Embee Inc vs. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Response

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 26, 2012

© 0 3 & w v p h W O N = N N N N N N N N N m = e m e m e d p m p m e m p m 0 N A W n R A W N = O 0 N A A D W N e m JORDAN S. STANZLER (SBN 54620) JEFFREY M. CURTISS (SBN 239199) STANZLER LAW GROUP 2275 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-0200 Facsimile: (650) 739-0916 E-mail: jstanzler@stanzlerlawgroup.com E-mail: jcurtiss@stanzlerlawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff EMBEE, INC., f’k/a EMBEE PLATING, a California Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE EMBEE, INC. f’k/a EMBEE PLATING, a Case No.: 30-2012-00586683-CU-IC-CXC California Corporation, 30-2014-00746122-CU-IC-CJC Plaintiff, EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN v. SUPPORT OF DEFEDANTS SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND GENERAL AMERICA, GENERAL INSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF COMPANY OF AMERICA,et al., AMERICA’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants. Complaint Filed: July 26, 2012 Date: September 26, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: CX101 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS Honorable Gail A. Andler The plaintiff Embee, Inc. (“Embee”) submits this response regarding the defendants Safeco Insurance Company ofAmerica and General Insurance Company ofAmerica (collectively, “Safeco”) separate statement in support oftheir motion to compel Embee to produce documents in response to request for production nos. 34-38 and 40 in Safeco’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 8, and request for production no. 5 in the amended notice of deposition of person(s) most qualified to testify on behalf of Embee. EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O © 3 & w n H h W N N O N N N N N N N N = ® I & G K W R = S © ® QJ a A B ® » 0 = > DEFINITIONS 1. “YOU” and “YOUR” means Embee and all of its present and former officers, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, agents, representatives and all other persons purporting to act on its behalf and all ofits parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors, or successorsin interest. 2. “DOCUMENT” means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includesthe original or a copy ofhandwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means ofrecording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words,pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations ofthem. 3. “OCWD ACTION”shall have the same meaning set forth in YOUR consolidated complaint in this action. 4. “DTSC PROCEEDINGS” means the California Department ofToxic Substances Control Claims described in paragraphs 55-60 ofYOUR consolidated complaintin this action. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34 All DOCUMENTS evidencing or constituting any agreement between YOU and any person or entity regarding indemnification or reimbursement for amounts incurred in connection with the OCWD ACTION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.34 Responding Party objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SAFECO’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34 IS INADEQUATE Embee’s general objection that this requestis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence is specious. Embee alleges that Safeco is obligated to indemnify Embee in connection with the OCWD Action and seeks to recover costs from Safeco that it allegedly incurred in connection with the OCWD Action. This request goes to the heart of Embee’s claim that Safeco has a duty to indemnify and to what extent Embee incurred costs in the 2 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O o 0 a N R A W N - B N N O N O N O N D N O N O N O N = e m e m ® UV S & L B W RN ~~ SS © ® 9 o n P r » b o 8B OCWD Action. Since the information soughtis either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce documents in response to Request no. 34. EMBEE’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34 IS ADEQUATE Triumph’s purchase ofEmbee and related entities in November 2012 is not relevantto the claims or defensesat issue in this action. The purchase occurred well after Safeco’s duty to defend arose, and well after Safeco made the decision neither to defend nor indemnify Embee. The fact that thereis a different owner ofEmbee’s stock since November 2012 does not change Safeco’s duty to defend or indemnify Embee under the policies at issue. The purchase agreement between Embee and Triumph (“Agreement”) includes private financial information ofthe parties to the agreement, as well as non-parties, such as Embee’s employees. It also includes proprietary information which now belongs to Triumph, such as customer and supplier lists. Pursuant to longstanding California case law, such information is exempt from discovery unlessit is directly relevant to the matters at issue in the action and the benefits of discovery exceed its costs. Further, privacy concerns are not ameliorated merely by virtue of entering into a protective order, especially where,as here, private and/or proprietary non- party information is sought. The Agreementis 105 pages long and has an additional 426 pages ofdisclosures and schedules, for a total length of approximately 531 pages. The Agreement provides a comprehensive snapshot ofEmbee at the time of the purchase. It includes, inter alia, the purchase price for Embee, including the terms ofvarious withholdings; various accounting documents for Embee, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including an accountant compilation report, consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of income, consolidated statements of changes in shareholder equity, consolidated statement of cash flows, notes to consolidated financial statements, 3 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O o 0 1 O N R A W N N O N N O N ON O N O N N N = o m ® NW A L E O N =~ S L ® Q a r R B® 0 Z B consolidated schedules of cost ofsales, consolidated schedule of general and administrative expenses, and depreciation schedules; the names of all employees, their salaries and accrued paid time off; dividends to Dahlberg; client lists and pending client projects; materials suppliers and purchasers; outstanding loans; Triumph bridge financing information; and credit card accounts. (Curtiss Decl., 12-3.) Embee has produced the Agreement’s table of contents, a schedule to the Agreementlisting all material documents relating to environmental issues at the Embeesite since at least 1985, as well as provisions of the Agreementrelating to environmental matters and indemnification. Safeco’s rationale for demanding the entire Agreementis that it must be read as a whole, not piecemeal. But the Agreement is a segregated document, discussing discrete issues in separate portions of the Agreement. This is made clear by the table of contents, which Embee produced. Those portions of the Agreementrelating to environmental compliance and indemnification have been produced. Other sections, due to their irrelevance or discussion ofprivate matters, have not. See Valley Bank ofNevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652, 657 (1975) (the concept of privacyis extended to financial privacy in litigation, subject to balancing the needs ofthe litigation with the sensitivity of the information/records sought); Catholic Mutual ReliefSociety v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 358 (2007) (denial of discovery ofthe liability insurer’s reinsurance agreements (i.e., indemnification agreements) for the purpose of facilitating settlement ofunderlying tort action). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.35 All DOCUMENTS evidencing or constituting any agreement between YOU and any person or entity regarding indemnification or reimbursement for amounts incurred in connection with the DTSC PROCEEDINGS. 4 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS p o O O 0 » 3 & V v A h Ww W o N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35 Responding Party objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information thatis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SAFECQ’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35 IS INADEQUATE Embee’s general objection that this requestis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence is specious. Embee alleges that Safeco is obligated to indemnify Embee in connection with the DTSC Proceedings and seeks to recover costs from Safeco thatit allegedly incurred in connection with the DTSC Proceedings. This request goes to the heart of Embee’s claim that Safeco has a duty to indemnify and to what extent Embee incurred costs,if any, with respect to the DTSC Proceedings. Since the information soughtis either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce documents in response to Request no. 35. EMBEE’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35 IS ADEQUATE Embee incorporates by referenceits response regarding Request For Production No. 34. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36 All DOCUMENTSevidencing or reflecting communications between YOU and John Dahlberg or anyone acting on his behalfregarding indemnification or reimbursement for amounts incurred in connection with the OCWD ACTION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36 Responding Party objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SAFECO’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36 IS INADEQUATE Embee’s general objection that this requestis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence is specious. Embee alleges that Safeco is obligated to indemnify Embee in connection with the OCWD Action and seeks to recover costs from Safeco that it allegedly incurred in connection with the OCWD Action. This request goes to the heart of Embee’s claim that Safeco has a duty to indemnify and to what extent Embee incurred costs in the 5 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oO o C e N N B R W N N O N D N D N N M N N O N N D = oe m o m e m e m e m e m e m e m o e © N N A h h B R A W N = O O O N N N R A W N m o OCWD Action. Since the information soughtis either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce documents in response to Request no. 36. EMBEE’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36 IS ADEQUATE Embee incorporates by reference its response regarding Request For Production No. 34. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 All DOCUMENTSevidencing or reflecting communications between YOU and John Dahlberg or anyone acting on his behalfregarding indemnification or reimbursement for amounts incurred in connection with the DTSC PROCEEDINGS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 Responding Party objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SAFECO’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 IS INADEQUATE Embee’s general objection that this requestis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence is specious. Embeealleges that Safeco is obligated to indemnify Embee in connection with the DTSC Proceedings and seeks to recover costs from Safeco thatit allegedly incurred in connection with the DTSC Proceedings. This request goes to the heart ofEmbee’s claim that Safeco has a duty to indemnify and to what extent Embee incurred costs, if any, with respect to the DTSC Proceedings. Since the information soughtis either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce documents in response to Request no. 37. EMBEE’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 IS ADEQUATE Embee incorporates by reference its response regarding Request For Production No. 34. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 All DOCUMENTS evidencing or reflecting any payments made to YOU by John Dahlberg or anyone acting on his behalfto reimburse YOU for amounts incurred in connection with the OCWD ACTION. 6 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O o 0 a A W n b s W N N N N R N N N N N N = m e m e m e m a p m p m e m e m ® N A A n n A W N = O Y O N Y D R A W N o - o o RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 Responding Party objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information thatis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. I SAFECO’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.38 IS INADEQUATE Embee’s general objection that this requestis irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidenceis specious. Embee alleges that Safeco is obligated to indemnify Embee in connection with the OCWD Action and seeks to recover costs from Safeco thatit allegedly incurred in connection with the OCWD Action. On November 20, 2012, Embee, Triumph Group Acquisitions Holdings, Triumph Group, Inc., John Dahlberg and certain other entities related to Mr. Dahlberg entered into a Stock and Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Safeco understands the primary purpose of the SPA was to allow Triumph to take over operation ofEmbee’s business, including Embee’s Santa Ana facility. Information regarding payments made by Mr. Dahlberg to Embee goes to the heart of Embee’s claim that it incurred costs in the OCWD Action. Since the information sought is either relevant or reasonably I calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce documents in response to Request no. 38. EMBEE REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 IS ADEQUATE Embee incorporates by reference its response regarding Request For Production No. 34. I REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 All DOCUMENTSevidencing or constituting any agreement between YOU and any person or entity regarding indemnification or reimbursement for amounts incurred in connection with environmental conditions at YOURfacility in Santa Ana, California. I RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 Responding Party objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SAFECO’S REASON REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 IS INADEQUATE Embee produced redacted portions ofthe Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) in response 7 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS D O 0 0 3 A N D A W N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to this request. However, the redacted document produced by Embee is incomprehensible because it is missing key portions and, as with all contracts, such documents must be read as a whole. Embee then produced the table of contents ofthe SPA, which clearly showsthat the SPA is relevant and discoverable evidence in this case. The table of contents shows that the SPA addresses relevanttopics including the purchase and sale ofshares, stock purchase price, excluded assets, organization and good standing, consents and approvals of governmental authorities and others, contracts, insurance, compliance with laws and litigation, post-closing insurance and rights to indemnifications, further assurances, parent guarantee, governmentaction and damage to property. These topics are relevant to determining who is responsible for the costs Embee seeks to recoverin this case. Since the information sought iseither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce the SPA. EMBEE’S REASON WHY REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 IS ADEQUATE Embee incorporates by referenceits response regarding Request For Production No. 34. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 IN AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF EMBEE, INC. All DOCUMENTSrelated to Topic No. 7 above. Topic No. 7 Any due diligence performed in connection with the sale ofEmbee to Triumph Group in 2012. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 IN AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF EMBEE, INC. Response to Topic No. 7: Embee, Inc. objects to providing such a witness since the information sought is irrelevant. Plaintiff Embee objects to producing documents for the reasons set forth above. Such documents have previously been produced except for Topic No. 7. SAFECO’S REASON RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 TO AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF EMBEE, INC. IS INADEQUATE 8 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O 0 0 NN A RA W N es N N N D N N O N O N N O N = e m b E e m e m e m e m e m e m p m © N A A U n A W N = O O N N N DR A W O N m o o Embee was sold to Triumph Aerospace Group in 2012. Prior to the sale, Embee performed “due diligence,” which included preparation of an “environmental diligence package” for prospective buyers. Embee’s outside counsel for DTSC matters, Peter Nyquist, worked on this project and Embee seeksto recover from Safeco the fees paid to Mr. Nyquist for this work. Request no. 5 in Safeco’s amended notice of deposition ofperson(s) most qualified to testify on behalf ofEmbee requests production of documentsrelated to any due diligence performed in connection with the sale ofEmbee to Triumph Group in 2012. The fact that Embee seeks to recover the fees incurred for due diligence, byitself, requires production of the requested information. Even if Embee was not seeking to recover the fees incurred on due diligence matters, the request seeks information that clearly is relevant and calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Documents related to environmental due diligence performed in connection with the sale ofEmbee to Triumph Group are relevant with respect to the disclosure ofpotential sources and causes of contamination at the Embee site. Embee presumably complied with its obligationsas a seller ofproperty and provided a comprehensive description of environmental issues at the Embee site. Embee seeks insurance coverage from Safeco for its environmental liabilities. Since the information soughtis either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Embee must be compelled to produce the requested documents. EMBEE’S REASON RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 TO AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF EMBEE, INC. IS ADEQUATE With respect to due diligence arising out ofthe sale ofEmbee, Safeco’s attorney (Kevin McCurdy) defined due diligence as including environmentalissues, but not other forms ofdue diligence. (Curtiss Decl., Ex. B (Dahlberg Depo., p. 97.) John Dahlberg, Embee’s former owner, testified that there were no environmental issues identified as a result of due diligence arising out ofthe purchase that were notalready known, including any spills or releases ofhazardous substances. (Id. at 98.) He testified that no employee interviews were conducted as part ofthe due 9 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O o 0 N N A N n n BR A W N N N N O N N N m m e m e m a m d e m m d e d p k p m h h A W N = O 0 0 I N B R A W N = o o 26 27 28 diligence associated with the sale. (/d. at 99.) At this same deposition, Embee’s attorney (Jordan Stanzler), noted that one environmental due diligence document did exist, which had not been produced, due to attorney-client privilege. The documentis a letter from Pete Nyquist (Embee’s I attorney with respect to the DTSC Claims) and Roland Day (Embee’s outside general counsel). (/d. at 96). With respect to any remaining, unproduced due diligence arising out ofthe purchase, in a I letter ofAugust 22, 2016, Jordan Stanzler wrote to Kevin McCurdy: 5. I do not know what you mean by “due diligence”. That means different things to different people. Schedule 4.26(a) provides what might be deemed to be “due diligence”. To my knowledge,there are no other “due diligence” documents, except for one communication (previously identified as privileged) between attorney Nyquist and attorney Day, both attorneys for Embee, Inc. I (McCurdy Decl., Ex. 10.) Counsel for Embee did notreceive a response to his August 22, 2016 letter to Counsel for Safeco. Apart from the privileged letter between Nyquist and Day, Embee is not aware ofany I environmental due diligence arising out of the purchase ofEmbee which has not already been produced to Safeco. Further, with respect to timing, Safeco served an Amended Notice of Deposition of Person(s) Most Qualified To Testify on Behalf of Plaintiff Embee, Inc. on or about May 11, 2016. I (McCurdy Decl., Ex. 1.) The notice required testimony and the production ofcertain documents. Embee produced John Dalhberg to testify on June 9, 2016. (McCurdy Decl., Ex. 3.) Embee did not produce any documents with respect to request for production number five (i.c., the request at issue). (/d.) Safeco filed the instant motion to compel on or about September 1, 2016, which is I more than 60 days after the date of Dahlberg’s deposition. Per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, a motion to compel documents or testimony pursuant to a deposition notice must be made within 60 days after the completion of the record ofthe deposition. Because Safeco did notfile this motion 10 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL I PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS O o 0 0 N Y D W N e e N N N O N N N O N N O N O N m = m m e d p m p d b m e m e m e a 0 N N A A W N = O W e N A R A W N = o within 60 days after the completion ofthe record of Dahlberg’s deposition, the motion is untimely with respect to request for production number 5. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 2025.480(a) (“If a deponentfails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record ofthe deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”); UnzippedApparel, LLC v. Bader, 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 136 (2007) (“In sum, the objections served in response to Unzipped's business records subpoenas constituted a record of a deposition. The record was complete as ofthe date set for the production, December 7, 2005, when Unzipped received the objections. Unzipped had 60 days thereafter, until February 6, 2006,to file a motion to compel. It waited until March 1, 2006, which rendered the motion untimely. The deadline was mandatory.”). Dated: September 14, 2016 STANZLER LAW GROUP JEFFREY M. CURAISS Attorneys for Plaintiff Embee, Inc. 11 EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO SAFECO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS N o 0 N N D W N N N N N N N N N N = m e m e m e m e d p m e a p e p m © N A h h A W N = O V e N N RA R W N = o PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of 18 and nota party to the within action; my business address is 2275 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 100, Palo Alto, California 94303. On September 14, 2016, I caused to be served the foregoing document(s)described as follows: PLAINTIFF EMBEE, INC.’S RESPONSE RE: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSon the interested party(ies) VIA Email by ONE LEGAL addressed as follows: Kevin G. McCurdy, Esq. McCurdy & Fuller LLP 565 Middlefield Road, Suite 100 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel.: (650) 618-3500 Fax: (650) 618-3599 email: kevin.mccurdy@mccurdylawyers.com (General Insurance Company ofAmerica and Safeco Insurance Company ofAmerica) Steve Allison, Esq. Christine Cwiertny, Esq. Crowell & Moring 3 Park Plaza, 20" Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Tel.: (949) 798-1310 sallison@crowell.com ccwiertny@crowell.com (Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company) BY MAIL: Iam "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Underthat practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Palo Alto, California in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BYhand delivery: I caused to be served by hand delivery such envelope. X BY EMAIL IN THE FORM OF A PDF FILE [ X ] (STATE) Ideclare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. [ ] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member ofthe barofthis court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on September 14, 2016 at Palo Alto, California. Sharran L. Rodd \o (Type or Print Name) Signature "J