Peterson vs. Coach, Inc.

Motion to Compel Production/Inspection of Documents or Things

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 9, 2012

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Andrea L. Cook, SBN 164915 ANDREA COOK & ASSOCIATES 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 430 Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (562) 951-9135 Facsimile: (562) 951-9126 E-mail: alcook@alcooklaw.com Michael Berger, SBN 56549 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL BERGER 479 El Sueno Rd. Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Telephone: (805) 845-2180 Facsimile: (805) 845-2190 E-mail: michael@lawofficeofmichaelberger.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, MADISEN PETERSON SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MADISEN PETERSON, CASE NO.: 30-2012-00603898- CU-PO-CIC Plaintiff, [Hon. Deborah Servino] PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT REED KRAKOFF, LLC TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS V. COACH, INC., a Delaware Corporation doing business in California; REED KRAKOFF, LLC, a Delaware corporation doing business in California; REED KRAKOFF, an individual; COAST FLOORS INC., a California Corporation; SOUTH COAST PLAZA, LLC, a California company; and, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, [FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE DECLARATION OF ANDREA L. COOK; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL and, Defendants [PROPOSED] ORDER] Reservation No.: 72332366 Date: April 8, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: C22 Complaint Filed: 10/9/12 Trial: 10/24/16 N e ? N e N e N a N A N N N N A A N A N A N A A N A A N A N A A N A A N A N A A N A N A N A A A A A N A A N A N N PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on April 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department C22, in the Superior Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Plaintiff MADISEN PETERSON (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF” or *MS. PETERSON"), will move for the Court to grant her Motion to Compel DEFENDANT REED KRAKOFF, LLC (hereinafter "RK") to further respond to PLAINTIFF’'s Requests for Production, Set Three and Request for Sanctions. The Motion will be based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel, the Declaration of Andrea L. Cook, on the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and documentary evidence, if any, as may be presented on the hearing of the Motion. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case arises out of an accident that occurred on October 14, 2010 when the PLAINTIFF, Madisen Peterson, while employed by Saks & Company (SAKS) at the South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, Orange County, California, fell in DEFENDANTS’ Boutique. MS. PETERSON suffered devastating injuries as a result of her fall. The legal relationship between SAKS and Defendants COACH, INC. and REED KRAKOFF LLC (hereinafter "COACH DEFENDANTS") is at issue in this case. A Protective Order (hereinafter “"PO") was filed by the Court on September 16, 2014, and is presently in effect. The PO was entered as a result of a stipulation among all the parties appearing in the case at that time. As is apparent, the PO prohibits dissemination of documents and their content outside the confines of the litigation. Much of the instant Motion mirrors but is not identical to PLAINTIFF's Opposition to DEFENDANTS’ Motion for a Protective Order and/or to Quash or Modify the Deposition Subpoena served on Saks & Company which seeks to prohibit the same or similar documents to DEFENDANT'S counterpart SAKS who is not a party to this lawsuit. PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. INTRODUCTION PLAINTIFF anticipates that the Court will be concerned about the request for documents spanning time after the accident that occurred on October 14, 2010. Those documents will evidence the financial relationship between SAKS and the COACH DEFENDANTS throughout the very brief history of the business relationship. The course ofconduct, financial and otherwise, of the parties during this three year period is highly relevant to PLAINTIFF’s assertion that it was a joint venture. Based upon reliable information and belief, the PLAINTIFF asserts here that the business relationship between and Saks & Company and the COACH DEFENDANTS lasted approximately three (3) years and the documents sought are not voluminous. The contention of the COACH DEFENDANTS that the requests at issue in their Motion are “burdensome” is not supported by any evidentiary showing. It is a common, garden- variety objection cut and pasted. By the end of March, the Court's file will contain many formalized discovery disputes arising from the COACH DEFENDANTS objecting to PLAINTIFF’s attempts to obtain information concerning the financial relationship between Saks & Company and the COACH DEFENDANTS. All motions revolve around DEFENDANTS’ efforts to prevent, either the disclosure of documents or prevent/delay the testimony of certain witnesses. Thus far, the PLAINTIFF has prevailed. On a number of occasions, PLAINTIFF has sought sanctions. None have been granted although Judge Robert D. Monarch dryly commented in a minute order regarding one discovery Motion that “Hopefully, the parties are not being billed ...” We ask that the Court give serious consideration for sanctions in the instant matter. III. FACTS On November 23, 2015, PLAINTIFF served Defendant RK with Requests for Production, Set Three. (Attached to the Declaration of Andrea L. Cook (hereinafter “Cook Decl.”), Exhibit "A.”) [1] PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Responses were served by RK to PLAINTIFF on January 13, 2016. (Cook Decl., Exhibit “B.") PLAINTIFF has made many efforts to meet and confer regarding the Requests for Production, Set Three. (Cook Decl., § 5 and Exhibits “C,” "D,” “E” and"F.") PLAINTIFF has not received further responses to her Requests for Production, Set Three and had no choice to file this Motion to Compel. IV. PLANTIFF'S EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES INFORMALLY ARE TO NO AVAIL Ms. Andrea Cook, counsel for PLAINTIFF, spoke with Mr. Stephen Kelley, counsel for Defendant RK on February 2, 2016 to attempt to resolve the discovery issues. A follow up letter was sent by Ms. Cook on February 5, 2016. (Cook Decl., Exhibit "C.”) Ms. Holly Dutton, counsel for RK responded by letter on February 17, 2016 indicating PLAINTIFF's meet and confer letter was not sufficient. (Cook Decl., Exhibit "D.”) Two additional meet and confer letters were exchanged: a February 18, 2016 letter from Ms. Cook and Ms. Dutton (Cook Decl., Exhibit “E") and a response by Ms. Dutton to Ms. Cook (Cook Decl., Exhibit “F"). V. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT Defendant RK's objections are boilerplate and they do not carry their very substantial burden of supporting the objections, including providing a privilege log for the documents that assert are covered by the attorney client/work product privilege. . The documents plaintiff seeks are not relevant. From as early as the PLAINTIFF's Opposition to Summary Judgment to her most recent Motion to Modify the Protective Order, a compelling showing has been made as to the relevancy of the financial documents. The PLAINTIFF has, through the course of this litigation, persistently and credibly established the partnership relationship between and among SAKS and the COACH DEFENDANTS. The establishment of a partnership is highly relevant in this case. [11 PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 When the evidence establishes the partnership, key Affirmative Defenses raised in the COACH DEFENDANTS’ Answer will be rendered moot relative to SAKS’ part in the negligent control of the premises. Liability (4th) and Apportionment of non-economic damages under the Fair Responsibility Act (Civil Code § 1431 et. seq., colloquially Prop. 51) (5th) will be defeated relative to SAKS. Partnerships and joint ventures are treated the same legally and the elements which establish the existence of same have long been recognized by statute and case law and now are most prominently found in the Corporations Code. (Corp. Code § 16202 et. seq.) There are three basic elements of a partnership/joint venture: 1. Members must have joint control over the venture (even though they may delegate it). 2. They must share the profits of the undertaking. 3. The members must each have an ownership interest in the enterprise. Corporations Code § 16202; Orosco v Sun-Diamond Corpt (1997) 51 Cal.App.4™ 1659; DaFonte v. Up-Right Inc. (1992) 2 Caldth 593; Rogness v. English Moss Joint Ventureres (1987) 194 Cal. App.3e 190; Folsom Associates,v. Prometheus Development Corp. (1990) 223 Cal. App.3d 1. The profit sharing and ownership interest components of the enterprise are going to be evidenced by the financial arrangement(s) of these entities. The need for the discovery of those arrangements is therefore relevant. These elements can manifest in many different ways. Orosco, at 165. Whether a partnership has been created is primarily a question of fact and is for a jury to decide. 48 Cal. Jur. 3d, Partnerships § 36. Over the course of discovery, it has been steadily established that the claim of partnership is legitimate and provable by admissible evidence. More evidence is needed on the issue of financial arrangements. PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attached to the Cook Decl. as Exhibit *G” and incorporated herein fully is the Declaration of Tom Graham. This Declaration is already part of the record established in the Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Graham also testified in a seven (7) hour deposition conducted on February 5, 2016. His testimony, consistent with his Declaration, establishes the almost complete control that the COACH DEFENDANTS maintained over the premises and, more particularly the floor where the PLAINTIFF fell. It also establishes the notice of the dangerous condition that the COACH DEFENDANTS had well in advance of the injury to the PLAINTIFF. It also establishes the fact that SAKS maintained a collaborative/partnership relationship regarding, without limitation, how the dangerous condition of the floor should be handled. That evidence is most impactful in the form of a series of e-mails exchanged between SAKS and the COACH DEFENDANTS. They are attached to the Declaration of Tom Graham (Exhibit “"G" to the Cook Decl.). During the deposition of Carol Taylor, the assistant manager for operations of SAKS at South Coast Plaza at all times relevant, she testified to SAKS’ and the COACH DEFENDANTS’ half-hearted and frustrating response(s) to the notice of a dangerous condition of the floor that the PLAINTIFF slipped and fell on. She referred to SAKS’ partner, COACH no less than twenty-three times. She testified that she collaborated with SAKS' partner, COACH, on dealing with the dangerous condition. Defendant's 10- K filing with the SEC makes reference to COACH'’s “corporate partners” as it relates to the RK boutiques. If the negligence in question was the negligence of the joint venturer, the joint venture is in the same position as any other third party tortfeasor. The partnership or joint venture is liable to an injured third party for the torts of a partner or joint venturer acting in furtherance of the enterprise. 9 Witkin, Summary Cal Law (9ed, 1989), Partnership § 21, p. 421). Whether the jury in this case, based on the evidence presented, finds that a partnership or a joint venture existed does not matter in the eyes of the law. PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Distinctions between the two are not sharply drawn. This has been true for over one hundred years. Westcott v. Gilman (1915) 170 Cal 562; 9 Witkin, Summary Cal Law 10™ (2005), Partnerships. . The discovery requested fails to designate with specificity, claiming that “financial and sales files” are so vague as to be unintelligible. The requests are specific, as acknowledged by the COACH DEFENDANTS. This requests mirrors the request in a subpoena sent to SAKS and the subject of a Motion to Quash. DEFENDANTS clearly understand the import of the documents requested. “Plaintiff is essentially requesting all financial documents between the Coach Defendants and Saks, in particular as it relates to the Reed Krakoff department at Saks Fifth Avenue for the entire period in which Saks and Coach Defendants had a business relationship.” COACH DEFENDANTS’ Motion to Quash, Pg. 6: 6-13. The relationship between SAKS and the COACH DEFENDANTS lasted approximately three years. The limited financial documents provided to PLAINTIFF evidence discreet, limited activity concerning very high end, expensive inventory. The Letter Agreement (protected and under seal) calls out for the exchange of financial information sought by this Discovery. In particular, page 6 (Bates 389800122) refers to mandatory financial reporting. The Court is respectfully directed to even a cursory review of the Letter Agreement to confirm this assertion. See the Cook Decl., Exhibit “H" (filed under seal). Additionally, the limited number of invoices evidencing inventory from the COACH DEFENDANTS to SAKS provides a glimpse of the financial relationship between them. Those invoices are included collectively as Exhibit "B” to the Cook Decl. As will be set forth below, these documents are but a small stop on whatis ordinarily a continuous trail from manufacture to an actual sale and the financial impact of such a sale. These documents confirm the existence of additional documents. [1] PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Obviously, the demanding party cannot specifically describe an individual item without first ascertaining its existence.” Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. App4th 216, at 222 (1997). The PLAINTIFF has provided reasonably particularized descriptions of the category documents and it comports with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2020.410. . The requests seek “commercially sensitive” information. This objection is fully covered and the concerns are protected by the Protective Order, which this Court is familiar with. The PLAINTIFF has no objection to any of these documents being subject to the Protective Order. Of particular concern in the response provided by RK is their assertion that after a diligent search, no documents exist as it pertains to Request to Produce, number 26. “... after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Reed Krakoff LLC has located no documents responsive to this request and believes that no responsive documents exist or have ever existed.” This is a highly unlikely. DEFENDANTS have produced a handful of documents which are entitled “Invoice” and are attached to the Cook Decl. as Exhibit “"B.” While evidencing the existence of additional documents, DEFENDANT fails to produce whole categories of other documents, which by the nature of the business and the sophistication of the Defendants must exist. Based on my knowledge and consultation with experts in the field of fashion sales and merchandising, as one can imagine, there is a trail of documents, which track merchandise from the momentit is selected for a particular store, packaged, shipped form the manufacturer (in this case RK) until it reaches its destination, in this case SAKs at SCP. After arriving at South Coast Plaza, another detailed trail of documents/ data would track the sales, returns, damaged goods, theft or other losses, subsequent restocking and the like. Additionally, losses, profits, costs of sales and various reports would be created tracking every aspect of transfer of these goods to a potential buyer of these very expensive handbags. Ordinarily, much of this would be tracked with any one of a number of software programs which compile the information and track the PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 merchandise to account for inventory control, purchase orders or shipping manifests, change item pricing, print barcodes and labels, categorize inventory so that sales and inventory data stays accurate and up-to-date. Also included and necessary to the sale of goods, either electronically stored and managed by software or in a paper format is information regarding, transfers and purchase orders. It is neither reasonable nor likely that no documents exist which track the orders and sales of high end handbags costing between $2,500 and $5,000 dollars per item. (Cook Decl. q 10.) It should be noted that PLAINTIFF's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three to RK, at page 2, paragraph 3 asks for documents in any format according to Evidence Code § 250 which includes electronically stored files. This motion arises out of Defendant RK’s failure to fully respond to PLAINTIFF’s Requests for Production, Set Three propounded by PLAINTIFF on November 23, 2015. As appears in the Declaration of Andrea L. Cook, the moving party has, to no avail, attempted to informally resolve this matter. PLAINTIFF is forced to bring this motion to compel Defendant RK fully respond to PLAINTIFF’s Requests for Production, Set Three. Sanctions should be awarded. VI. FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Unless otherwise limited by order of the court, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action,if the matter eitheris itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property. Wests Ann.Cal.C.C.P. § 2017.010. [11 PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Obijectively, none of the objections to the Requests for Production are well founded. PLAINTIFF has demonstrated the relevance of the documents in connection with establishing a partnership. The PLAINTIFF has a sound, provable theory and has developed evidence prove that theory to date. The PLAINTIFF is not on a fishing expedition. She is on a legitimate discovery expedition. The documents sought are not burdensome. The request is reasonable, especially given the short-term relationship of the parties and the fact that these are luxury goods intended for a very limited number of purchasers. Merely asserting the conclusion that the request is burdensome without giving the Court any bases for that conclusion is not sufficient for the Court to even consider the issue. This is particularly so given the PLAINTIFF's demonstration that the request is modest in scope. The Protective Order protects all the documents from dissemination. VII. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS This Motion is appropriate for sanctions. The court must impose a monetary sanction under CCP 128.5 (1) (a) Every trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both to pay any reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a result of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay...(b) For purposes of this section: (1) "Actions or tactics" include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint or cross-complaint. The mere filing of a complaint without service thereof on an opposing party does not constitute "actions or tactics" for purposes of this section. (2) "Frivolous" means (A) totally and completely without merit or (B) for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party. (c) Expenses pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party's moving or responding papers; or the court's own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing expenses shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order. [1] PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Under CCP § 2019.030 (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanctions... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Moreover, the Court may award sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2025.420 (h) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The reasons for such an award as follows: 1. DEFENDANT has engaged in harassing conduct. “Harassing”conduct includes vexatious tactics which, although literally authorized by statute or rule, go beyond that which is appropriate under any reasonable standard. [See West Coast Develop. v. Reed (1992) CA4th 693, 702.] 2. DEFENDANT’s responses were made for dilatory and bad faith reasons. DEFENDANT seeks to prevent the disclosure of relevant documents which are crucial to proving (or not) a critical issue in PLAINTIFF's case — that SAKS and the COACH DEFENDANTS are potential co-adventurers or partners. Defendant RK seeks to prevent this disclosure without justification. The only conciliatory gesture offered is to limit a scant number of documents for a period of a few months and the offer of a protective order which Plaintiff has long agreed to. 3. Moreover, the responses are without merit. When an action utterly lacks merit, a court is entitled to infer the party knew it lacked merit yet pursued the action for some ulterior motive.” [Dolan v. Buena Engineers, Inc. (1994) 24CA4th 1500, 1505; Abbett Elec. Corp v. Sullwold (1987) 193 CA3d 708, 713, 238.] [1] PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As is evidenced by what is anticipated to be ten such discovery Motions before this Court, PLAINTIFF begs the Court's intervention so that COACH DEFENDANTS will discontinue their dilatory tactics in preventing PLAINTIFF from obtaining the necessary documents and the depositions of critical witnesses. The witnesses reside in New York and the cost and expense of such depositions should not be compromised by the failure to produce important documents,critical to the examination of these witnesses. PLAINTIFF specifically seeks sanctions in the amount of attorneys’ fees expended in the preparation of this Motion to Compel (see the Cook Decl. § 11) in the amount of $3,750. PLAINTIFF seeks her sanctions against Defendant RK and its attorneys, Holly Dutton and Stephen Kelley. VIII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, PLAINTIFF respectfully requests that this Court grant PLAINTIFF's Motion to Compel and order further responses by RK to PLAINTIFF's Requests for Production, Set Three. Further, this Court should order Defendant RK and DEFENDANT's attorneys of record to pay PLAINTIFF's attorney the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in bringing this motion in the sum of $3,750 for preparation of the Motion and appearance at the motion hearing as follows: 4 hours at $525 for attorney fees; 2 additional hours at $525 for attorney fees; 4 hours of paralegal time at $135 per hour and a $60 filing fee. Dated: March 4, 2016 ANDREA COOK & ASSOCIATES “inden RY. Cook, Andrea L. Cook Attorney for Plaintiff MADISEN PETERSON By: PLTF'S MTN TO COMPEL RESP BY RK TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; SANCTIONS 12 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. 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 1 World Trade Center, #191, Long Beach, California 90831. On March 4, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT REED KRAKOFF, LLC TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS by enclosing them in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Stephen Kelley Robert Luster Bowman and Brooke, LLP Austin, Brownwood, Cannon & Santa Cruz 970 West 190th St., Ste. 700 P.O. Box 85462 Torrance, CA 90502 San Diego, CA 92186 Mary Childs Lisa Collinson Yoka & Smith, LLP Collinson Law 445 South Figueroa St. 38% FI. 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Torrance, CA 90503 _X_ (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Long Beach, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party serviced, service if presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on March 4, 2016, at Long Beach, California.