Urs Corporation vs. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture

Response

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.March 9, 2017

© 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o Marion T. Hack, Esq. (State Bar No. 179216) hackm@ pepperlaw.com Luke N. Eaton (State Bar No. 280387) eatonl@ pepperlaw.com John H. Conrad (State Bar No. 265162) conradj@ pepperlaw.com PEPPER HAMILTONLLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.928.9800 Facsimile: 213.928.9850 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-D efendant URS CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FORTHE COUNTY OF ORANGE URS CORPORATION dba URS CORPORATION AMERICAS, aNevada corporation, Plaintiff, V. ATKINSON/WALSH JOINT VENTURE, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. Case No. 30-2017-00907526-CU-BC-CJC Assigned to Hon. Frederick P. Horn Department C31 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ATKINSON/WALSH J OINT VENTURE’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF KENT REIMAN July 26, 2017 1:30 p.m. C31 Date: Time: Dept. Complaint Filed: March 9, 2017 [Unlimited Jurisdiction] On July 24, 2017, counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant ATK INSON/WALSH JOINT VENTURE (“AWIJV”) submitted a letter directly to the Court (again), which enclosed a supplemental declaration of Brian M. Schnarr, but nevertheless failed to serve Plaintiff/Cross- Defendant URS CORPORATION (“URS”) until the following day, July 25, 2017. URS respectfully requests that the Court allow it to submit the following response to this belated and improper correspondence. 1 RESPONSE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o This Response is made necessary due to AWIV’s repeated attempts to gain an advantage in this litigation by improper means, including submitting misleading documents with the Court. For example, Mr. Schnarr declares that as of the time of his supplemental declaration, dated July 24,2017, no one at “Pepper Hamilton LLP [has] responded to this [July 21, 2017] correspondence.” (Supp. Decl. of Brian Schnarr, 43). Of course no one from Pepper Hamilton responded to this correspondence, because it was directed to Steve Gurr at Bryan Cave and no one at Pepper Hamilton ever received a copy of this correspondence. In addition, no one from Pepper Hamilton could have responded because Pepper Hamilton is not in possession of Mr. Reiman’s documents. As a further example, AWJV also fails to acknowledge that M r. Reiman’s documents were onlyproduced to AW] V, and none of Mr. Reiman’s documents have been produced to Pepper Hamilton, AECOM or URS. AWIJV also fails to submit Mr. Gurr’s cover email, of July 20, 2017, wherein he advised AWJV that Bryan Cave LLP “plan[s] on producing these documents at the deposition unless D efendant A tkinson/W alsh Joint Venture gives us notice of specific documents to withhold.” (Supp. Decl. of Luke N. Eaton, Ex. A). Indeed, AW]V has now objected to the production of these documents at Mr. Reiman’s deposition, even though it was the party which requested them in the first instance, thereby further depriving URS of a fair opportunity to access and review such documents. (SeeEx. B. to Supp. Decl. of B. Schnarr). In addition, the self-proclaimed “urgent” need to conduct the deposition of Kent Reiman is belied by the undisputed facts of this matter. AW]V claims itis rushing to depose Mr. Reiman to determine whether Mr. Reiman disclosed privileged information to URS and AECOM. These purported concerns were already addressed on four separate occasions: (1) On June 8, 2017, this Court issued a protective order concerning Mr. Reiman’s disclosure of privileged information; (2) On June 15, 2017, this Court confirmed that the protective order addressed AWIV’s concerns regarding the disclosure of privileged information; (3) Mr. Reiman retained separate, outside counsel to ensure no privileged information was disclosed to URS or AECOM ; and 2 RESPONSE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o (4) Mostimportantly, Mr. Reiman filed a declaration stating, under penalty of perjury, that he has not disclosed any confidential, proprietary or privileged information or documents to URS. AW]V ignores these protections in an effort to create a false sense of urgency regarding Mr. Reiman’s deposition. AWJV also conveniently overlooks the Protective Orderthat it specifically requested. In addition, for AWJV’s claims to be true, AWJV would have to prove (which it cannot) that Mr. Reiman’s declaration was false. Asis clear from the above, URS has steered clear of Mr. Reiman and any documents which may be in his possession. Contrary to the unsupported assertions by counsel for AW] V, neither URS, AECOM norits attorneys have discussed or reviewed “any confidential, proprietary or privileged information or documents concerning or related to the Project, Atkinson or ATWV.” This recent submission is another example ofAWJV’s repeated bad behavior in this action and the improper attempts to paint counsel and client in a false light. The undisputed facts persist that AW]V continues to actively prevent URS and its counsel from being able to properly prepare for the deposition of Mr. Reiman, who in the words of AW] itself, is a “key witness who was the highest level project employee for AWJV.” For the reasons set forth herein, and in the documents previously submitted in support of URS’ Opposition to the Motion to Compel the Deposition of Kent Reiman, this Motion must be denied. Dated: July 25, 2017 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP By: Marion T. Hack Luke N. Eaton Attorneys for Plaintiff URS CORPORATION dba URS CORPORATION AMERICAS 3 RESPONSE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL © 0 0 d N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FR , FP , F P R , P R E c o ~ N O o o u l B A W w W O N F P O O V U 0 0 N O U U B A W w W N H o O o PROOF OF SERVICE | am a resident of, or employed in, the County of Los Angeles. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is: Pepper Hamilton LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071. On July 25, 2017, | served the following listed document(s), by method indicated below, on the parties in this action: RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ATKINSON/WALSH JOINT VENTURE’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF KENT REIMAN [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] ns by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. ns by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Federal Express agent for delivery. ns by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. ns by electronic service transmission | caused true and correct electronic copies of the above document(s) to the persons at the electronic mail addresses listed below using One Legal LLC eService, an authorized electronic service provider for the San Francisco County Superior Court. by transmitting via e-mail or other electronic transmission the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth below. | am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 25, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. ryStal M onugian 1 PROOF OF SERVICE © 0 0 N N o o u r B A O w N D R N O N N N N N D N N N M N N F P F FP F FP , FP F F P FR , F P P c o ~ N o o u i A W w W N N F P O O V 0 0 N N o o u l B A W N O- —, o O o URS Corporation vs. AtkinsonyWalsh, et al. Case No. 30-2017-00907526-CU-BC-CJC SERVICE LIST Scott E. Hennigh, Esq. David M. Buoncristiani, Esq. Brian M. Schnarr, Esa. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26" Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 T: (415) 777-3200 F: (415) 541-9366 E mail: shennigh@ hansonbridgett.com dbuoncristiani @ hansonbridgett.com bschnarr@ hansonbridgett.com Attorney for Defendant ATKINSON/WALSH JOINT VENTURE 2 PROOF OF SERVICE