. 15, 11. 14-16; p. 15, 11. 20-26; p. 16, 11. 1-11. The County also cites facts and argues in regard to the Department of Human Resources. See Opening Brief, p. 18, 11. 15-21. Given that in its Opening Brief the County extensively relies upon evidence it blocked by instructing its witnesses not to answer, it would be error for this Honorable Court to not strike said evidence, or alternatively, not re-open discovery to permit the asking of relevant questions during deposition.’ > Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court, (1997) 53 Cal. App.4th 1113,1117 (“In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 (“Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.”) 9 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified 10 1T 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIRA HASHMALL California Rule of Court 3.1113(d) limits the length of opposition memoranda to 15 pages. The County has exceeded this page limit by including extensive argument in its accompanying declaration. This practice is not permitted. “Nor do judges appreciate legal argument in declarations as a ruse to avoid page limits in a memorandum of points and authorities....” The Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, Chap. 9(I)-B [9-14] citing Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 CA4th 28, 30, 120 CR2d 707, 709, fn. 3. Moreover, in its attachments, the County intentionally omitted a responsive “meet and confer” letter dated March 19, 2020 by counsel for the Sheriff. As such, the Sheriff hereby moves to strike the declaration of Mira Hashmall because it violates the applicable California Rule of Court. Conclusion The County has filed an opposition to the present motion which mostly consists of gratuitous, incomplete and unwarranted disparagement.’ As set forth in the Motion, this Court should strike and not consider the entirety of the arguments set forth in the County’s Opening Brief and the evidence submitted in support thereof. The County has attempted to lead this Honorable Court into error by instructing its witness not to provide even foundational testimony, and then, displaying a brassy dose of temerity, uses in its Opening Brief evidence upon which it blocked inquiry during deposition. Alternatively, should this Court not preclude evidence, then it should re-open discovery to permit questioning on the topics blocked by County Counsel. Dated: July 2, 2020. ETN Stanley 14. Friedman, Attorney for Defendant/Respondent Sheriff Alex Villanueva Dated: July 2, 2020. Cs regory WZ Smigh, Attorney for Defendant/Respondent Caren Carl Mandoyan ¢ The County also failed to attach the Sheriff’s response to the County’s newest “meet and confer” letter. 10 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2+ 28 1013a (3) C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 445 S. Figueroa Street, 31* Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. On July 2, 20202, I served the foregoing document described as REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL BASED ON DISCOVERY MISCONDUCT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF COUNTY’S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. SECTION 2025.480 on the interested parties in this action by placing a copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Louis R. Miller, Esq. smiller@millerbarondess.com Mira Hashmall, Esq. Emily A. Sanchirico, Esq. mhashmall@millerbarondess.com MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 esanchirico@millerbarondess.com Los Angeles, CA 90067 mcarter@omm.com Margaret L. Carter, Esq. Dimitri D. Portnoi, Esq. dportnoi@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 grgrysmth@aol.com Gregory W. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Gregory W. Smith sfrancia@gwslegal.com 9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 345E Beverly Hills, CA 90212 reception@gwslegal.com BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address aransom@millerbarondess.com to the persons at the email addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2" day of July, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. . Friedman 11 Reply Memo. in Support of Motion to Preclude Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, to Compel Additional Deposition Testimony of County’s Person Most Qualified
