Reply To Defendant Douglas R Hansons Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Vacate Discovery Cutoff Or In The Alternative Extend Discovery Cutoff

Reply

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.January 13, 2011

St at e of C al if or ni a - De pa rt me nt of B us in es s Ov er si gh t OO © NN A Un hb WwW N = N N D N N N N N N m e m me l e d em em p d p a pe p a 0 N N Un hk W N =H O O NN NC D R A W N = D MARY ANN SMITH Deputy Commissioner SEAN M. ROONEY Assistant Chief Counsel MARLOU de LUNA (State Bar No. 162259) Senior Counsel DANIELLE A. STOUMBOS (State Bar No. 264784) Senior Counsel KELLY SUK (State Bar No. 301757) Counsel Department of Business Oversight 1320 West Fourth Street, Suite 750 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 576-7591 Facsimile: (213) 576-7181 Attorneys for the People of the State of California ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 10/06/2017 Clerk of the Court BY:SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through the Commissioner of Business Oversight, Plaintiff, Vv. INVESTCO MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; et al. Defendants. N r N r N a r ae Na e Na e N e e a ? ea e e e ae s e a e e Na a S a N n CASE NO. CGC-11-507316 REPLY TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS R. HANSON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO VACATE DISCOVERY CUT- OFF OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF Hearing Date: October 12, 2017 Hearing Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept. No.: 302 Hearing Judge: Harold Kahn Action Filed: June 9, 2017 Trial Date: Not Set REPLY TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS R. HANSON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE OR EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF St at e of C al if or ni a - De pa rt me nt of B us in es s Ov er si gh t OO 0 3 NN RR W N = nN RN N O N N N N N H e a em e a p d e a p d p m 2 2 1 6 2 ER B D 8B E E B E L E o E B D E B E E E Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through the Commissioner of Business Oversight (Plaintiff) replies to Defendant Douglas R. Hanson’s (Hanson) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Discovery Cut-Off or in the Alternative to Extend Discovery Cut-Off (Opposition). I ARGUMENT Plaintiff is in the unusual position of having to complete all discovery before any trial date has been set, and will only have one month after Plaintiffs discovery motion! to review any additional documents produced in response to the subpoena, complete five depositions and additional discovery based on this new information. Plaintiff has been hamstrung in completing this discovery by the pending discovery cut-off. It is would be difficult to complete the contemplated discovery in the remaining time if the Motion to Compel is granted. Plaintiff will be prejudiced if it is arbitrarily denied access to this discovery. No party will be prejudiced if the current discovery cut-off of November 14, 2017, is either vacated and tied to the trial date, or in the alternative, extended 90-days to February 12,2018. As stated in the moving papers, Plaintiff has been diligent in litigating this action and would have completed the previously noticed third-party depositions in August 2017 if Hanson and Thompson had not objected to some of this discovery. * Hanson did not state that he will suffer any prejudice if the discovery cut-off date is vacated or extended. Hanson blindly states that the discovery cut-off should not be vacated, but does not explain if or why he opposes the discovery cut-off being tied to the trial date as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020. Moreover, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.05 0, subdivision (b)(1)-(4), a court takes into account whether Plaintiff has acted diligently in litigating the case to rule on a motion to ! Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things filed August 23, 2017 (Motion to Compel). 2 Half of Hanson’s Opposition addresses arguments regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. These arguments are procedurally inappropriate and do not deserve consideration here. 1 REPLY TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS R. HANSON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO VACATE OR EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF St at e of C al if or ni a - De pa rt me nt of B us in es s Ov er si gh t N e e 1 O N BR W N ee B O N D Y r e e m e e d e d p e d e d pe ed ee d pe ed ee d N = OS 0 0 N Y n t R W N e Oo 24 25 26 23 28 extend the discovery cut-off date. Hanson does not dispute that Plaintiff has acted diligently. As the matter has not been set for trial, an extension will not delay the trial of this matter or otherwise | interfere with the court’s calendar. Defendant Hanson assumes that the Motion to Compel has been denied, but there has been no ruling on that motion. Plaintiff did not stipulate to have the pro tem judge decide the Motion to Compel on September 20, 2017, and chose one of the earliest available dates for the hearing on October 12, 2017. Thus, the pro tem judge's tentative ruling is not a final decision. As stated in Plaintiff’s moving papers, the factors under section 2024.050 weigh in favor of Plaintiff. Hanson did not raise any argument sufficient to refute this, and an extension should be granted. III CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court vacate the discovery cut-off, or in the alternative, extend discovery cut-off 90-days to February 12, 2018. Dated: October 6, 2017 Los Angeles, California Respectfully submitted, JAN LYNN OWEN Commissioner of Business Oversight By: dati Ua [li Lp Uy DANIELLE A. LAH Senior Counsel Attorneys for the People of California 2 REPLY TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS R. HANSON'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE OR EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 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 LOS ANGELES The undersigned declares: I am a citizen of the United States and 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 Department of Business Oversight, 320 W. 4" Street, Suite 750, Los Angeles, California 90013-2344. On October 6, 2017 I served the within: REPLY TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS R. HANSON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE EXTEND DISOVERY CUT-OFF on: Barry LeBendig 1131 Compass Lane #212 Foster City, CA 94404 [X] By United States mail, by addressing an envelope to the above-named person(s) as indicated above, and placed in the envelope a true copy of each of said documents, and by then sealing and depositing said envelope on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, where is located the office of the person by and for whom said service is made. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date of postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ 1 By an Express Service Carrier, (a guaranteed next day delivery service), a true copy of the above-stated document(s) in an envelope or package designated by said carrier and addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served, the envelope or package was mailed on that same day with shipment costs thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. [ 1 ByFacsimile Transmission, of said document(s) from fax telephone number 213-576-7181 to the above-named person(s) at the fax number(s) as indicated above. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. [ 1 By Personal Service, I delivered said document(s) by hand to the above-named person(s) as indicated above in the manner provide in FRCivP 5(b) or CCP §1011. [ 1 By Electronic Service, based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) listed below at the following electronic address. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. PROOF OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 27 28 [X] [X] By Electronic Service using One Legal on October 6, 2017 to the persons listed below at their electronic address: Byron Maldo, attorney for Special Master Jim Donell bmoldo@ECILAW.COM Jim Donell, Special Master james.donell@fedreceiver.com Douglas Hanson, Defendant dougbayside@yahoo.com Steven Thompson, Defendant stevebayside@yahoo.com Val Hornstein, Counsel for Interested Parties val@epsha@sbeglobal.net Christopher P. Epsha c.epsha(@sbeglobal.net Tim Perry Timperry0l@comcast.net (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 6, 2017 at Los Angel 4, Californi fo Eo rez 1 PROOF OF SERVICE