Opposition To Separate Statement In Support of Motion To Compel Further Responses

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.February 10, 2016

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations AARON J. MALO, Cal. Bar No. 179985 amalo@sheppardmullin.com JACQUELINE A. GOTTLIEB, Cal. Bar No. 271844 jgottlieb@sheppardmullin.com ASHTON T. BRACKEN, Cal. Bar No. 307940 abracken@sheppardmullin.com 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: ~~ 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross- Complainants ACCRETIVE COLORADO PARTNERS, LLC, ACCRETIVE REALTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ACCRETIVE REALTY ADVISORS, INC., and THOMAS LEBEAU ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 12/29/2016 at 12:45:00 Pi Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER RGC, INC., a Nevada corporation; RAM HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and NORTH VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC PROFIT SHARING PLAN, an employee benefit plan, Plaintiffs, Vv. ACCRETIVE COLORADO PARTNERS, LLC, a California limited liability company; ACCRETIVE REALTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company; ACCRETIVE REALTY ADVISORS, INC., a California corporation; THOMAS LEBEAU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS Case No. 30-2016-00834859-CU-CL-CJC Assigned to Hon. James Crandall Department C-33 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 [Opposition Brief and Declaration of Jacqueline A. Gottlieb filed concurrently herewith] Hearing Information: [Reservation No. 72478758] Date: January 12, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C-33 Complaint Filed: February 10, 2016 Trial Date: March 27, 2016 Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Please take notice that pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Thomas LeBeau ("Defendant” or "LeBeau") hereby submits the following Separate Statement in support of his opposition (the "Opposition") to plaintiff RGC, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") motion to compel a further response (the "Motion") to Plaintiff's Request For Admission No. 7 (the "Request"). DEFINITIONS A. As used in the Request, the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" shall mean and refer to Defendant Thomas LeBeau. B. As used in the Request, the term "GUARANTY" shall mean the Repayment Guaranty dated February 10, 2006 in favor of Aroy, LLC, North Valley LLC Profit Sharing Plan, RGC, Inc., and RAM Entertainment, LLC, a copy of which was attached to the Requests as Exhibit B. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: YOU executed the GUARANTY on YOUR own behalf. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: In addition to the general objections, Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, taxpayer privilege, or any other privilege or protection. Defendant objects to this Request because the terms “executed” and “own behalf” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request because it is not “full and complete in and of itself” as it requires Defendant to reference other documents in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060(d) in order to respond. -1- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: In addition to the general objections, Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, taxpayer privilege, or any other privilege or protection. Defendant objects to this Request because the terms “executed” and “own behalf” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request because it is not “full and complete in and of itself” as it requires Defendant to reference other documents in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060(d) in order to respond. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, and without waiving them, Defendant responds as follows: I admit that I signed the Guaranty. REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: In this action, Defendant Thomas LeBeau (“LeBeau”) has been sued for breach of a written Guaranty. The Guaranty in question bears apparent signatures of LeBeau in three places: once as an individual, once on behalf of Defendant Accretive Realty Investments, LLC ("ARI"), and once on behalf of Accretive Realty Advisors, Inc. (“ARA”). LeBeau admitted in response to Request for Admission Nos. 9 that he signed the Guaranty as President of ARI. He similarly admitted in response to Request for Admission No. 11 that he signed the Guaranty as President of ARA. This Request for Admission calls for LeBeau to admit that he executed the Guaranty on his own behalf. After interposing several boilerplate objections, LeBeau gave an evasive substantive response, saying only that he signed the Guaranty. In doing so, he left his response uncertain as to whether he admits that he signed to bind himself individually to guaranty the underlying loan obligation, as opposed to signing only as an officer of ARI and ARA. LeBeau's objection on the ground of attorney-client privilege is facially invalid. The attorney-client privilege applies only to the contents of confidential communications between an attorney and her client. It does not, however, shield the underlying facts that the attorney may discuss with her client from discovery. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1226 (2014) (“"Where the [attorney-client] privilege applies, it may not be -2- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 used to shield facts, as opposed to communications, from discovery.”) Request for Admission No. 7 does not seek an admission as to the content of any attorney-client communication. LeBeau's invocation of attorney work product protection is likewise facially invalid. Request for Admission No. 7 does not call for an admission regarding the work product of Defendants’ counsel. His assertion of the taxpayer privilege is also improper. The taxpayer privilege protects one's income tax return and the information contained therein. See, Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 1, 7 (1975). No admission as to the manner in which any item was reported on a tax return is requested. LeBeau also claims that well-understood terms (i.e., “executed” and “own behalf”) render the request for admission vague and ambiguous. There is no real ambiguity in the terms used, particularly when taken in the context of the requests. It is entirely improper for LeBeau to deliberately misconstrue terms used in the requests for the purpose of evading giving a substantive response. See, Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783 (1978). Furthermore, an objection on the ground of ambiguity will not lie unless the request is so flawed that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply. Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 8:1358, p. 8G-19 (2016). LeBeau also asserts that Request for Admission No. 7 is not full and complete in itself. The Discovery Act's requirements that requests be full and complete is to prevent resort to other materials in such a manner as to evade the limitations on the numbers of interrogatories or requests for admissions that may be propounded. See, Clement v. Alegre, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1289- 1290 (2009) (construing identical “full and complete” requirement in context of interrogatories). There is no issue here regarding the number of requests for admissions propounded. Furthermore, the only document referenced in Request for Admission No. 7 is appended to the request as an exhibit. No reference to other materials is necessary to understand the meaning of the request. The substantive portion of the response is evasive. The Request for Admission calls for LeBeau to admit that he executed the Guaranty on his own behalf. He admits only that he signed the Guaranty. Elsewhere, he admitted that he signed the Guaranty as the president of ARI and -3- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARA. LeBeau's refusal to state whether he also signed on his own behalf improperly injects an ambiguity into his response. A response to a request for admission must “be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(a). LeBeau must know whether he intended to sign the Guaranty in his individual capacity, that is, on his own behalf. He should not be allowed to evade giving the requested admission as to this essential point. REASONS TO DENY THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY: Plaintiff argues that Mr. LeBeau (1) allegedly failed to provide a substantive response to the Request; (2) interposed objections with his response to the Request that were allegedly without merit; and (3) allegedly provided an evasive response to the Request. Each of Plaintiff's arguments fail. Each of Plaintiff's arguments fail; they fail because Mr. LeBeau provided a timely and complete response to Plaintiff's Request that fully comports with the law. Myr. LeBeau Provided Plaintiff With A Substantive Response To The Request. Plaintiff argues that Mr. LeBeau failed to "substantively respond to Request For Admission No. 7 as it was written." (Motion, p. 5: 23-24.) But that argument is demonstrably false: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: "YOU executed the GUARANTY on YOUR own behalf." SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: "Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and without waiving them, Defendant responds as follows: I admit that I signed the Guaranty." (emphasis added). Even within its own motion, Plaintiff concedes (as it must) that Mr. LeBeau provided a "substantive response" to the Request. (Motion, pp. 3:24 & 5:28 [further -4- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acknowledging that Mr. LeBeau substantively responded to the Request by admitting "that he signed the Guaranty."].) As this confirms, Plaintiff's argument that Mr. LeBeau failed to provide a substantive response to the Request is simply untrue. Myr. LeBeau's Objections To The Request Are Entirely Proper Plaintiff also argues that Mr. LeBeau's objections to the Request are without merit. Mr. LeBeau asserted three objections in connection with his response to the Request: (1) "Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, taxpayer privilege, or any other applicable privilege or protection"; (2) "Defendant objects to this Request because the terms ‘executed’ and 'own behalf" are vague and ambiguous"; and (3) "Defendant objects to this Request because it is not "full and complete in and of itself" as it requires Defendant to reference other documents in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060(d) in order to respond." Each of these objections are entirely proper. 1. Mr. LeBeau's Objection To The Request On The Basis of Privilege Is Proper. California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.230 provides that "if an objection is made to a request or to part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated." And that is precisely what Mr. LeBeau did here. It is well settled law that the failure to assert the attorney-client privilege or attorney-work product may result in a waiver of that privilege. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, Mr. LeBeau objected to the Request "to the extent" it called for the disclosure of privileged information. Importantly, Mr. LeBeau still provided a complete and appropriate substantive response to the Request. Given this, there was nothing improper about Mr. LeBeau preserving any objection on the basis privilege. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230(a) ("If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered"). 2. Mr. LeBeau's Objection To The Request That Certain Terms Are Vague And Ambiguous Is Proper. Additionally, Mr. LeBeau's objection that the terms "executed" and "own behalf” -5- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.”S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4 23 24 25 26 27 28 are vague and ambiguous is well taken. California law recognizes that requests for admissions are "not a discovery device." See Fredericks v. Kontos Industries, Inc. (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 272, 276 (citing 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) Discovery and Production of Evidence, § 1553). As the Fredericks court explained, the objective of a request for admission is to "obtain admission of uncontroverted facts learned through other discovery methods, and thereby to narrow the issues and save the time and expense of preparing for unnecessary proof." Id. Because the potential adverse consequence of an incorrect admission is great, courts may properly disregard an admission when the request is susceptible to different meanings. Id. at 276-77 (owner admitted he "agreed" to make certain progress payments to Contractor; but court found owner had different interpretation of "agreement" as parol evidence revealed his agreement was dependent upon performance of other conditions). Due to the special binding nature of requests for admission, requests for admission must be read literally. See Burch v. Gombos (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 352, 358-359 (reading the request "Admit that you have no evidence of [certain facts]" literally and finding that inclusion of the word "have" meant that plaintiff's admission was limited to his knowledge at the time the admission was made). And this makes sense, because if requests for admission were not read literally, the evidentiary effect of an admission would be rendered impermissibly vague and ambiguous. Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that the terms at issue may, in fact, be susceptible to different meanings. Instead Plaintiff argues that "There is no real ambiguity in the terms used, particularly when taken in the context of the requests." (Motion, p. 5:8 [emphasis added].) But "real" ambiguity is not the applicable legal standard. See Fredericks, 189 Cal. App. 3d at 276-77. And again, Mr. LeBeau did not use his "vague and ambiguous" objection as a basis for refusing to provide Plaintiff with a substantive response to the Request - he still admitted that he signed the guaranty. Accordingly, Plaintiff's argument that "an objection on the ground of ambiguity will not lie unless the request is so flawed the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply" is inapplicable under the facts presented here. (Motion, p. 5:11-12.) Mr. LeBeau complied with his discovery obligations in good faith; he provided Plaintiff with a -6- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 yo 28 substantive response which omitted the objectionable/ambiguous terms. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230(a). 3. Mr. LeBeau's Objection That The Request Is Not Full And Complete In And Of Itself Is Proper. Lastly, Mr. LeBeau's objection to the Request on the grounds that it is not full and complete in and of itself is warranted as the Request requires Mr. LeBeau to reference certain documents in order to formulate a response. (Motion, p. 5:21 [acknowledging that the "document referenced in Request For Admission No. 7 is appended to the request as an exhibit"]); But See Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) § 8:1352 (request for admission is improper when there is "a requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. "); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.060(d) ("Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself."). And again, despite the improper form of Plaintiff's Request, Mr. LeBeau still provided Plaintiff with a straightforward and substantive response. Thus, while Mr. LeBeau's objections to the Request were legally justified, Mr. LeBeau undertook every effort to provide Plaintiff with meaningful discovery responses. That is all he is required to do under the law. Mr. LeBeau Provided Plaintiff With A Complete And Straightforward Response To The Request. Plaintiff also argues that the Court should compel Mr. LeBeau to provide a further response to the Request because Mr. LeBeau's response was allegedly "not so forthright." (Motion, p. 3:21.) But again, any reasonable examination of the Request at issue and Mr. LeBeau's response thereto, proves otherwise. Plaintiff requested that Mr. LeBeau admit that he "executed the Guaranty on [his] own behalf." In response, Mr. LeBeau stated: "I admit that I signed the Guaranty." There is simply no ambiguity in Mr. LeBeau's admission, even if Plaintiff does not like it. 1. Mr. LeBeau Cannot Be Compelled To Admit The Request, He Can Only Be Compelled To Provide An Explanation For His Decision Not To Provide A Requested Admission. -7- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL EA N ~~ O N Wn 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. LeBeau cannot be compelled to admit anything that he chooses not to admit; he can only be compelled to provide an explanation for his decision not to provide a requested admission. Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 812, 820. And Plaintiff does not seek that relief anywhere within its motion to compel. Plaintiff conveniently fails to inform the Court that it propounded a set of form interrogatories concurrently with the single request for admission at issue in this motion. (Declaration of Jacqueline A. Gottlieb ("Gottlieb Decl."), § 2, Ex. A.) And in response to those form interrogatories, Mr. LeBeau was required to provided certain specified information regarding his decision to provide anything other than an "unqualified admission" in response to the Request. Mr. LeBeau did precisely that. Plaintiff acknowledged the sufficiency of the explanation and related information provided by Mr. LeBeau when Plaintiff declined to challenge the response provided. (/d., 4.) And this was not the result of inadvertence. The parties engaged in a lengthy meet and confer process spanning several months regarding discovery issues - a process which ultimately resulted in Mr. LeBeau providing Plaintiff with, among other things, supplemental discovery responses to Plaintiff's form interrogatories (but not a supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 in connection with the Request). (/d.) In other words, after engaging in a lengthy meet and confer process, Plaintiff concluded that: (1) Mr. LeBeau had satisfied his discovery obligations by stating all facts supporting his response to the Request; (2) Mr. LeBeau had satisfied his discovery obligations by identifying all persons with knowledge of the facts supporting his response to the Request; and (3) Mr. LeBeau had satisfied his discovery obligations by identifying all documents which supported Mr. LeBeau's response to the Request. Simply put, Plaintiff has already obtained all discoverable information from Mr. LeBeau that relates in any way to the Request.’ ! Moreover, Plaintiff fails to inform the Court that Mr. LeBeau was deposed on December 14, 2016. During Mr. LeBeau's deposition, he testified that he guaranteed the debt at issue. However, Mr. LeBeau was unable to authenticate the repayment guaranty attached to Plaintiff's Complaint because, despite Mr. LeBeau's numerous requests, Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to make the original of the guaranty document available for inspection by Mr. LeBeau and his counsel. -8- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Indeed, even if Plaintiff's argument that Mr. LeBeau's response to the Request is "only partially responsive" were true (and it is not), Plaintiff's motion would still be legally inadequate. (Motion, p. 5:26-27.) To the extent Plaintiff requires further clarification/explanation regarding Mr. LeBeau's response to the Request, the proper motion would have been a motion to compel Mr. LeBeau to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 - not a further response to the request for admission. But Plaintiff declined to do proceed in that manner. Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 812, 820 (denying plaintiff's motion to compel a further response to his requests for admissions as courts cannot "force a litigant to admit any particular fact"); Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group) 9 8:1379 (when a proper response has been given to a request for admission, there is no "ground for a motion to compel further answers"; instead, "the proper procedure in such a case is to serve interrogatories on the responding party"). Simply put, Mr. LeBeau cannot be compelled to admit the Request. Dated: December 29, 2016 2 4 ra SHEPPARD. MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON Lip / / A Nt / 2 Va A / LL 7 rs 7 / / “7 AARON J. MALO / JACQUELINE A. GOTTLIEB V ASHTON T. BRACKEN By Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants ACCRETIVE COLORADO PARTNERS, LLC, ACCRETIVE REALTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ACCRETIVE REALTY ADVISORS, INC., and THOMAS LEBEAU 0. Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00834859 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993. On December 29, 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 on the interested parties in this action as follows: Michael A. Taitelman, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Steven E. Formaker, Esq. RGC, INC.; RAM HOLDINGS, LLC; and Freedman + Taitelman, LLP NORTH VALLEY HOLDINGS LLC PROFIT 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 500 SHARING PLAN Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-0005 Attorneys for Cross-Defendants RAM Facsimile: (310) 201-0045 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ROBERT A. E-mail: mtaitelman@ftllp.com MATHEWSON; JEFFREY E. KIRBY; and sformaker@ftllp.com EARL KESSLER £3) BY ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE PROVIDER NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, I electronically filed the document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using one of the court’s approved electronic filing service providers (EFSP). I served the document(s) on the person(s) 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. Participants in the case will be electronically served by the court’s electronic filing service provider. Participants in the case, who are required by statute or rule, will be served by mail or by other means permitted by the court rules. My e-mail address is jsummers@sheppardmullin.com. Said document(s) were served electronically on December 29,2016. The names and e-mail addresses of the persons served are set forth in the attached Service List. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 29, 2016, at Costa Mesa, California. A/S A A Tdries E. Sumfners -10- Case No. 2016-00834859 SMRH:480299767.1 DEFENDANT THOMAS LEBEAU'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF RGC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL