Town & Country Investments, Lp vs Joe Baker, et al.,Motion to Tax CostsCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 25, 2017Electronically FILED by Superi OO 0 N N N A W N N O N O N O N N O N N N N m m m e p e p m e b e d e d pe e 0 3 A Wn ph W N = O O VW N O N W N -~ Oo Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/27/2019 09:47 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Mariscal,Deputy Clerk MICHAEL W. VIVOLI (Bar No. 184366) VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 709 San Diego, California 92103 (619) 744-9992 (Tel) (619) 744-9994 (Fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WESTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP,a ) CASE NO.: SC128132 California limited partnership, ) ) [Assigned For All Purposes To: Hon. Jay Plaintiff, ) Ford, III] ) vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION ) AND MOTION TO TAX THE COSTS JOE BAKER, an individual, and dba ) OF DEFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM DIAMOND B. RANCH ENT., INC. dba ) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN COWBOY JOE’S SPORTS SALOON, INC.; ) SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION KING CITY ENTERTAINMENT, INC, a ) OF MICHEAL W, VIVOLI IN California corporation; MINERVA MUNOZ, an) SUPPORT THEREOF individual; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, ) ) Date: March 22, 2019 at 8:30am Defendants. ) Dept: O ) Judge: Hon. H. Jay Ford, III ) RES ID: 536487286178 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) ) Complaint Filed: September 25, 2017 ) Trial Date: January 10, 2019 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD IN EACH OF THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTIONS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 22, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in department O of the Los Angeles Superior Court located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Town & Country Investments, L.P. (the “Plaintiff”), will move this 1 MOTION TO TAX COSTS OO 00 NN OO Wn BA W N N N N N N N N N N m e es e e e s e e e e e s 0 J O N L R A L N = O O VL N Y E E L N D = O Court, the Honorable Jay Ford, III presiding, for an order taxing the costs submitted by Defendants/Cross-Complainants King City Entertainment and Minerva Munoz (collectively “Defendants™) in the amount of $3,566.52 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and Rule of Court, rule 3.1700. Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Defendants’ costs will be based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the declaration of Michael W. Vivoli attached hereto, and the complete files and records in this action, as well as upon all other matters upon which this Court may take judicial notice. Dated: February 26, 2019 VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP By: MICHAEL W. VIVOLI Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP 2 MOTION TO TAX COSTS OO 0 3 O N wn A W N N O N N O N N N O N N N m m e m e m ee b d ee e e RX J AN Un RE W N = O V 0 N N N R E W I N D = O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES L INTRODUCTION Defendants/Cross-Complainants King City Entertainment and Minerva Munoz (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Memorandum of Costs (Summary) (hereinafter the “Memo of Costs”) seeking to recover costs totaling $6,045.27. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Town & Country Investments, L.P. (the “Plaintiff”) seeks to tax Defendants’ costs concerning unnecessary depositions taken in the case, and related service and witness costs. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to tax the costs claimed by Defendant for the depositions of Foud Babai, Jeffrey Brown, and Mark Martin. None of these third-parties had any involvement with or knowledge of the “Secured Note and Security Agreement” (the “Note”). These deponents were apparently Joe Baker’s (“Baker”) investors in the “Cowboy Joe’s Sports Saloon.” There was never any indication that these third-parties had any knowledge of the Note. These third-parties were not identified as witnesses at trial, and none of them testified at trial. As such, Plaintiff should not be forced to bear these unnecessary deposition costs. Plaintiff should also not be forced to bear Defendants’ costs for the improperly noticed deposition of David Neault, and related service and witness fees. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with the required notice for taking this deposition. Plaintiff objected to this improperly noticed deposition. Defendants, however, elected to proceed with the deposition despite their failure to give proper notice. Given Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with proper notice for Mr. Neault’s deposition, the deposition was inadmissible at the time of trial and Plaintiff should not be responsible for the costs of this deposition. Defendants’ claimed costs for serving Mr. Neault with a trial subpoena and the trial witness fee allegedly paid to him should also be taxed. Defendants did not call Mr. Neault as a witness to trial, as he clearly was not a necessary witness. As such, the trial subpoena and witness fees paid to him were unnecessary and Plaintiff should not be responsible for these additional costs. As set forth more fully below, Plaintiff seeks to tax Defendants’ claimed costs in the amount of $3,566.52. 3 MOTION TO TAX COSTS oO 0 N N a nn B R A W N N O N O N N N N D N N N o d e e t e b pe d p d e d p b Ww J AA Ln bh W N = © Vv N N N R W ND = OO IL. FACTUAL BACKGROUND As Defendants repeatedly insisted, this case was limited to the enforceability of the Note as against Defendants. Defendants argued that they were not liable on the Note because they did not sign the Note. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that Baker, Defendants’ admitted partner, was authorized to bind Defendants to the Note. Thus, the primary issue resolved at the time of trial was the scope of Baker's authority to bind Defendants to the Note. This was an exceedingly narrow issue. As to the narrow issue presented to the Court, there was never any indication that the above referenced third-parties (Foud Babai, Jeffrey Brown, and Mark Martin) had any information concerning the Note or Baker’s authority to bind Defendants to the Note. The only apparent connection these third-parties had to this matter was that they apparently were Baker’s investors in the Cowboy Joe’s Sports Saloon. (Vivoli Decl, at § 2.) It would seem that Defendants took these depositions for reasons other than the defense of Plaintiff’s claims on the Note. (Ibid.) With respect to the deposition of Mr. Neault, Defendants originally noticed it for July 10, 2018. (Vivoli Decl. at 2, see also Exhibit “A” thereto, Notice of Deposition of Mr. Neault.) The deposition, however, did not go forward as noticed because Mr. Neault was allegedly ill on the date noticed for his deposition. Thereafter, without consulting Plaintiff, Defendants re-set Mr. Neault’s deposition for August 21, 2018. Plaintiff did not get any “notice” of the continued deposition of Mr. Neault until the evening of August 20, 2018. Plaintiff subsequently objected to the continued deposition of Mr. Neault, and because of the late-notice, Plaintiff was unable to attend the deposition. (Vivoli Decl. at q 2, see also Exhibit “B” thereto, Plaintiff's Amended Objections to Deposition of Mr. Neault.) II. AUTHORITY FOR MOTION The right to recover costs is governed entirely by statute. (See Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 439.) “It is axiomatic that the right to recover costs is purely statutory, and, in the absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party.” (Jbid., quoting Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 732; Ladas v. California State Auto. 4 MOTION TO TAX COSTS OO 0 3 O N nn Hh WwW N D = N O N O N N N N O N N N mm mm e m em e t p t f d pe d e t pe t Ww NN O N Un bE W N = O N O O N R W N - = O Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, 774; Sequoia Vacuum Systems v. Stransky (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 281, 289.) In evaluating a motion to tax costs, trial courts employ a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine whether Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. (See Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29.) If the cost is expressly permitted by Section 1033.5(a), the burden is on the objecting party to demonstrate that the cost was unnecessary or unreasonable. (Ibid.) Where the costs are not expressly allowed, nor expressly prohibited by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. (/bid.) Even costs that are recoverable by statute must be “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of litigation may be recovered. Specifically, section 1033.5(c)(2) states: “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Section 1033.5(c)(3) goes on to provide that “[a]llowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.” III. THE SPECIFIC COSTS PLAINTIFF SEEK TO TAX As set forth more specifically below, Plaintiff seeks to tax the following costs: 1. Deposition Costs (Memo of Costs Item 4). Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(3) only allows expenses for “necessary depositions.” As set forth above, the deposition of Foud Babai, Jeffrey Brown, and Mark Martin were unnecessary. Similarly, Mr. Neault’s deposition was not properly noticed, and was thus improperly taken and not necessary for purposes of Section 1033.5(a)(3). Therefore, the Court should tax the following costs from Item 4 of Defendants’ Memo of Costs: ¢ Foud Babai - $740.95; o Jeffrey Brown - $967.25; eo Mark Martin - $430.45; e David Neault - $867.75. Total deposition costs to be taxed: $3,006.40. 1111 5 MOTION TO TAX COSTS © © 3 OO un BA WwW o N N N NN N N N N N N m e e e e e e e e a e e e a 0 NN O N nn B R A W N O O OC X N B R E W N N O 2. Service of Process (Memo of Costs Item 5). For the same reasons why the foregoing deposition costs should be taxed, the service of process costs claimed by Defendants for the foregoing witnesses should also be taxed as follows: oe Mark Martin - $63.90; e John Babi - $132.12; e David Neault (Depo) - $63.90; e Jeffrey Brown - $104.10. Defendants also claim service of process costs to serve Mr. Neault with a trial subpoena. Since Defendants did not actually call Mr. Neault as a witness at trial, the service of process costs of $63.90 for “Neault (trial) should likewise be taxed. Total service of process costs to be taxed: $427.92. 3. Ordinary Witness Fees (Memo of Cost Item 8). For all of the same reasons why the foregoing deposition and service of process costs should be taxed, the following claimed ordinary witness fees should also be taxed: eo Mark Martin - $43.40; e David Neault, Deposition - $45.40; e David Neault, trial - $43.40 Total ordinary witness fees to be taxed: $132.20. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ claimed costs under Cost Items Nos. 4, 5, and 8 in the amount of $3,566.52 should be taxed. Dated: February 26, 2019 VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP MICHAEL W. VIVOLI Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP 6 MOTION TO TAX COSTS OO 0 ~~ N n A W N = N O D O N N N O N O N N O N m o e a p a e m p m e t e b e m e b DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. VIVOLI 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of California and am a partner in the law firm of Vivoli Saccuzzo, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Town & Country Investments, LP (“Plaintiff”) herein in connection with this lawsuit. I have personal knowledge of all facts contained herein and, if called upon to testify with respect thereto, I could and would competently do so. 2. As to the narrow issues presented to this Court at the bench trial on this matter, there was never any indication that the above referenced third-parties (Foud Babai, Jeffrey Brown, and Mark Martin) had any information concerning the Note or Baker’s authority to bind Defendants/Cross-Complainants King City Entertainment and Minerva Munoz (collectively “Defendants”) to the Note. The only apparent connection these third-parties had to this matter is that they apparently were Baker’s investors in the Cowboy Joe's Sports Saloon. It would seem that Defendants took these depositions for reasons other than the defense of Plaintiff's claims on the Note. 3. With respect to the deposition of David Neault, Defendants originally noticed it for July 10, 2018. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition of David J. Neault. The deposition, however, did not go forward as noticed because Mr. Neault was allegedly ill on the date noticed for his deposition. Thereafter, without consulting my office, Defendants’s counsel re-set Mr. Neault’s deposition for August 21, 2018. My office did not get any “notice” of the continued deposition of Mr. Neault until the evening of August 20, 2018. My office subsequently objected to the continued deposition of Mr. Neault, and because of the late-notice, no one from my was unable to attend the deposition. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Amended Objections to the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things to David Neault. 111 111 111 7 MOTION TO TAX COSTS OO 0 NN Oo nh BH WwW o N N N N N N N D N N N m= e e e e e e e s e e e e 0 N N Wn BRA L N = O V N N E E L N D ~~ O O I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that I executed this declaration on this 26" day of February 2019, in San Diego, California. RE MICHAEL W. VIVOLI 8 MOTION TO TAX COSTS RECEIVED JUN 22 2018 Andrew D. Weiss SBN 121149 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. WEISS 26459 Rancho Parkway South Lake Forest, CA 92630 Tel: (949) 360-9478 Fax: (949) 360-0302 Email: oclawadw@aol.com | Attorney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants Minerva Munoz and King City Entertainment SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WESTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, Case No. SC128132 LP; Co DATE: July 10, 2018 Plaintiff, TIME: 1:00 p.m. PLACE: Advanced Depositions, ve 6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 130 JOE BAKER, an individual, and dba Riverside, CA 92506 DIAMOND B. RANCH NT., INC. dba COWBOY JOE’S SPORTS SALOON, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID J. INC.; KING CITY ENTERTAINMENT, NEAULT INC., a California corporation; MINERVA MUNOZ, an individual; and DOES 1 Assigned for All Purposes to: through 20, Inclusive, Judge Lisa Hart Cole Defendants. Complaint Filed: September 25, 2017 Trial Date: September 24, 2018 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that defendant and cross-complainant Minerva Munoz will take the deposition of David J. Neault commencing on July 10, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. at Advanced | Depositions, 6809 Indiana Avenue, Suite 130, Riverside, CA 92506. The deposition will be taken before a notary public or other official authorized to administer oaths, who is not a party to this action, and if not completed will continue from day to day, weekends and holidays excepted, until completed. 1 Notice of Deposition of David J. Neault A 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 The deposition will be taken pursuant to the attached Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW Dr WEISS Dated: June 20, 2018 By: ew D. Weiss Attorney for Defendants and Cross- Complainants Minerva Munoz and King City Entertainment L:\Filecenter\Open Cases\King City\Pleadings Note\Demurrer.docx 2 Notice of Deposition of David J. Neault SUBP-020 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTOR A 4 : Andrew D. Weies (SBN 12114 fi Stata Bar number, and addross): FOR COURT USE ONLY - Law Offices of Andrew D. Weiss 26459 Rancho Parkway South Lake Forest, CA 9263 TELEPHONE NO: (949) 360-9478 Faxno. (opsona (949) 360-0302 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Ondena: OClawadw(@aol.com ATTGRNEVFOR (Nom): Minerva Munoz and King City Entertainment SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES streerappress: 1725 Main Street MAILING ADDRESS: crvanoziecooe: Santa Monica, CA 90401 saancinane: Western Judicial District PLAINTIFF/IPETITIONER: Town & Country Investments, LP, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: King City Entertainment, et al., DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER: FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SC128132 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): David J. Neault, 10662 Grandview Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, (909) 957-4811 . YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the following date, time, and place: Date: July 10, 2018 Time: 1:00 p.m. Address: 6809 Indiana Avenue #130, Riverside, CA 92506 ll s a. [_] As adeponent who is not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as to the matters described in item 4. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.) b. [/] You are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3. c. This deposition will be recorded stenographically [] through the instant visual display of testimony andby [_] audiotape [1] videotape. d. [CJ This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d). 2. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the original records are required by this subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena. 3. The documents and things to be produced and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows: See Attachment 1 Continued on Attachment 3. 4. If the witness is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are described as follows: (CJ Continued on Attachment 4. i 5. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. 6. Al the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographically at the deposition; later they are transcribed for possible use at trial. You may read the wrilten record and change any incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You are entitled lo receive wilness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money must be pald, al the oplion of the party giving notice of the deposition, either with service of this subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise, if you are being deposed as an individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 mites of your residence if the deposition will be taken within the county of the court where the action is pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR OBEY, Date issued: June 20, 2018 (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA) Andrew D. Weiss Attorney {TYPE OR PRINT NAME) {Proof of service on reverse) (TIME) Page 10f2 Fadia; Count of Cartons. DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE 50, 008230, S025 35 Span arn: SUBS.050 ao. Jamuary 1 2008) AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 20220. “Govan ose, G87 WWW, COI .Ca.90v 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment 1 1. All listing agreements that include or relate to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. 2. All written communications between David J. Neault and any representative of Town & Country Investments, LP relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 3. All notes of oral communications between David J. Neault and any representative of Town & Country Investments, LP relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 4. All written communications between David J. Neault and Joe Baker relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 5. All notes of oral communications between David J. Neault and Joe Baker relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 6. All written communications between David J. Neault and Minerva Munoz relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 7. All notes of oral communications between David J. Neault and Minerva Munoz relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 8. All documents related to any loan by Town & Country Investments, LP to Joe Baker. 9. All photographs of the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. 10. All video recordings of the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. All declarations signed by David J. Neault relating to Joe Baker or the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 26459 Rancho Parkway South, Lake Forest, California 92630. On June 20, 2018, at I served the foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID J. NEAULT on the interested parties in this action as follows: Michael W. Vivoli Jason P. Saccuzzo Michael L. Frederici Vivoli Saccuzzo, LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 709 San Diego, CA 92103 Tel: (619) 744-9992; Fax: (619) 744-9994 Email: mvivoli@vivolilaw.com, jsaccuzzo@vivolilaw.com, mfederici@vivolilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Town & Country Investments, LP _X_BY MAIL By placing a copy of the above-described document in an envelope, addressed as set forth above, with first class postage pre-paid for delivery to the above-named persons at the above-listed address and depositing such envelope in a U.S. Mail collection box. Executed on June 20, 2018, at Lake Forest, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Linda S. Gordon O O 0 N N NN nn B R A W N N o N o N o N o N o N o N o [\ &] n o P k P t f t - - - -_- - Y t n t 0 ~ aN A ] + WI No - D Oo oo ~ AN wh + AV S] N o -_ © MICHAEL W. VIVOLI (Bar No. 184366) MICHAEL L. FEDERICI (Bar No. 291749) VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 709 San Diego, California 92103 (619) 744-9992 (Tel) (619) 744-9994 (Fax) Emails: mvivoli@vivolilaw.com mfederici@vivolilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WESTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP,a ) Case No.: SC128132 California limited partnership, ) [Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Lisa ) Bobbi Tillmon, Dept. WE-O] Plaintiff, ) ) PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY Vs. ) INVESTMENTS, LP’S AMENDED ) OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION JOE BAKER, an individual, and dba ) SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL DIAMOND B. RANCH ENT. INC. dba ) APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION COWBOY JOE'S SPORTS SALOON, INC.; ) OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO KING CITY ENTERTAINMENT, INC, a ) DAVID NEAULT California corporation; MINERVA MUNOZ, an) individual; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive. ) Complaint Filed: September 25,2017 Defendants. Trial Date: September 24, 2018 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Na N t N m N a N m ” TO: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT MINERVA MUNOZ, KING CITY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ALL PARTIES HEREIN, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Town & Country Investments, LP (“Plaintiff”) hereby objects to the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things issued to David J. Neault on or about June 20, 2018, on 1 PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION SU. FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DAVID NE NO 0 N Y i B A N N O R RN N N RN O N N N o m em e m em mm mm e m e m e m 0 N N Un BR W N = C O 8 N N N R W = O grounds that the requests are grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome, and seek information that is neither relevant to any of the claims at issue in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of such information. Moreover, Plaintiff objects to the deposition on grounds that Plaintiff previously objected to this deposition, and Third-Party David Neault failed to attend on the date and time previously scheduled because counsel for Mr. Neault averred she was ill and could not intend. Defendants Minerva Munoz and King City Entertainment, Inc. informally set the deposition for August 21, 2018, without consulting Plaintiff, and which Plaintiff did not learn until Plaintiff received an email from counsel for Third-Party David Neault in the evening on August 20, 2018. Plaintiff was therefore provided less than 24 hours’ notice of the deposition and was not consulted about the date or time. The deposition is not being conducted pursuant to a valid subpoena and is therefore without any effect. Plaintiff reserves all applicable objections to the deposition for the time of trial and intends to exclude any and all evidence educed at the subject deposition. GENERAL OBJECTIONS The Objecting Parties generally object to each and every request to the extent they invade any privilege which renders the requested documents outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All listing agreements that include or relate to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Objection. This request is overbroad and oppressive. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is violative of Plaintiff's right to privacy, and right to financial privacy. It is not reasonably tailored to the needs of the case and the requirements of the parties and goes well beyond what it is reasonably necessary in this litigation. 2 PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DAVID NEAULT Oo 0 N y R W N N - B R O N R O N N N N N N r m e m e m p m mt p m em t e m e m pe 0 I AA Wn RA W N = DO OW 0 N N RAR W N --= Oo REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All written communications between David J. Neault and any representative of Town & Country Investments, LP relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Objection. This request is overbroad and oppressive. It is an invasion of the attorney- client privilege under Business & Professions Code section 6149 and/or Evidence Code section 952. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is violative of Plaintiff’s right to privacy, and right to financial privacy. It is not reasonably tailored to the needs of the case and the requirements of the parties and goes well beyond what it is reasonably necessary in this litigation. It is not bound by time or subject matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All notes of oral communications between David J. Neault and any representative of Town & Country Investments, LP relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Objection. This request is overbroad and oppressive. It is an invasion of the attorney- client privilege under Business & Professions Code section 6149 and/or Evidence Code section 952. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is violative of Plaintiff's right to privacy, and right to financial privacy. It is not reasonably tailored to the needs of the case and the requirements of the parties and goes well beyond what it is reasonably necessary in this litigation. It is not bound by time or subject matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All written communications between David J. Neault and Joe Baker relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. 111 3 PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DAVID NEAULT o t © OC 0 N N N BA W N N O N N N N N N N O N e m ee e m e m p m e a ee ee 00 ' ~ ) A hh p W C N N = O O 0 N n B W RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: No objection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S: All notes of oral communications between David J. Neault and Joe Baker relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “notes” and as such renders the request overbroad and oppressive. It is also potentially violative of the attorney- client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and is violative of Plaintiffs right to privacy. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All written communications between David J. Neault and Minerva Munoz relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: No objection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All notes of oral communications between David J. Neault and Minerva Munoz relating to the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860, including but not limited to correspondence, emails, and text messages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “notes” and as such renders the request overbroad and oppressive. It is also potentially violative of the attorney- client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and is violative of Plaintiff’s right to privacy. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents related to any loan by Town & Country Investments, LP to Joe Baker. 111 1117 4 PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DAVID NEAULT OO 0 a NY U R W N N O N RN N O N N R N N N em e m ee em em em e s e e e s co S N Wn ~~ Ww No _- 0 \ o co ~ aN Un + Ww No - o RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Objection. This request is overbroad and oppressive. It is an invasion of the attorney- client privilege under Business & Professions Code section 6149 and/or Evidence Code section 952. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is violative of Plaintiff's right to privacy, and right to financial privacy. It is not reasonably tailored to the needs of the case and the requirements of the parties and goes well beyond what it is reasonably necessary in this litigation. It is not bound by time or subject matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All photographs of the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Objection. This request is overbroad and oppressive. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is violative of Plaintiff’s right to privacy. It is not reasonably tailored to the needs of the case and the requirements of the parties and goes well beyond what it is reasonably necessary in this litigation. It is not bound by time or subject matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All video recordings of the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Objection. This request is overbroad and oppressive. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is violative of Plaintiff's right to privacy. It is not reasonably tailored to the needs of the case and the requirements of the parties and goes well beyond what it is reasonably necessary in this litigation. It is not bound by time or subject matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All declarations signed by David J. Neault relating to Joe Baker or the property commonly known as 3230 Hamner Avenue, Norco, California 92860. 5 PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DAVID NEAULT WV we NN Ov WU h E 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | RESPONSE TO REQUES T FOR PRODUCTION N O. 11: g not reasonably oppressive. The request 1 Objection. This reques t is overbroad and - - 3 0 dence. It is violati ve of Plaintiff's right ¥ the case and the requiremen ts of the part ies bound by ti me or eks public reco rds, it is equal ly available t O calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibl e evi is not reasonably tailo red to the needs of privacy. It ary in this 1 beyond what it is r easonably necess litigation. It is not r Moreover, to the ext ent the request s€ and goes we subject matte the subpoenaing party, a nd is therefore harassing. Dated: August 20, 2018 V IVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP By: “WIVOLI CHAEL L. FEDERICI Attorneys for Plaintiff /Cross-Defendant, TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP 6 PLAINTIFF TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP’ ,LP’S AMENDED OB FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCT JECTIONS TOKE ION OF DOCUMENTS AND REROSITION SURBOR THINGS TO DAVIDNEAULT ULT Make a Reservation | Journal Technologies Court Portal Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP VS JOE BAKER, ET AL., Case Number: SC128132 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Date Filed: 2017-09-25 Location: Santa Monica Courthouse - Department O Reservation Case Name: TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP VS JOE BAKER, Case Number: ETAL, Type: Motion to Tax Costs Filing Party: TOWN & COUNTRY INVESTMENTS, LP (Plaintiff) Date/Time: 03/22/2019 8:30 AM Reservation ID: 536487286178 Fees Description Motion to Tax Costs Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $61.65 Account Number: XXXX4010 5C128132 Status: RESERVED Location: Santa Monica Courthouse - Department O Number of Motions: 1 Confirmation Code: CR-4ZK6BERWGYVTHEGEU Fee Qty Amount 60.00 1 60.00 1.65 1 1.65 $61.65 Type: Visa Authorization: 026522 = Print Receipt | 4 Reserve Another Hearing 2 View My Reservations Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.
