Opposition To Defendants Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.November 3, 2017

Electronically FILED by Supelbr Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/20/2019 03:56 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Lopez,Deputy Clerk EA N ~N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Paul R. Kiesel, State Bar No. 119854 Email: kiesel@kiesel. law Steven D. Archer, State Bar No. 63834 Email: archer@kiesel.law D. Bryan Garcia, State Bar No. 216904 email: garcia@kiesel.law Ashley M. Conlogue, State Bar No. 292083 email: conlogue @kiesel.law KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211-2910 Tel: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARTIN CARLIN, CAROLYN CARLIN, LAURA MILES and DANIEL MILES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MARTIN CARLIN, CAROLYN CARLIN, LAURA MILES and DANIEL MILES, Plaintiffs, \D RUDY BOROOMAND:; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: BC 682439 Assigned to Department 4 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE Date: March 21, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 4 Complaint Filed: November 3, 2017 Trial Date: May 3, 2019 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, DEFENDANT AND TO HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Martin Carlin, Carolyn Carlin, Laura Miles and Daniel Miles, by and through their attorneys of record, Kiesel Law LLP, and herewith submit their Plaintiff’s PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE EA N ~N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Opposition to Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Continue the Current Trial Date, as follows: I. DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY GOOD CAUSE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE AND SHOULD BE DENIED An ex parte application must be supported by a declaration demonstrating an affirmative factual showing of irreparable harm, immediate danger or other basis for granting relief ex parte. See, California Rules of Court Rules 3.1201, 3.1202. Although Defendant Rudy Boroomand’s (“Defendant”) ex parte application claims that the basis for a trial continuance is due to Paul Bigley’s personal unavailability for trial, the supporting Declaration of Marc J. Shrake confirms that Mr. Shrake (and not Mr. Bigley) is actually Defendant’s trial counsel in this matter, where it states, in relevant part: “I am the trial counsel for Mr. Boroomand, and only seek this additional time to continue with discovery to allow for a proper and thorough evaluation of Plaintiffs’ claims in order to appropriately prepare for trial and finalize my defense.” See, Declaration of Mark J. Shrake at 44(2) [Emphasis added]. Further, the Declaration does not affirmatively establish that Mr. Shrake, himself, is presently unavailable on the presently- scheduled trial date. According to Mr. Shrake’s profile on the Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP [hereinafter “Freeman”] firm’s webpage, he is more than capable of trying this simple automobile v. pedestrians accident case on May 3, 2019. See, Exhibit 1. Further, Mr. Shrake’s Declaration fails to establish that he is unavailable for trial on May 3, 2019, thus Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing good cause for the requested trial continuance. As such, Defendant’s ex parte application should be denied on its face. 111 111 111 111 1 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE EA N ~N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AS THE DEFENDANT HAS CREATED THE “NEED” FOR A CONTINUANCE BY SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR, AFTER ALL FACT DISCOVERY HAS BEEN COMPLETED As this Court is aware, trial continuances are disfavored and may only be granted on an “affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” See, California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(c). Here, no good cause exists for a trial continuance and, as such, Defendant Rudy Boroomand’s (“Defendant”) ex parte application should be denied. This is a simple case involving an automobile vs. pedestrians accident. The plaintiffs were pedestrians in a marked crosswalk when Defendant Boroomand ran Dr. Carlin down in front of his wife, daughter and grandson on January 10, 2016. This instant action was filed on November 3, 2017 and has been pending for over 16 months. The depositions of all the parties have been taken. All fact discovery, with the exception of Defendant’s outstanding responses to Requests for Admissions, Form Interrogatories (Set No. Two) and Request for Production of Documents (Set No. 2) has been completed and experts have already been designated by both sides. Now, at the eleventh hour, the Defendant seeks a trial continuance because his carrier decided to transfer the case from its house counsel to outside counsel at the Freeman firm. After that assignment was made it was the Freeman firm’s Managing Partner, Daniel Walsh, that decided to assign the matter to one of the forty-three experienced trial attorneys in their downtown Los Angeles and/or Hermosa Beach offices. Moreover, when Mr. Walsh first reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 13, 2019 (not the March 5, 2019 date referenced in the moving papers), he was aware of the current trial date and, more importantly, he already knew that Mr. Bigley would not be available for trial if it began on the current trial date. See, Exhibit 2. The sole reason for the trial continuance is because Defendant’s carrier waited until the eleventh hour to substitute counsel, and then assigned the case to an attorney who was already unavailable on the current trial date. This self-created conflict is not an “emergency” worthy of ex parte relief. Because the need for the trial continuance is solely due to the Defendant’s actions, no good cause exists for granting any continuance of the current trial date. 2 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE EA N ~N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR CONTINUING THE PRESENT TRIAL DATE AS CURRENT DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, HAS TAKEN THE LAST TWO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS AND HAS ALREADY RETAINED AND DESIGNATED EXPERTS IN ANTICIPATION OF TRIAL Defendant’s moving papers disingenuously claim that “[o]ur office associated in this file on March 5, 2019.” [Declaration of Marc J. Shrake, Para. 4, Line 1.] In reality, “new” defense counsel has known about this case since at least early February. On February 13, 2019, 78 days before the current trial date, the Freeman firm’s Managing Partner, Daniel Walsh, advised Plaintiffs’ counsel of their firm’s imminent substitution into this matter, and requested a trial continuance. On February 14, 2019, Plaintiffs counsel responded explaining that Plaintiffs would not agree to a trial continuance as (1) Dr. Carlin is 75 years of age and suffers from serious medical conditions; (2) Mrs. Carlin is 70 years of age and suffers from serious medical conditions, (3) this case involves a simple auto v. pedestrians accident; (4) there are no known witnesses to the accident, and (5) Dr. Carlin and Mrs. Carlin’s depositions have already been taken. See, Exhibit 3 to Garcia Decl. Moreover, it is readily apparent that “new” defense counsel can easily get up to speed for trial on May 3, 2019 and, in fact, already has done so: © Each of the four Plaintiffs has already provided their verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission; ° Prior defense counsel has already deposed Dr. and Mrs. Carlin; ° Freeman attorneys (other than Mr. Bigley) have already taken the depositions of Plaintiffs Laura Miles and Daniel Miles on March 1, 2019. See, Exhibit 4 and Garcia Decl. 46; and ° Freeman attorneys (other than Mr. Bigley) have already retained/designated three (3) retained experts for trial. See, Exhibit 5. No good cause exists for continuing trial of this simple case, Dr. and Mrs. Carlin, both of whom are over age 70 and suffer from serious, albeit unrelated, medical conditions deserve their 3 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE EA N ~N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 day in court and Defendant has failed to make the requisite affirmative showing of good cause required for a trial continuance. As such, Defendant’s ex parte application should be denied. IV. SHOULD THE COURT GRANT DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION THE NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE SHOULD RUN FROM THE ORIGINAL TRIAL DATE AND ONLY EXPERT DISCOVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED GOING FORWARD The depositions of all parties in this case have been taken. There are no known witnesses to this accident and experts have already been designated. As such, there is no reason to re-open and/or extend the non-expert discovery cut-off date for any new trial date. Accordingly, if this Court is inclined to continue the trial date, which it should not, the non-expert discovery cut-off date should run from the original trial date, not from any continued trial date. V. CONCLUSION As stated above, the Court should summarily deny Defendant’s ex parte application as the Declaration of Marc J. Shrake fails to establish good cause for a continuance - since his Declaration (1) fails to establish that Paul Bigley is unavailable for trial on May 3, 2019 and, conversely, establishes that Mr. Shrake who describes himself as “trial counsel for Mr. Boroomand” is available for trial on May 3, 2019. The “emergency” rationale for the requested continuance is self-created by Defendant, for which no good cause has been shown that would justify the unnecessary continuance of the trial of this relatively simple case. . DATED: March 20, 2019 KIESEL LAW LLP Paul R. Kiesel D. Bryan Garcia Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARTIN CARLIN, CAROLYN CARLIN, LAURA MILES and DANIEL MILES 4 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE EA N ~N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF D. BRYAN GARCIA I, D. Bryan Garcia, hereby declare as follows: I. I am an attorney at law admitted to practice before the Bar of the State of California. Iam a partner with the firm of Kiesel Law LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs in this action. If called to, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth in this declaration. I base this personal knowledge upon my representation of Plaintiffs Martin Carlin, Carolyn Carlin, Laura Miles and Daniel Miles (“Plaintiffs”). 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a printout of Marc J. Shrake’s profile on his firm’s webpage at https://www.fmglaw.com/attorney_print.php?id=272. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of correspondence dated February 13, 2019 from Kathy McCormick, Senior Paralegal with Freeman, Mathis & Gary LLP advising Plaintiffs’ counsel of the association/substitution of counsel in the present matter. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of correspondence from Stephen D. Archer of Plaintiff’s counsel to Daniel Walsh dated February 14, 2019. Bx Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of portions of the deposition transcript of Plaintiff Laura Miles taken on March 1, 2019. 6. On March 1, 2019, Defense counsel also took the deposition of Plaintiff Daniel Miles. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s expert designation in the above-entitled matter. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed March 20, 2019, at Beverly Hills, 5 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT TRIAL DATE EXHIBIT 1 ye FREEMAN MATHIS & (GARY Your Problem Solved Marc J. Shrake Partner Direct Dial: 213.615.7039 Fax: 213.615.7100 mshrake@fmglaw.com Marc Shrake is a Partner in the Los Angeles - Downtown office of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP. Mr. Shrake is Co-Chair of the Firm's Insurance Coverage and Extra-Contractual Liability National Practice Section and also is Chair of the California Insurance Coverage Practice Team. Mr, Shrake has represented clients across the country in a variety of complex litigation including class claims and appeals for over twenty five years. Mr. Shrake's practice focuses on insurance coverage and extra-contractual liability claims and also includes directors and officers claims, business torts, commercial litigation, internet commerce, intellectual property, and government/regulatory investigations. Mr. Shrake's Insurance Coverage and Extra-Contractual Liability practice is national in scope. He handles an extensive range of insurance coverage matters and claims-handling for primary and excess carriers in the domestic and London markets. He has represented insurance companies and syndicates in sophisticated coverage disputes with particular emphasis on property damage, fiduciary matters, healthcare, Internet and financial institutions. In addition, he has acted as defense and monitoring counsel for high exposure actions against insureds. Mr. Shrake's commercial litigation experience includes numerous complex disputes involving class action defense, RICO claims, breach of fiduciary duty actions and other business torts related to corporate disputes between shareholders and owners. He also frequently represents parties in cases concerning fiduciary obligations, compliance, and contract-based disputes, fraud/misrepresentation, trade secret misappropriation, intellectual property theft, restrictive covenant enforcement and defense, and computer fraud. Mr. Shrake also has significant experience handling defamation and disparagement cases. In addition, he often defends professional liability cases involving accountants, attorneys, insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents, doctors and healthcare professionals and other miscellaneous professional claims. Mr. Shrake is licensed to practice in California, Minnesota, and Texas, and he has appeared pro hac vice in numerous other jurisdictions. Areas of Practice Insurance Coverage and Extra-Contractual Liability Tort and Catastrophic Loss Professional Liability Appellate Advocacy Bar Admissions California Minnesota Texas Education 1.D., University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois B.A, College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, summa cum laude Representative Published Works "You Acted in Bad Faith by Refusing to Settle for the Policy Limits, and Now the Policy Limits Are Open!" (co-written with Rina Carmel and Albert K. Alikin), DRI In-House Defense Quarterly, April 2018 Avoiding the Special Relationship Zone for Insurance Brokers (co-written with Albert K. Alikin), California Asian Insurance and Financial Professionals Association (CAIFPA) Annual Magazine, March 2016 Practice Guide - 50 States Reservation of Rights Compendium (co-written with Albert K. Alikin and Jennifer Muse), Defense Research Institute, 2014 Appellate Dissent Maps Potential Challenge to Bad Faith Punitive Damages (co-written with Albert K. Alikin), ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee, September 10, 2014 The Causation Question in Property Insurance, New Appleman on Insurance Law, Chapter 44, August 2011 Hurricane Storm Surges and Property Insurance: What's the Coverage Climate? ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee Hot Topics, January 2009 The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: Standing to Bring a Civil Action, ABA's The Briefcase, May 1994 Representative Cases Insurance Coverage and Litigation Litigating commercial property and business loss insurance coverage claims arising from fire and other industrial losses, contingency non-appearance and event cancellation, war and warlike activity, product contamination and recall, 9/11, hurricanes, earthquakes, water, wind, mold, builder’s risk, crime, and other events. Litigating casualty insurance coverage claims brought under general liability, employment practices liability, errors and omissions liability, health care liability, workers’ compensation, and directors and officers liability coverages arising out of technology products, employment practices, professional practices, environmental claims, advertising injury, business torts, and other claims and occurrences. Obtaining Missouri Court of Appeals decision affirming summary judgment for national insurance company accused of conspiring to drive public insurance adjusters out of business. Defending insurance broker against claims brought by named payee under property policy after insurer denied property damage claim. Defending insurance broker in investigation by New York Attorney General for alleged kickbacks by insurers. Obtaining multimillion-dollar property insurance recovery for world’s largest rubber plantation after rebels overran plantation during Liberian civil war. Obtaining multimillion-dollar property insurance recovery for international food company following application of unapproved pesticide to raw oats used to make popular breakfast cereal. Defending home furnishings manufacturer in rescission action brought by products liability insurer following accident with manufacturer’s product. Obtaining multimillion-dollar recovery for large warehousing/logistics employer against workers’ compensation insurance broker for mishandling insurance placement and reporting. Business and Commercial Litigation Defending national health care provider against civil RICO and fraud claims and criminal investigations for admissions and billing practices, resulting in company-saving resolutions of all actions. Obtaining multimillion-dollar recoveries against manufacturer and installer of hazardous building material that caused $100 million fire and destroyed steel plant. Winning complete defense verdict and full recovery on counterclaim for national hardware distributor against retailers claiming RICO conspiracy to drive retailers out of business. Obtaining multimillion-dollar recovery against staffing agency’s former officer in trade secrets lawsuit to protect client list and other confidential information. Obtaining summary judgment for traffic control systems supplier alleged to have infringed patent. Securing landmark Supreme Court of California decision on non-reviewability of arbitral awards. Winning summary judgment on behalf of international airport board in equal protection lawsuit by landowners seeking to block runway-expansion project. Negotiating multimillion-dollar settlements for former CEO, CFO, and general counsel of international bank in executive compensation dispute. Classes/Seminars Taught “Is There a Target on My Back? (or, Understanding E&O and Minimizing Your Exposure),” California Asian Insurance and Financial Professional Association’s Property and Casualty Seminar, August 2011 “The ABC’s of Insurance Coverage Claims,” Insurance broker seminar, March 2011 “Defending Employment Litigation: Looking for Coverage in All the Right Places,” Southern California Labor and Employment Law Seminar, November 2010 “Understanding Products Liability Insurance & Product Recall Insurance,” Client seminar, November 2010 “The Wide, Wide World of Insurance: Recent Developments,” Insurance broker seminar, October 2007 “Shaken, Not Stirred: Adjusting Earthquake Losses,” Client seminar, May 2006 “Staying Out of the Thicket: California Fair Claims Settlement Practices,” Client seminar, October 2004, November 2005 Professional Associations and Memberships ABA Litigation Section, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee, Property Insurance Subcommittee, Co-Chair, 2007-present Loss Executives Association, Member, 2013-present Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, Member, 2015-present ABA General Practice Section, Litigation Committee, Vice-Chair, 1992-1994 EXHIBIT 2 Cindy Osborne fi Ee From: Kathleen McCormick Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:30 PM To: Cindy Osborne Cc: Daniel Walsh Subject: Carlin v Boroomand Good afternoon, it was nice speaking with you. As | indicated, we will be subbing in for the defendant in this case. | will be immediately filing an association of attorneys pending the filing of a formal substitution. But, more urgent right now is the fact that | notice the docket shows an FSC on 4/19 and a jury trial on 5/3. There have been no previous continuances. We are requesting that you stipulate to a continuance of 90-120 days with discovery to be extended to run concurrent with the new date. We have not yet had an opportunity to get the file but expect to have it within a day or two. Please let me know if you would be willing to agree to that and if you are, please let me know a good trial date keeping in mind the FSC would be about 10 days before. | will prepare the stipulation and email it to you. I have copied the partner on the file Daniel Walsh in case you wish to talk to him. Thanks! Kathy McCormick Seaior Paralesal 7 C rit fc Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP 550 S. Hope Street | 22" Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213.615.7080 | F: 213.615.7100 | C: 909.641.5797 kmmccormick@fmglaw.com | www.fmalaw.com FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY. A Corporate Counsel Magazine "Go- Tol in California | Florida | Georgia [New Jersey | New York] 1 North Carolina | Pennsylvania Please read this important notice and confidentiality statement & EXHIBIT 3 KIESEL LAW -- LLP -- Steven D. Archer, Esq. archer@kiesel.low February 14, 2019 Sent by U.S. Mail and Facsimile - Sent by U.S. Mail and Facsimile - (818) 956-2100 (213) 615-7100 Matthew S. Gibbs, Esq. Daniel Walsh, Esq. Law Office of Timothy J. O'Shea Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP 535 N. Brand Bivd., Ste. 1100, 550 S. Hope Street, 22™ Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Los Angeles, CA 90071 RE: Martin Carlin, et al., v. Rudy Boroomand, et al. LASC Case No.: BC 682439 Our File No.: 16-1046 Dear Counsel: On February 13, 2019 we received an email advising that a Substitution of Attorneys is in process along with a request that we stipulate to continue the May 3, 2019 trail date. Thereafter | spoke with Mr. Walsh and | take the opportunity of this letter to confirm that conversation and the reasons why we are unable to agree to the requested continuance of the current trial date. First, Dr. Carlin is now over 75 years of age and suffers from several serious medical conditions wholly unrelated to the auto v. pedestrian collision that gives rise to this action. Second, Mrs. Carlin is now over 70 years of age and she, 100, suffers from serious medical conditions wholly unrelated to the auto v. pedestrian collision that give rise to this action. Third, this is not a complicated case and there is no need for a continuance. There are no known percipient witnesses to the underlying auto v. pedestrian collision, the Defendant, Dr. Carlin and Mrs. Carlin have already been deposed, the deposition of Laura Miles has been noticed to be taken on March 1, 2019 and, as | have previously advised Mr. Gibbs, Daniel Miles is also available for deposition (by video) on either March 1 or March 8, 2019. When | spoke with Mr. Walsh he advised that he had not yet seen the file and anticipated that it would be assigned to Paul A. Bigley. Although Mr. Walsh was not sure, he thought that Mr. Bigley might have a calendar conflict with the May 3, 2019 trial date. Assigning this new file to a Freeman attorney who already has a calendar conflict creates the problem rather than solves the problem. According to its website the Freeman firm has 32 experienced and extremely qualified lawyers in its Los Angeles office and, if it turns out that Mr, Bigley does have a calendar conflict, there is no reason why any one of the other 31 experienced Freeman attorneys could not assume responsibility for the file. This action was filed on November 3, 2017, has been actively 8648 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 30211-291C¢ 310-854-4444 =» Fax: 310-854-0812 www kiesel.law KIES WwW w S$. Gibbs, Esa. and Daniel Walsh, Esq. February 14, 2019 Page 2 litigated and, but for the depositions of Ms. Miles and Mr. Miles and expert witness discovery is ready for trial. Since the trial date is now 78 days away there is more than ample time for any of the other experienced Freeman attorney fo learn the file and be ready for trial on the assigned trial date. Again, this is not a complicated case. For those reasons we are unable to agree to stipulate to a continuance of the trial date and will oppose any Motion to Continue Trial Date. Please confirm the location where Ms. Miles' deposition will be taken on March 1, 2019 (it was originally noticed fo be taken in Mr. Gibbs office) and the date for the video deposition of Mr. Miles (either March 1 or March 8). As mentioned to Mr. Gibbs in a recent email, our office has the video capability to connect with a video site in Denver, CO to facilitate Mr. Miles' deposition should you so desire. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, KIESEL LAW LLP AA- Stelren D. Archer By: SDA:cao EXHIBIT 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MARTIN CARLIN, CAROLYN CARLIN, LAURA MILES and DANIEL MILES, Plaintiffs, Case No.: VS. BC682439 RUDY BOROOMAND; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. -- h r e r e r er er er e r m r e t a Deposition of LAURA MILES, taken on behalf of Defendants, at 500 North Brand Boulevard, Third Floor, Glendale, California, commencing at 10:03 a.m., Friday, March 1, 2019, before Karine Sepedjian, CSR No. 12515. Laura Miles March 1, 2019 B w N e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com FOR FOR APPEARANCES: THE PLAINTIFFS: KIESEL LAW By: D. Bryan Garcia, Esq. 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 310.854.4444 garcia@kiesel. aw THE DEFENDANTS: FREEMAN, MATHIS & GARY By: Hov Kachatoorian, Esq. 550 South Hope Street 22nd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 213.615.7000 hkachatoorian@fmglaw.com Laura Miles March 1, 2019 EXHIBIT 5 Freeman Mathis a Gary, LLP Attorneys af Law OO 0 N N Wn Ba 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2) 23 24 25 26 27 28 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP PAUL A. BIGLEY (SBN 119462) WAYNE H. HAMMACK (SBN 202709) 550 South Hope Street, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 (213) 615-7000; FAX (213) 615-7100 Attorneys for Defendant RUDY BOROOMAND SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MARTIN CARLIN, CASE NO. BC682439 [Hon. Christopher K. Lui; Dept. 74 Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANTS' DESIGNATION OF RUDY BOROOMAND, et al., EXPERT WITNESSES; DECLARATION OF DANIEL WALSH Defendants. Exchange Date: March 14, 2019 Complaint Filed: November 3, 2017 Trial Date: May 3, 2019 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant RUDY BOROOMAND pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010, et seq., hereby submits its list of expert witnesses who will, or may be called to testify, either orally or by deposition testimony, on behalf of Defendant at the time of trial. Defendant hereby reserves the right to name and call additional expert witnesses to testify at the time of trial and to examine and elicit expert opinions form experts designated by Plaintiff MARTIN CARLIN (“Plaintiff”), or any other party and from treating physicians and other treating health care providers and/or professionals derived from their care and treatment of Plaintiff. Defendant hereby reserves the right to amend this list of expert witnesses at any time before trial if the decision is made to call additional expert witnesses in this case or a designated DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 15409141.1 11221-80641 KAI - expert witness becomes unavailable. In the event additional expert witnesses are retained to testify at trial, notice will be provided to all parties within a reasonable period of time thereafter and an opportunity will be provided for their depositions to be taken prior to testifying at trial. Defendant further reserves the right to add to or withdraw names from this list, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010, et seq. RETAINED EXPERTS Defendant has retained and intends to call the following expert witnesses to testify at the time of trial: O w N N n e W N 1. Robert M. Wilson, M.D., 8929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 425, Beverly Hills, CA 90211; (310) 289-0249, -_- - -_ OO 2. David A. Krauss, Ph.D., Exponent, Inc., 5401 McConnell Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 12 | 90066; (310) 754-2700. 13 3. Jesse L. Wobrock, Ph.D, ARBIO, 604 Village Court, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; 14 | (800) 587-4858. 15 Defendant reserves the right to identify and call any and all retained, and non-retained 16 | expert witnesses, designated by the Plaintiff, as well as all treating physicians. 17 Defendant will produce all reports to date by the aforementioned witnesses. Defendant 18 [reserve the right to identify and exchange any reports and/or supplemental reports by said expert as 19 | they become available. 20 | /// 21/1 22 | 23 {1 24/11 25 | 26 || /1/ 27 11 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP semaiee 28 1 /// 2 DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 15409141.1 11221-8064] I Defendant reserves the right to call additional expert witnesses to give expert testimony on 2 | "rebuttal" and expressly reserve the right to amend this list to add additional witnesses; however, in 3 | such an event, all other parties to this action will be given notice of such witnesses and an 4 | opportunity to depose them. 5 6 | Dated: March 14,2019 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP : Uh 8 By: 9 PAUL A. BIGLEY WAYNE H. HAMMACK 10 Attorneys for Defendant, . RUDY BOROOMAND 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 15409141.1 11221-80641 Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Attorneys at Lew OO 00 J O N Wn Hh W N N O N RN O N N N N e s e s e e e e e s e s Gg O A L i B R N = OO W v e N R E -e O 28 DECLARATION OF DANIEL WALSH I, DANIEL WALSH, declare: I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts in the State of California. I am an attorney with the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, counsel of record for Defendant RUBY BOROOMAND. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and if called as a witness could and would competently testify to them. This declaration is submitted pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.260(c). Each of the witnesses listed herein has been contacted and has agreed to testify at the trial of this matter and is or will be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful deposition. 1, Robert M. Wilson, M.D., is a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon, who will testify as to his opinions and conclusions relative to his review of the pertinent documents as to the nature and extent of the alleged injuries, past, present, and future, and the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment, causation, the costs and bills, and reasonable charges. Dr. Wilson will be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit a meaningful oral deposition concerning his specific trial testimony, including any opinion and its basis, that he is expected to give at trial. Dr. Wilson's fee for deposition is $1,500.00 per hour. No reports have been produced to date. A copy of Dr. Wilson’ Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 2. Dr. Krauss, Ph.D., is a human factor’s expert, who will testify generally and specifically as to human perception and cognition, reaction time, attention, distraction, fatigue, the effects of lighting conditions on vision, and how stress affects behavior, among other things, within the realm of his discipline, and by use of a wide array of scenarios such as automobile, motorcycle, bicycle train/railroad and trucking accidents, industrial and occupational accidents, injuries associated with consumer products and trip and fall accidents, his opinions and conclusions concerning same and related issues based upon his education, training, experience and his review 4 DEFENDANT'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 15409141.1 11221-80641 Fresman Mathis 4 Gary, LLP Attorneys at Law OO 6 J O N nn A W N N O N N N N N N N e m e s e s e e e e e e e e bq A Wn BR W N =m, D O N N N n A W N Oo 28 of relevant documentation, materials and the file in this matter. Nothing contained herein is intended to limit this expert from offering opinions in direct rebuttal to opinions offered by experts of plaintiff or of other parties in this case. Dr. Krauss’ fee for deposition is $415.00 per hour. No reports have been produced to date. A copy of Dr. Krauss’ Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 3 Jesse L. Wobrock, Ph.D, an accident reconstructionist specifically as to forensic biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction and specifically as to the subject incident which took place on January 10, 2016, his opinions and conclusions concerning same and related issues based upon her education, training, inspection, experience and his review of relevant documentation and materials. Dr. Wobrock’s fee for deposition is $650.00 per hour. No reports have been produced to date. A copy of Dr. Wobrock’s Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. Defendant reserves the right to exchange additional reports should same become available. Nothing contained herein is intended to limit defendant’s experts from offering opinions in direct rebuttal to opinions offered by experts of defendants in this case. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of March, 2019, at - California. | ( AX (%