Yura - Court Orders

Honorable Richard
Department 17
Tuesday - January 29, 2013

Calendar No.7
RiCQ
PROCEEDINGS
Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.
BC286924
Motion to Quash Defendants' Notice of Third Deposition of Plaintiff Stephen M.
Gaggero and for Protective Order
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero's Motion to Quash Defendants' Notice of Third
Deposition of Plaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero and for Protective Order is partially granted.
The court grants Plaintiff s request to quash the deposition notice attached as Exhibit N to
Plaintiff s motion. The court orders that Plaintiff s submit to a final deposition session
that is to be conducted in one day, not to exceed 10 hours on a date that is mutually
agreeable to the parties. Should the defendants not complete the deposition in one day
they may come into court and upon a showing of good cause seek additional time to
conclude the deposition. The party responsible for the inability to complete the
deposition will be assessed sanctions. The mutually agreeable date is ordered by the
court to be
[date]
. Plaintiffs deposition is to take place on
that date and shall not exceed 10, hours.
--~----
------
---
Honorable Richard~Rico
Department 17
Friday - February 22, 2013

Calendar No. 14
PROCEEDINGS

BC 286 924 .
Plaintiff s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Documents
Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero ("Plaintiff') seeks to quash the subpoena for

production of documents that was served by Defendants Knapp, Petersen & Clarke,
("Defendant") on Peter J. Bezek of Foly & Bezek, LLP ("Bezek") arguing that Defendant
seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and
attorney work product doctrine. Plaintiff also argues that the subpoena seeks discovery
of unconsummated settlement negotiations protected by Evidence Code 1152, and the
documents are also riot otherwise relevant to this action.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has sued Defendants and Bezek and is merely
waiting to see how the matter herein turns out before proceeding with the lawsuit against
Bezek. Defendant c(:mtends that it can depose Mr. Bezek and obtain all non-privileged
documents relating tD his representation of Plaintiff in the Yura lawsuit. As shown by
Plaintiff's separate statement, Plaintiff does not object to all categories of documents.
Defendant argues th~t Evidence Code 1152 is irrelevant to whether Defendant can
obtain responsive dotmments, and the documents are necessary to determine whether
Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. Defendant argues that it is entitled to all
communications between Plaintiff and Bezek because denial of discovery will unfairly
prejudice its defense and result in injustice.
Defendant argument is meritorious, the subpoena will not be quashed. Plaintiff
has sued Bezek in Be 445459 where the action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant
to a tolling agreement that allows P to re-file the lawsl.lit upon resolution ofthis action.
(Opposition, Feldhe~m Dec., ~~2-4 and Ex. A) Plaintiff seems to be taking a "wait-andsee" approach to the:action against Bezek wherein he might resume litigation against
Bezek if the results in this case reveal that Bezek is at fault. (Opposition, Feldheim Dec.,
~5 and'Ex. B, p. 52:5-53:1-21) Plaintiffcanrtot both sue Bezek and then withhold
information that is at issue in both this lawsuit and the Bezek lawsuit because that will
result in an injustice and will unfairly prejudice Defendant from asserting a proper
defense. In filing bc)th actions and claiming the same damages from both attorneys,
Plaintiff has waivedthe privilege he now seeks to assert.
The Second pistrict Court of Appeal in Kerner v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App.
4th 84, 112, fn. 13 (2012) acknowledges that California recognizes "a nonstatutory
implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege in some circumstances when the client
puts the privileged communication directly at issue in litigation and disclosure is essential
to a fair adjudication." See Kerner, Id., citing Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities
Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 31, 40-43. The case ofSteiny & Co. v. California Elec. Supply
Co., 79 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2000) does not deal with the attorney-client privilege in
-.~.-. -- ~- ~-~~-p-artlcular.--Howevet;-itdeals with-waivers ofprivilegesin -general~The-Steiny-courtsaid-----~~~-~-~~
" .~ .'
'."
that "[w]here privileged information goes to the heart of the claim, fundamental fairness
requires that it be disClosed for the litigation to proceed." See ld., at p. 392.
In Rutgard v. Haynes (S.D. Cal 1995) 185 F.R.D, 596, 599 the court held that a
client impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege when he/she puts in issue otherwise
attorney-client privileged information. As to the specific facts in that case, the Rutgard
court stated, "by claifning damages to recover the amount of the settlement of the
malicious prosecution case, Plaintiff has waived the attorney-client privilege between
himself and [successor counsel] by putting "in issue" the reasonableness of that
settlement, and [successor counsel's] actions in defending him and recommending that
settlement." See ld., at p. 599-600. 1
A party cannot selectively waive the attorney-client privilege. When a party has
disclosed a significant part of privileged information, that party "cannot be allowed, after
disclosing as much as he pleases, to withhold the remainder." See Merritt v. Superior
Court, 9 Cal.App.3d 721, 731 (1970). Based on fairness and/or waiver, the privilege
cannot continue to exist. See ld. In Merritt, the court addressed the fairness and waiver
of privilege by stating the following:
We feel that plaintiff has misconstrued the reasoning and rationale of
respondent court. That court neither expressly nor impliedly held that any
plaintiff who brings an action against an insurer for bad faith refusal to
settle waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to the prior
negligence aqtion. Indeed such a sweeping declaration was not necessary
to support the court's ruling of January 2, 1970. The court simply found
that plaintiff had initiated a lawsuit in which he has placed in issue the
decisions, coticlusions and mental state of his then attorneys, particularly
as to their coruusion and disability allegedly caused by defendant's
conduct which precluded them from making a settlement offer. It is
obvious both 'from the issues framed and the contents of the depositions of
plaintiffs priqr counsel that plaintiff would rely heavily upon evidence to
be given by his said counsel and that he would be using his prior counsel
to prove matter which they could only have learned in the course of their
employment. Thus it was not merely the initiation of the lawsuit but
rather the maimer of its prosecution which constituted the waiver. The
respondent court so held. [Citations omitted.] Inasmuch as the attorneyclient privilege does tend to suppress otherwise relevant facts, it is to be
strictly construed. See ld., at p. 730.
Because the "theory 'of plaintiffs lawsuit placed in issue the conduct and state of mind of
his personal injury counsel in failing to propose a settlement," the Merritt court found a
waiver ofthe work product privilege. See ld.
See also Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Ca1.3d 591,603-605 (1984) and 2,022 Ranchv.
Superior Court, 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1395 (2003) [court said that "[t]he attorney-client
or attorney work product privilege may be impliedly waived by placing the contents of
the privileged communications at issue in the case"].
1
".-
-.
',,'
'
..
~.
Here, both the allegations of this action and of the Bezek action address the same
allegedly negligent conduct by Plaintiff s attorneys where Plaintiff was allegedly
damaged in' excess of $15 million. In a legal malpractice action, the cli~nt must prove
that "but for" the attorney's negligence, the client would not have suffered the resulting
damages. The "but for" test is the standard in an attorney malpractice action. See Viner
v. Sweet, 30 Cal. 4th 1232, 1240-1241 (2003). "The law in California is well established
that when legal malpractice involves negligence in the prosecution or defense of a legal
claim, the case-within-a-case methodology must be used." See Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe v. Superior Court, 107 Cal. App. 4th 1052,1054 (2003).
The only way to fairly allow Defendant to properly assert a defense and operate in
the case-within-a-case methodology in this action is to permit the disclosure of the
documents sought in the subpoena so that Defendant can fairly determine the damages
that Plaintiff claims to have suffered as a result of Defendant's conduct.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero's Motion to Quash Subpoena for
Production of Documents is denied. the court finds that the Plaintiffhas'put in issue the
documents requested-in the subpoena and has therefore waived the privilege. The court
finds that it is fair and just to permit disclosure of the subpoenaed documents so that
Defendant, Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, can properly defend itself and assess whether or
not Plaintiff has mitigated has alleged damages. the documents subpoenaed are ordered
to be produced.
" '-"f
.'", '
Friday - March 8, 2013

Calendar No. 19
Honorable Richard Rico

Department 17
PROCEEDINGS

Be 286 924
1. Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Production of Documents and for Protective
Order on Behalf of Third Parties Joseph Praske, Trustee of Aql.lasante
Foundation, Trustee of Giganin Trust, and Trustee of Arenzano Trust
2. Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING
1. Motion to Quash
Non-parties Joseph Praske individually and as trustee/ ofAquas ante Foundation,
trustee of Giganin Trust, and trustee of Arenzano Trust's ("Moving Parties") Motion to
Quash Subpoenas for Production of Documents and for Protective Order on Behalf of
Third Parties Joseph Praske, Trustee of Aquasante Foundation, Trustee of Giganin Trust,
and Trustee of Arenzano Trust is denied. Moving Parties seek to quash the subject
subpoenas and document requests on the grounds that they' seek irrelevant information as
it has already been established that Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero will not rely on the Trusts
during trial as a potential source of funding for the subject properties. In support of this
argument, Moving Parties cite to four items: (1) testimony by Defendant Steven Ray
Garcia stating that a Mr. Bezek believed Gaggero was "worth more than $40 million," (2)
testimony by Defendant Andre Jardini stating that his "impression ... is that [Gaggero]
was worth at least $30 million," (3) evidence that Plaintiff's counsel "during an informal
telephone conference with the Honorable Richard E. Rico ... confirmed that Plaintiffs
would not rely on the trusts during trial as a potential source offunding for the 938, 940
and 944 properties," and (4) the Court of Appeal's finding that Plaintiff had created a
'triable issue of fact as to whether he had the financial ability to purchase the properties.
See Alperin Decl., ~ 5 & Exs. 1-3. This indirect evidence is insufficient to establish that
Plaintiff will not rely on the Trusts during trial as a potential source of funding.
Moving Parties also argue in their reply that Plaintiff has already produced
documents establishing his capacity to purchase the subject properties and that the Trusts'
right to privacy outweighs any need for the subpoenaed documents. The Court declines
to address these arguments as they were raised for the first time in the reply. See Balboa
Ins. Co. v. Aguirre (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010 ("points raised in a reply brief for
the first time will not be considered unless good cause is shown for the failure to present
them before").
On these grounds, the motion is denied.
2. Motion for Sanctions
Defendants Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Steven Ray Garcia, Stephen M. Harris and
Andre Jardini's Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions is denied. Although this
motion is entitled "Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions," the memorandum of
points &nd authorities only addresses terminating sanctions. Trial courts should only
exercise their authority to issue terminating sanctions "in extreme situations, such as
when the conduct was clear and deliberate, where no lesser alternatives would remedy the
situation [Citation], the fault lies with the client and not the attorney [Citation], and when
the court issues a directive that the party fails to obey." Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007)
150 Cal.App.4th 789, 799; see also Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2008) 155
Cal.App.4th 736, 740 ("California courts have inherent power to terminate litigation for
deliberate and egregious misconduct when no other remedy can restore fairness"). Here,
Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff produced responsive documents on September 28
and October 1,2012 in response to the Court's August 27,2012 order compelling further
production. See Wakily Decl., ~ 10. However, Defendants waited four months before
filing a motion to sanction this behavior and did not seek lesser sanctions. Accordingly,
Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff s misconduct is so egregious that "any sanction
other than dismissal [would be] inadequate to ensure a fair trial." . SlesiYJ-ger (2008) 155
Cal.App.4th at 740. On these grounds, the Court finds that terminating"sanctions are not
warranted and the motion is denied.
2
3
4
5
RANDALL A. MILLER
(Bar No. 116036)
JONATHAN A. FELDHEIM (Bar No. 249537)
AUSTA WAKlLY
(BarNo. 257424)
MILLERLLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749.5812
Attorneys for Defendants KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEVEN RA Y GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRlS, and ANDRE JARDINI
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
D...
-'
12
-'
13
14
-'
-'
~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual,

Plaintiff,
CASE NO.:
BC286924
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Richard E.

Rico, Dept. 17]
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, a
Califomia corporation; STEVEN RAY
GARCIA, an individual; STEPHEN M.
HARRlS, an individual; .ANDRE JARDINI,
and individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive
NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO

QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER FOR JOSEPH PRASKE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION AND GIGANIN
AND ARENZANO TRUSTS
Defendants.
Hearing: March 8, 2013
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Department: 17
Complaint Filed: December 12, 2002
Trial Date:
March 19, 2013
22
23
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 8, 2013 the Motion to Quash the four subpoenas
24
Defendants KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
25
HARRlS and ANDRE JARDINI (collectively "KPC") served for documents from and depositions
26
of (1) Joseph PIaske, individually; (2) Joseph Praske as Trustee of the Giganin Trust; (3) Joseph .
27
28
Praske as Trustee of Arenzano Trust and (4)lJoseph Praske as Trustee of Aquasante Trust
NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR JOSEPH PRASKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR AQUASANTE
F01TNnATTON ANn GTGANTN ANn ARRN7.ANO
TR1T~T~
1
2
(collectively ''Non-Party Trusts") came on for hearing and the Court, having issued a tentative
ruling and after hearing oral argllllent, made the following Order:
1) The Motion to Quash is DENIED;
2) All objections to the subpoenas to the Non-Party Trusts are OVERRULED.
3) The Non-Party Trusts are to produce all responsive documents requested in the
6
subpoenas within 10 days of the hearing;
7
8
9
10
4) Joseph Praske, as Trustee of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust and Aquasante
Foundation, is to appear for deposition within 30 days of this hearing unless the parties
agree otherwise.
11
CL
-.J
-.J
0::
12
14
15
---l
MILLERLLP
I
13
W
-.J
Dated: March 12,2013
16
17
f/.
By:
<-;/J
/C.:9~"
II"~~
RMDALL A. MIL ER;ESQ.

JONATHAN A. FELDHEIM, ESQ.
AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR JOSEPH PRASKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR AQUASANTE
FOTWnAT1nN ANn GlGANTN ANn ARF.N7ANO
TR1T~T~
Friday - March 8, 2013

Calendar No. 19
Honorable Richard Rko

Department 17
PROCEEDINGS
Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et aI.
Be 286 924
1. Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Production of Documents and for Protective
Order on Behalf of Third Parties Joseph Praske, Trustee of Aq1Jasa.n,te
Foundation, Trustee of Giganin Trust, and Trustee of Arenzano Trust
2. Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING
1. Motion to Quash,
Non-parties Joseph Pra,ske individually and as trustee o{Aquasante FO~1.datioIl"
trustee of Giganin Trust, and trustee of Arenzano Trust'.s ("Moving Parties") Motion to
, Quash Subpoenas for Production of Documents,and for ProtectiveOider on Behalf of
Third Parties Joseph Praske, Trustee of Aquasant~ Foundation, Trustee of Giganin Tr-q.st,
and Trustee of Arenzano Trust is denied. Moving Parties seek to quash the subject
subpoenas and document requests on the grounds that they' seek irrelevant information as
it has already been established that Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero will not rely on the Trt;l.sts
during tri:;tl as a potential source of funding for the subj ect properties. In support of this
argument, Moving Parties cite to four items: (1) testimony by Defendant Steven Ray
Garcia stating that a Mr. Bezek believed Gaggero was "worth more than $40 million," (2)
testimony byDefendant Andre Jatdini stating that his "impression ... is that [GaggeroJ.
was worth at least $30 million," (3) evidence that Plaintiff's counsel "during an informal
telephone conference with the Honorable Richard E. Rico ... confmned th:;tt Plaintiffs
would not rely on the trusts during trial as a potential sourye of funding for the 938, 940
and 944 properties," and (4) the COU1i of Appeal's fi.J;J.ding that PI/'lintiffhad create!. a
'triable issue of fact as to whether he had the financial ability to purchase the p)':operties.
See Alperin Decl., "If 5' & Exs. 1-3. This indirect evidence is insu.:ffi.cien,tto establish that
Pl'l-intiff will not rely on the Trusts during trial as a potential source of funding.
Moving Parties also ~gue in th~ir reply that Plaintiff has already product:;d
documents establishing his capacity to purchase the subject properties a:o,d that the Trusts'
right to privacy outweighs any need for the subpoenaed documents. The Court declines
~o address these argument:;; as they were raised for the first time in the reply. See Ealboa
Ins. Co. v. Aguirre (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010 ("points raised ill a reply brieffor
the first time will not be considered uDless good r;:ause is shown for the failure to present
them before"). '
On these grounds, the motion is denied.
2. Motion for Sanctions
Defendants Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Steven Ray Garcia, Stephen, M. Harris Qn,d
Andre J ardini' s Motioll'for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions is denied. Altho1Jgh this
motion is entitled "Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions," t?-e memor~dum of
points ?Ild authorities only addresses terminating sanctions. Trial courts should only
exercise their authority to issue terminating sanctions "in extreme situations, such as
when the conduct was clear and deliberate, where no lesser alternatives would remedy the
situation [Citation], the fault lies with the client and not the attoDl~y [Citation], and when
the court issues a directive that the party fails to obey." Del Junc;o v. Hufnagel (2007)
150 Cal.AppAth 789, 799; see also Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2008) 155
Cal.App.4th 736, 740 ("California courts have inherent power to termulate litigation for
ddiberate and egregious misconduct when no other remedy can. restore fairness"). Here,
Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff produced responsive documents on September 28
and October 1,2012 in response to the Court's August 27,2012 order compelling furth~r
production. See Wakily Decl., 11 10. However, DefendaIl,ts waited four months before
filing amotion to sanction this behavior and did l~ot seek lesser sanctions. Accordingly, .
pefen4ants have not shown that Plaintiff s miscond.uct is egregiol!-s that "any sanctioll
other than dismissal [would be] inadequate to ensl!-fe):l.cfair triSJ.." Slesirrger (2008) 155
Cal.AppAth at 740. On these grounds, the Court finds that tenninating'!sa;nctions are not
warranted and the motion is denied.
so
r' .
- ....
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3
4
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is Miller LLP, 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-2201. On March 12,2013 I served the within documents:
NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR JOSEPH PRASKE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR AQUASANTE FOUNDATION AND GIGANIN
AND ARENZANO TRUSTS
6
7
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax nUl11ber(s) set
forth below on this date before 5 :00 p.m.
8
by placing the dOCtlllent(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.
10
11
0...
-I
-I
0:::
W
.....l
by causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office of the

addressees as set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such docUl11ent(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed

such docUl11ent(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to
the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below and I placed the envelope/package
for collection at a drop box provided by Federal Express.
by causing to be personally served to the person(s) to the person(s) at the

addressees) set forth bel~w on this date before 5:00 p.m.
12
13
14
15
-I
16
17
18
19
20
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

I am readily familiar with the finn's practice of collection and processing conespondence
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. I am aware that on
motion of the pmiy served, service is preslllled invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
21
22
23
I dec1m:e tmder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California thatthe above is
true and COlTect.
Executed on March 12,2013, at Los Angeles, California.
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
SERVICE LIST
2
3
4
Max Blecher
Howard Alperin
BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE,
P.C.
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEPHEN M.

GAGGERO
Ph. (213) 622-4222
Fax: (213) 622-1656
mblecher@blechercollins.com
kpeters@blechercollins.com
halperin@blechercollins.com
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.

WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Attorney Plaintiff STEPHEN M.

GAGGERO and JOSEPH PRASKE AS
THE TRUSTEE OF THE GIGANIN
TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION
Phone: (805) 267-1220
Fax:
(805) 267-1211
Email: davidblakec(a)hotmail.com
Edward A. Hoffinal1, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD A. HOFFMAN
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Attorney for PACIFIC COAST

MANAGEMENT, INC, 511 OFW LP,
GINGERBREAD COURT LP, MALIBU
BROAD BEACH LP, MARINA
GLENCOE LP, BLU HOUSE LLC,
BOARDWALK SUNSET LLC, and
JOSEPH PRASKE AS THE TRUSTEE
OF THE GIGANIN TRUST, ARENZANO
TRUST, and AQUASANTE
FOUNDATION
Phone: (310) 442-3600
Fax:
(310) 442-4600
Email: eah(a)hoffmanlaw.com
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
D..
....J
....J
a:
12
13
14
W
....J
....J
:2:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
J.Janne y & Janney
COURT SERVICE INSTRUCTION FORM
~~ I
Attorney Service, Inc.

f;.
ACCT#
14270
RT#
DATE
II
SUBMITTED' Mar
ILA11
Please submit in duplicate (2 copies)
3-03-12 11: 16:27
INV.#
For J&J use only

Date:
12, 2013
FIRM NAME: & ADDRESS:
To:
Miller LLP
515
S. Flower Street, Ste.

2150
COURT!
DESTINATION:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Dept. 17
CASE#:
CASE TITLE:
CONTACT: Jasmine Takhtalian

PHONE:
secretary@millerllp.com
EMAIL:
ATTORNEY: Austa Wakily

BILLING!
FILE#:
Stephen Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al
DOCUMENTS:
Notice of Ruling on Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Production of
Documents and for Protective Order for Joseph Praske, Individually
and as Trustee for Aquasante Foundation and Giganin and Arenzano
Trusts
I FAX: I
213-493-6400
BC 286924
Yura
DOELIVER
DRECORO
rzlFILE
rzlCONFORM DCOPY
D ISSUE
DCERTIFY
..'
1::':~lt>',i:ij:.\i0T"N~?;E6~
;~~!.~
,'iJ.rfiiii''''
Authorized by:
I
DCHECK
1
ATTACHEP:, $
I I
RUSH I.
DO TODAY
SERVEPER
ATTACHED
INSTRUCTIONS
Additional I Special Instructions

PLEASE NOTE ANY SPECIFIC OR TIMELY FILING REQUIREMENTS
IXIADVANCE
FEES:
LAST DAY TO FILE ITO day
Please file Notice of Ruling on Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Production

of Documents and for Protective Order for Joseph Praske, Individually and
as Trustee for Aquasante Foundation and Giganin and Arenzano Trusts
and return conformed copy to us. Thank you .
DDONOT.
ADVANCE""
,
.",",.',:"
"
APPEARANCJ:":,'"
FEES PAID ON~
I ;Ff~~A:$~;I~,<?T~?;A~Yd~~(\~,'.:~;;,\~{,:f,~~~l
DA"[~_
1UI:"!.~OMI~G;I;IE~f3.ING:,QATE~:")j;1
REPORTS / COMMENTS:
"tk
,'~
P
~)
,
"V
~.
/!!f'
'.
.r.i!fl
r, /'J;.
~.
<
RUSH FILING
.~
'{'{\
'-X\
OUT OF AREA
s~
~;
'"7~'
COPY WORK
~'f
/'\
o
o
\\\~
"
\\~'L
ASSIGNMENT
COMPLETED BY:
CONFORMED COPY \
TO FOLLOW
~IENT CALLED
SPOKE TO:
Los Angeles
Orange Co.
Inland Empire
San Diego
Ventura
~_ CAS
COURT
SERVICE
COURTESY COpy
DELIVERED TO DEPARTMENT:
OREJECTEDI
REASON
VI {'~: 1-,
v
1545 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 311 \

840 N. Birch Street
455 W. La Cadena, Suite 17
4891 Pacific Hwy., Ste. 102
801 S. Victoria Ave. Suite 304
f',!
RECORDING
BILLING TO FOLLOW

Santa Ana, CA 92701
Riverside, CA 92501
SanDiego, CA 92110
Ventura, CA. 93003
FAX
213-628-6338
714-953-9451
951-369-8369
619-231-9811
805-650-9077
BILLING ITEM
')~
of
'\,'ll.
I DEPT/DIV
FEE
ADVANCE
CHARGE
o
o
2
3
5
6
7
RANDALL A. :MILLER
(Bar No. 116036)
JONATHAN A. FELDHEW (Bar No. 249537)
AUSTA WAKILY
(BarNo. 257424)
MlLLERLLP
Telephone: 800.720.2126 .
Facsimile: 888.7495812
NAR 272013
~t: Utflcir/Cl8lk
'~~~w~~De~

HARRIS, and ANDRE JARDINI
8
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
v.
CASE NO.:
BC286924

Rico, Dept. 17]
NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING

KNAPP, PETERSEN &. CLARKE, a STATUS CONFERENCE
California corporation; STEVEN RAY
GARCIA, an individual; .STEPHEN M.
HARRIS, an individual; ANDRE JARDINI, Hearing:
March 20, 2013
and individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive Time:
8:30 a.m.
Defendants.

Trial Date:
October 1, 2013
19
20
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21
22
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 20, 2013 in Department 17 of the above-
23
entitled court, .Judge Rico presiding, held a Status Conference to set a new trial date.
24
Waldly of Miller LLP appeared for defendants, Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Steven Ray Garcia,
25
Stephen M. Harris, and Andre Jardini (Defendants). Max Blecher and Kristen Peters of Blecher
26
Collins Pepperman & Joye appeared on behalf of plaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero. David Chatfield
27
of Westlake Law Group appeared on behalf of the non-party witness Joseph Praske as the Trustee
28
-1NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE .
Austa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RANDALL A. MILLER
(Bar No. 116036)
JONATHAN A. FELDHEIfY[ (Bar No. 249537)
AUSTA WAKILY
(BarNo. 257424)
MILLERLLP
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749.5812
HARRIS, and ANDRE JARDINI
8
10
11
0..
....I
....I
0::
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
UJ
....I
....I
15
16
17
18
CASE NO.:
BC286924

Rico, Dept. 17]
v.
NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, a STATUS CONFERENCE
California corporation; STEVEN RAY
GARCIA, an individual; STEPHEN M.
HARRIS, an individual; ANDRE JARDINI, Hearing:
March 20,2013
and individual; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive
Time:
8:30 a.m.
Defendants.

Trial Date:
October 1,2013
19
20
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21
22
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 20,2013 in Department 17 of the above-
23
entitled court, Judge Rico presiding, held a Status Conference to set a new trial date.
24
Wakily of Miller LLP appeared for defendants, Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Steven Ray Garcia,
25
Stephen M. Harris, and Andre Jardini (Defendants). Max Blecher and Kristen Peters of Blecher
26
Collins Pepperman & Joye appeared on behalf of plaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero. David Chatfield
27
of Westlake Law Group appeared on behalf ofthe non-party witness Joseph Praske as the Trustee
28
-1NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
Austa
of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aquasante Foundation (Trusts). The Court made the
following rulings at the Status Conference.
4
5
1) Trial is set for October 1, 2013 at 9:00 am. The Final Status Conference is set for
September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am;

2) Non-party witness Peter Bezek is ordered to produce documents pursuant to the
Court's February 22,2013 Order within 20 days of receiving notice of the ruling;
3) Counsel for the Trusts requested a stay as to the March 8, 2013 Discovery Order
because of their filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court granted the request
and has stayed the March 8, 2013 Discovery Order pending the hearing on the Motion
10
for Reconsideration set for April 26, 2013;
11
4) The Court upon the request of Counsel for Defendants continued the deadline for
12
hearings on discovery motions. The new deadline will be set according to the October
13
1, 2013 trial date;
14
5) Counsel for Defendants was ordered to give notice.
15
16
Dated: March 21, 2013
MILLERLLP
17
18
19
20
. By:
~~())))~~~{))",-----IJ~fJJ_ _
AUSTA w1JGLY, ESQ.
/
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, V'ETERSEN &
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
1
2
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident o{the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
Angeles, CA 90071-2201. On March 21, 2013 I served the within documents:
NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

5
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
forth below.
8
9
10
11
a..
-'
13
0:::
14
-'
-'
:2:

by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed

such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to

addressees) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
12
-'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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.
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
day with postage thereon fully 'prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on March 21, 2013, at Los Angeles, California.
~.
24
25
26
27
28
-1PROOF OF SERVICE -NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
SERVICE LIST
1
2
3
Max Blecher, Esq.

Howard Alperin, Esq.
Kristen Peters, Esq.
BLECHER & COLLINS
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEPHEN M.

GAGGERO
Ph. (213) 622-4222
Fax: (213) 622-1656
Email: mblecher{a).blechercollins.com
halperin{a),blechercollins.com
kpeters@blechercollins.com
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.

WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Attorney Plaintiff STEPHEN M.

GAGGERO and JOSEPH PRASKE AS
THE TRUSTEE OF THE GIGANIN
TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION
Phone: (805) 267-1220
Fax:
(805) 267-1211
Email: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Edward A. Hoffman, Esq.

Attorney for PACIFIC COAST

MANAGEMENT, INC, 511 OFW LP,
GINGERBREAD COURT LP, MALIBU
BROAD BEACH LP, MARINA
GLENCOE LP, BLU HOUSE LLC,
BOARDWALK SUNSET LLC, and
JOSEPH PRASKE AS THE TRUSTEE
OF THE GIGANIN TRUST, ARENZANO
TRUST, and AQUASANTE
FOUNDATION
Phone: (310) 442-3600
Fax:
(310) 442-4600
Email: eah@hoffmanlaw.com
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CL
-.J
-.J
0::
12
13
14
UJ
-.J
-.J
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE -NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
4
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
Angeles, CA 90071-2201. On March 21,2013 I served the within documents:
NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
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.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
forth below.

8
9
10
11
0..
..-I
..-I
0::
13
14
LU
..-I
..-I
::2:
by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed

such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

addressees) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on March 21,2013, at Los Angeles, California.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
SERVICE LIST
Nancy Lucas Ezzell, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK &
GONZOLLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
Attorneys for Non-Party Witness Peter

Bezek
Ph: (310) 775-6511
Fax: (310) 525-9720
Email: nezzell@kdvglaw.com
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.
....J
....J
0:::
12
13
14
W
....J
....J
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Department 17
Monday -April 8, 2013

Calendar No. 14
PROCEEDINGS

BC286924
Plaintiff s Motion to Augment Plaintiff s Expert Witness Designation
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff moves for leave to augment his expert witness list, arguing that he has
satisfied the conditions outlined in CCP 2034.260. Plaintiff claims that due to a
"communication breakdown," plaintiffs counsel learned on February 18,2013 that
designated expert Lawrence Jacobson ("Jacobson") would be unavailable for the March
19,2013 trial date because Jacobson would be on his honeymoon (from March 15 until
the first week in April). (Blecher Decl. ~4.) Thus, plaintiff now seeks to substitute expert
Christopher Rolin ("Rolin"). Plaintiff immediately contacted defense counsel and
requested that he stipulate to the substitution'. (Id. at ~5.) This request was denied. (Id.
at ~6.) Plaintiff claims that defendants have not relied on plaintiffs list of expert
witnesses and will not be prejudiced if relief is granted because to date, no expert witness
depositions have taken place. Plaintiff also claims to have sought leave to augment
promptly after deciding to call Rolin as an expert witness. Further, Rolin is available
immediately for deposition on March 1,2013 (before the March 4,2013 expert discovery
deadline). It is noted that plaintiffs counsel's relationship with Jacobson (has
deteriorated as a result of the communication breakdown." (Jd. at ~8.)
In opposition, defendants Knapp, Petersen & Clerk; Steven Ray Garcia; Stephen
M. Harris; and Andre Jardini ("defendants") argue that the motion is untimely and
unpermitted because it must have been heard by March 9, 2013 (the motion cut-off date)
to be timely. Also, defendants have not agreed to extend expert deadlines and the court
has not made any order reopening, continuing, or extending expert discovery.
Defendants also argue that plaintiff was first required to obtain court permIssion to have a
motion heard beyond the motion cut-offtime ..
Further, as to the merits, defendants argue that now that the trial has been
continued, any issues with Jacobson's honeymoon are moot and there is no logical reason.
why plaintiff still wants to augment his expert designation. Defendants point out that
plaintiff has not provided any facts regarding the "communication breakdown." Also,
plaintiff does not meet the requirements for obtaining leave to augment because section
2034.610 does not permit a party to subtract an available expert so as to add another
expert to provide the same exact areas of testimony. Also, defendants claim that plaintiff
has refused to produce experts Jacobson or Gribin for deposition even though defendants
have noticed their depositions and repeatedly asked for available dates. (Feldheim Decl.
~~4-13.) Defendants argue that plaintiff has also failed to satisfy section 2034.620. If the
court is inclined to grant leave, defendants request that it be conditioned upon plaintiff
agreeing to pay defendants its litigation fees and costs incurred pursuant to section
2034.620(d) due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the expert discovery procedures.
In response, plaintiff indicates that the court suggested/directed plaintiff to file the
instant motion at the hearing on February 22,2013 and that the court extended-all pretrial
deadlines according to the new October 1,2013 trial date. (Blecher Decl. ~~11-13.)
Thus, the argument that the motion is untimely lacks merit. Also, plaintiff claims to have
met the requirements under CCP 2034.610 et seq.
From the foregoing the motion is timely (the court did in fact direct plaintiff to
file the instant motion) but there is insufficient reason to grant the motion. Plaintiff
originally made an ex parte request to substitute Jacobson because he would be
unavailable for a deposition before the then scheduled trial date. At the hearing the court
advised the attorneys that the issue of Jacobson's unavailability was a moot point because
the court was going to be engaged in another trial at the time of the then scheduled trial
date. Indeed the court was engaged and was unable to conduct the trial as originally
scheduled. The court advised plaintiff s counsel that if he still wished to change his
expert he would have to file a motion and the court would determine if such a change was
permissible, hence the instant motion.
It is first noted that plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See
Blecher Decl. ~~3-9.) As to the merits of the motion, since the trial has been continued,
Jacobson is presumably available for the October 1,2013 trial date. Thus, the only
reason given by plaintiff to substitute Jacobson out is a "communication breakdown."
All of the conditions under CCP 2034.620 have not been met. Given that the
honeymoon issue is moot and Jacobson is presumably available, there is essentially no
reason for a substitution. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Defendants request that if the court denies the motion, defendants be permitted
under CCP 2024.050(a) ("On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to
complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer
to the initiaJ trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This
motion shall be accompanied by a'meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.")
Specifically permitting defendants to make a motion for sanctions. This seems
unnecessary and defendants could simply have sought sanctions under CCP 2034.630
("The court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney
who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to augment or amend expert witness
information, unless it fmds that the one subj ect to the sanction acted with substantial
justification orthat other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." )
The Motion of plaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero ("plaintiff') to Augment Plaintiff s
Expert Witness Designation is DENIED. The court fmds that the motion is timely and
was permitted by the court at the February 22,2013 hearing. However, in light of the
fact that the court date has been continued and that expert witness Jacobson's
unavailability is no longer an issue, the court fmds insufficient reason to grant the relief
requested. The court declines to grant defendants leave to file a motion for sanctions
under CCP 2024.050(a).
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:
DEPT. 17
04/18/13
HONORABLE
Richard E. Rico
JUDGE
A. ORTIZ
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK
15
B. CHAVEZ, C.A.
Deputy Sheriff
8:30 am BC286924
NONE
Reporter
Plaintiff
Counsel
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE
Ntc related case sent to D-l pe
order of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
NO APPEARANCES
Defendant
Counsel
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
MAXWELL M. BLECHER
BLECHER COLLIN PEPPERMAND & JOYE, P.C.
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1750
LOS ANGELES, CA. 90071-3334
AUSTA WAKILY
MILLER LLP
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA
515 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 2150
JONATHAN A. FELDHEIM
MILLER LLP
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA
KRISTEN M. PETERS
BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE
Page
3 of
.:.t-:";':;
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/18/13
COUNTY CLERK

DATE:
DEPT. 17
04/18/13
HONORABLE
Richard E. Rico
JUDGE
A. ORTIZ
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK
15
B. CHAVEZ, C.A.
Deputy Sheriff
8:30 am BC286924
NONE
Reporter
Plaintiff
Counsel
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
orde~ of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
NO APPEARANCES
Defendant
Counsel
NANCY LUCAS EZZELL, ESQ.

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP
11755 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD t SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES, CA. 90025
EDWARD A. HOFFMAN, ESQ

12304 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES r CALIFORNIA 90025
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE
300 SO. SPRING ST.2ND FLOOR NORTH TOWER
LOS ANGELES r CA. 90013
Page
4 of
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/18/13
COUNTY CLERK

DATE:
DEPT. 17
04/18/13
HONORABLE
Richard E. Rico
JUDGE
A. ORTIZ
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK
15
B. CHAVEZ, C.A.
Deputy Sheriff
8:30 am BC286924
NONE
Reporter
Plaintiff
Counsel
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
order of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
NO APPEARANCES
Defendant
Counsel
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am
not a party to the cause herein, and that on this
date I served the minute order dated 4/18/13 and the
court's order.
upon each party or counsel named below by placing
the document for collection and mailing so as to
cause it to be deposited in the United States mail
at the courthouse in Los Angeles,
California, one copy of the original filed/entered
herein in a separate sealed envelope to each address
as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid,
in accordance with ,standard court practices.
Dated: 4/18/13
John A.
Officer/Clerk
By:
A.
O~TIZ
Page.
2 of
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/18/13
COUNTY CLERK

DATE:
04/18/13
HONORABLE
DEPT. 17
Richard E. Rico
JUDGE
A. ORTIZ
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK
15
B. CHAVEZ 1 C.A.
Deputy Sheriff
8:30 am BC286924
NONE
Reporter
Plaintiff
Counsel
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
Ntc related case sent to D-1 pe
order of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
NO APPEARANCES
Defendant
Counsel
Order
The Court, issues order dated 4/18/13 consisting of 2
pages 1 filed this date and incorporated herein by
reference to the Court file.
IIThis court upon review of the Court of Appeal order
dated April 8 2013 and received by this court on
April 18 will modify its previous ruling as follows:
1
The motion to quash is granted as to attorney-client

communications (Souther Cal. Gas Co. v. Public
Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 31 40-44icf.
Schumberger Limited v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.
App. 3d 386 393)
and Attorney Bezek shall prepare a
privilege log identifying purported protected work
product he seeks to withhold for purposes of further
consideration of the distinction between absolutely
protected material and material subject to qualified
protection that may be overcome if in the interest of
of fairness (Code civ. Pro. section 2018.30i see
National Steel Products v. Superior Court (1984) 164
Cal. App. 3d 476 1 490-491).
1
The privilege log shall be filed within 30 days of

this order.
A true copy of this minute order and the Court's
order are mailed to counsel through U.S. Mail.
Page
1 of
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/18/13
COUNTY CLERK
,1.'1 1:
~ ..
,\:
r""1
,"
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA E OF CALIFORNIA
12
FOR THE COUJ-,JTY OF L S ANGELES
13
14
S~EPHEN M. GAGGERO,
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
,[
vs.
:1
o. BC 286924
KNkpp, PETERSON AND CLARKE, et al ..
18
19
) Case
)
)
)
' )
Defendants.
:I
--~-----------------------------
20
,I
21
22
This court upon review of the Court of Appeal rder dated April 8, 2013 and received b
his 0urt on April 18 will modify its previous ruling as ollows:
23
"
~I
The motion to quash is granted as to attomey-cl ent communications (Southern Cal. Ga

24
'l
25
o.
26
ourr (1981)
27
28
Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 31, 40-4 ; cf. Schlumberger Limited v. SuperiOi
115 CaJ.App.3d 386, 393), and Attorn y Bezek shall prepare a privilege 10<
denti1fying purported protected work product he see s to withhold for purposes of fmiher
onsiideration of the distinction between absolutely pr tected material and material subject
I
. !
1
ORDER
. ':.I
;
~ua11fied protection that may be overcome ifi n the interests of fairness (Code Civ. Pro.
I
Ol~.030; see National Steil Products v. Superior Cour
(1984) 164 CaLApp.3d 476, 490-491).
I
I
5
6
7
8
The privilege log shall be filed within 30 days 0 this order.

.
DA[TED: Apn118, 2013
I
I
I
i
I
9
,I
"
10
11
12
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
ORDER

DATE:
04/26/13
HONORABLE
DEPT. 17
Richard E. Rico
JUDGE
A. ORTIZ
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK
11
B. CHAVEZ, C.A.
Deputy Sheriff
1:30 pm BC286924
R. RODRIGUEZ, C. S . R.
Plaintiff
, Counsel
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
order of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
Defendant
D. CHATFIELD,
J. FELDHEIM,
Reporter
(X)
(X)
Counsel
MOTION OF NON-PARTIES FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MARCH

8, 2013 RULING ON JOSEPH PRASKES MOTION TO QUASH;
The matter is called for moiton of non-parties for
reconsideration of March 8, 2013 ruling on Joseph
Praskes Motion to quashs.
The court's tentative is adopted as its order as
follows:
The motion of non-parties Joseph Praske, individually a
and as trustee of the Aquasante Foundation, trustee of
Giganin Trust, and the Arenzao Trust (collective
"Praske") for reconsideration fo the court's March 8,
2013 ruling is DENIED. There is a strict requirement
of diligence is moving for reconsideration.
The
moving party must present a satisfactory explanation
for failing to provide the evidence or different facts
earlier. Garcia v. Hejamadi (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th
674, 690.
In this case, the court finds that Praske
has not provided any explanation for failing to
provide the evidence or different facts earlier.
Defendant is to give notice.
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER
The Court, having previously taken the matter under
submission on 4/12/13, issues its ruling consisting
Page
1 of
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/26/13
COUNTY CLERK

DATE:
04/26/13
HONORABLE
DEPT. 17
Richard E. Rico
A. ORTIZ
JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
11
B. CHAVEZ
C.A.
R. RODRIGUEZ
Deputy Sheriff
1:30 pm BC286924
Plaintiff
Counsel
STEPHEN MGAGGERO
VS
order of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
Defendant
Counsel
C. S . R.
D. CHATFIELD
J.
FELDHEIM
Reporter
(X)
(X)
of 1 pagel filed this date and incorporated herein by

reference to the Court file.
Summary of the court's Ruling:
... "For good cause and no prejudice to defendant the
court will grant the reques on the following condition
conditions: 1) the depositionof the augmented expert
witness will take place within 30 days and 2)
plaintiff shall pay the costs of the expert witness in
question t.hat is plaintiff will be responsible for . - .-._",;:
for paying the expert witness fees."
l
A true copy of this minute order and the Court's

ruling are mailed to counsel.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

II the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court do hereby certify that I am
not a party to the cause herein and that on this
date I served the minute order and ruling date 4/26/13
I
upon each party or counsel named below by placing

the document for collection and mailing so as to
cause it to be deposited in the United States mail
at the courthouse in Los Angeles
I
Page
2 of
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/26/13
COUNTY CLERK

DATE:
04/26/13
HONORABLE
DEPT. 17
Richard E. Rico
JUDGE
A. ORTIZ
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
DEPUTY CLERK
11
B. CHAVEZ, C.A.
Deputy Sheriff
R. RODRIGUEZ, C. S. R.
Reporter
,.~.,;.
1:30 pm BC286924
Plaintiff
Counsel
STEPHEN M GAGGERO
VS
order of 05-06-03 in BC286925
Legal Malp
BC286924/BC286925
D. CHATFIELD,
J. FELDHEIM,
Defendant
Counsel
(X)
(X)
California, one copy of the original filed/entered

herein in a separate sealed envelope to each address
as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid,
in accordance with standard court practices.
Executive Officer/Clerk
By:
MAXWELL M. BLECHER
BLECHER COLLIN PEPPERMAND & JOYE, P.C.
JONATAN A. FELDHEIM
MILLER LLP
.:u
Page
3 of
DEPT. 17
MINUTES ENTERED
04/26/13
COUNTY CLERK
.....,
APR 2i20Y
:~:;~j:~g~:~(,
4
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
) Case No. Be 286924
vs.
RULING
KNAPP, PETERSON AND CLARKE, et al.. )

)
Defendants.
--------------------------------)
16
17
18
This court having taken Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero' s motion to augment his expe
itness list under submission now rules as follows. For good cause and no prejudice to defendan
19
he court will grant the request on the following conditions: 1) the deposition of the augmente
20
21
22
xpert witness will take place within the next 30 days and 2) plaintiff shall pay the costs of th
xpert witness in question, that is plaintiff will be responsible for paying the expert witness fees.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED
25
DATED: April 26, 2013

26
27
28
1
RULING
APR 2i20Y
:~:;~j:~g~:~(,
4
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
) Case No. Be 286924
vs.
RULING
KNAPP, PETERSON AND CLARKE, et al.. )

)
Defendants.
--------------------------------)
16
17
18
This court having taken Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero' s motion to augment his expe
itness list under submission now rules as follows. For good cause and no prejudice to defendan
19
he court will grant the request on the following conditions: 1) the deposition of the augmente
20
21
22
xpert witness will take place within the next 30 days and 2) plaintiff shall pay the costs of th
xpert witness in question, that is plaintiff will be responsible for paying the expert witness fees.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED
25
DATED: April 26, 2013

26
27
28
1
RULING

Department
17
I
-April 26, 2013

alendar No. 11
PROCEEDINGS
,I
$aggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.

:$C286924
,
IN"on-party Joseph Praske's motion for reconsideratio of March ,,2013 ruling on

lt0seph Praske' s motion to quash
"
TENTATIVE RULING
i
i:
The motion of non-parties Joseph Praske, individuall and as tru '~ee of the
Aqua,sarj.te Foundation, trustee of Giganin Trust, and the Ar nzao Trust i: ollective
"Praske 1f) for reconsideration of the court's March 8,2013 ling is DEllED. There is a
strict rec1uirement of diligence in moving for reconsideratio . The movi i~g party must
present ~ satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the e idence or fferent facts
earlier. Garcia v. Heimadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674,690. In this cas 'I the court finds
that Pra~ke has not provided any explanation for failing to p ovide the e :~dence or
differen~ facts earlier.
!i
11
I!
'I
Ii!I
III:

Department 17
Tuesday -May 7, 2013

Calendar No.1
PROCEEDINGS
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.

BC286924
(1) Defendants' motion to compel further response to supplemental special
interro gatories
(2) Defendants' motion to compel production of documents and amended
responses to RFPs (set two)
(3) Defendants' motion to compel further response to special interrogatories (set
two)
(4) Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' three untimely motions to compel
further responses
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff, Stephen Gaggero's motion to strike.
Plaintiff claims that the discovery cut-off in this case was February 19,2013, the
date that plaintiff served the subject discovery requests. (Opposition - Peters Decl. ~5.)
The last hearing date for non-expert discovery motions was March 4,2013. (Id. at ~6.)
Prior to March 27,2013, defendants did not meet and confer with plaintiffregarding his
discovery responses. (Id. at ~7.) Defendants claim that the court continued the deadline
on hearing discovery motions at the March 20,2013 trial setting status conference, with
plaintiff disputes. (Jd. at ~~8-9.)
Plaintiff claims that at the trial setting conference, the only dates that were
continued were the pretrial dates that had not yet expired as of March 20,2013, and the
expert discovery deadline because no expert discovery had taken place yet and the court
had explicitly allowed plaintiff to make a motion to augment his expert witness list. (Id.
at ~10.) None of the fact discovery deadlines were reopened since they had already
expired and there had been no mention of reopening fact discovery. (Id. at ~11.) Further,
at the April 8, 2013 hearing on plaintiffs Motion to Augment Expert Witness List, the
parties' disagreement was raised before the court and the court distingUished between
discovery motions on expert discovery issues, the pending motion for reconsideration,
and "new" discovery motions. (Id. at ~12, Exhibit B.) Plaintiff's counsel never agreed to
reopen any discovery deadlines, as defense counsel Austa Wakily ("Wakily") contends in
her declaration. (Id. at ~13.) IfWakily did raise this issue at the trial setting status
conference, then plaintiff's counsel is unaware of it. (Id. at ~13.)
Upon a review of Exhibit B (the transcript from the April 8, 2013 hearing), the
court does not state either way whether it previously granted a continuance of discovery
and motion cutoff deadlines. (See Exhibit B pp. 4-6.)
Defendants claim that at the trial setting conference on March 20,2013, when the
court set the new trial date of October 1,2013, the court granted her request to continue
the discovery motion deadline based on the new trial date. (Wakily Decl. ~~5, 9.) The
court ordered defense counsel to give notice, at which point plaintiff objected. (Id. at
~~11-20.)
The March 20,2013 minute order does not state that the discovery and motion
cutoff dates were continued in accordance with the new trial date. Defendants' notice of
ruling (filed March 21,2013) does state that discovery and motion cutoff dates were
continued. Plaintiff filed an objection on March 28,2013.
From the foregoing, it does not appear that the issue was addressed by the court at
the March 20,2013 trial setting conference. Wakily may have brought the issue up, but
this seems to have been largely ignored by plaintiff and the court. Given the confusion
regarding plaintiff's continued refusal to provide the expert witness initially disclosed for
a deposition, it was the court's intention to allow defendants to continue completing their
discovery including any motions to compel. The court fmds good cause to allow the
. alscovefYissues fooe resolved fiinelyjuS1: asitiil1oweapliiiritiffffieopporturu.tY to-- .
"augment" his expert witness when the ostensible reason for the need to augment the
expert witness no longer existed. Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' motions is
DENIED.
Defendants Knapp, Petersen and Clarke ("KPC"); Steven Ray Garcia; Stephen M.
Harris; and Andre Jardini ("defendants") filed three motions to compel further responses.
Each motion is addressed below:
(1) Supplemental Special Interrogatories
Supplemental special interrogatory no. 1 asks that plaintiff "review his answers to
special interrogatories previously served on him in this action. If, for any reason, any
answer is on longer correct or complete, he is requested to identify the answer and state
whatever information is necessary to make it correct and complete as of the date of their
answer to this interrogatory." (Separate Statement p. 5.)
In response, plaintiff stated that he "has made a good faith effort to review his
prior responses to Defendants' interrogatories in this action. All of the answers set forth
in Plaintiffs [sic] Responses to Defendant's interrogatories previously served are correct
and complete." Plaintiff also incorporated a Preliminary Statement into the response,
which contains boilerplate statements regarding future investigation and evidence, nonwaiver of objections, etc. (Separate Statement p. 2.)
Plaintiff's response is clearly proper as it is unclear what further response could
be compelled. Defendants are really taking issue with plaintiff's Preliminary Statement.
Defendants have cited no specific authority to show that such statements are not allowed.
Defendants suggest that plaintiff must properly investigate the matters at issue in the
interrogatories and that plaintiff has not done so because of statements in the Preliminary
Statement such as that "The responses which are set forth herein are based upon the
current knowledge of Plaintiff and upon such investigation as was reasonable for Plaintiff
to undertake under the circumstances of the Interrogatories." These statements are so
2
vague that it is impossible to determine whether plaintiff's investigation or response was

inadequate or not. To the extent that defendants are accusing plaintiff of being
untruthful, a motion to compel further discovery responses cannot be granted based on
the reason that verified answers served are really untrue. (Holguin v. Sup. Ct. (1972)
22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820-821.)
For these above reasons, the motion is DENIED.
(2) Special Interrogatories (set two)
Defendants argue that plaintiff has refused to provide responses to 40 special
interrogatories based solely on frivolous objections, which mayor may not have included
the 28 General Objections that he incorporated into each response.
Upon a review of pl,!-intiff s responses, it does appear that a maj ority of the
responses are inadequate. For some of the responses (nos. 58, 73, 78,83,87,90, 101103), in addition to plaintiff's boilerplate objections, plaintiff did provide a very brief
response. It seems clear that instead of providing "details" as requested, plaintiff
provided as broad of a response as possible with minimal information. "Parties, like
witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in
answering written interrogatories. [Citation.] Where the question is specific and explicit,
an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient.
Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conc1usionary answers designed to
evade a series of explicit questions. [Citation.]" (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)
,
Further responses should be provided. The motion is GRANTED as to these
interro gatories.
As for nos. 70, 72, and 92, these interrogatories as about KPC' s alleged
negligence. Plaintiff has provided responses; however, defendants argue that the
responses are not detailed enough. Upon a review of the responses, the plaintiff did
answer the interrogatories. The motion is DENIED as to these interrogatories.
As to no. 60, which asks plaintiff to identify all persons that plaintiff attributed to
the damages in special interrogatory no. 58. Plaintiff identified defendants Steven
Garcia, Andre Jardini, and Stephen Harris. Defendants seek to compel a further response
state that "This is without a doubt an intentionally false answer." (Separate Statement p.
22.) However, as noted above, a motion to compel further discovery responses cannot be
granted based on the reason that verified answers served are really untrue. (Holguin,
supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at 820-821.) The motion is DENIED as to no. 60.
As to the remaining interrogatories, plaintiffs provided no substantive responses
and only inserted boilerplate objections. The motion is GRANTED as to the remaining
interro gatories.
(3) RFPs (set two)
Upon a review of the responses, it is clear that plaintiffs responses are

insufficient. CCP 2031.21 O(a) provides that a response to a request for production of
documents must include (1) a statement that the party will comply, (2) a representation
that the party lacks the ability to comply, or (3) an objection. Further, a statement of
inability to comply "shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been
made in an effort to comply with the demand" and the "statement shall also specify
whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never
existed, has been destroyed ... " etc. CCP 2031.230. As to objections, a party must
"identify with particularity" the documents or items objected to and the party shall "[s]et
forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection." CCP 2031.240.
Additionally, the documents "shall be produced on the date specified in the
demand ... unless an objection has been made to that date." CCP 2031.280(b).
As to nos. 33-36,41,42, and 50, in addition to boilerplate objections, plaintiff has
already stated that he "has previously produced documents responsive to this request."
As to nos. 38,39,44-49, and 51-54, in addition to boilerplate objections, plaintiff has
stated that "Responsive documents have already been produced in this litigation, either
by Plaintiff, third parties, or both." These are not proper responses to RFPs.
As to the remaining RFPs, plaintiff provided no substantive responses and only
inserted boilerplate objections. This is similarly insufficient.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in its entirety.
"

Department 17
Thursday -May 16, 2013

Calendar No.1
PROCEEDINGS
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et aI.

BC286924
(1) Defendants' motion to compel Blu House LLC; Boardwalk Sunset LLC;
Malibu Broadbeach LP; 511 OFW LP; Gingerbread Court LP; and Marina
Glencoe LP to produce documents and provide further responses pursuant to
defendants' subpoena
(2) Defendants' motion to compel Pacific Coast management, Inc. to produce
documents and further responses pursuant to defendants' subpoena
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants have filed two motions to compel further responses: (1) motion to
compel13lu House LLC; Boardwalk Sunset LLC; Malibu Broadbeach LP; 511 OFW LP;
Gingerbread Court LP; and Marina Glencoe LP to produce documents and provide
further responses pursuant to defendants' subpoena; and (2) motion to compel Pacific
Coast Management, Inc. ("PCM") to produce documents and further responses pursuant
to defendants' subpoena. Depositions of these entities took place on 2/11113 and 2114/13.
The first motj,on is directed at the six non-party entities. Defendants argue that
there is no documentary evidence supporting Gaggero' s statement that he had the ability
or that his estate planning aqthority had the authority to provide him funds from these
entities or the estate. Defendants served a subpoena on these entities to obtain these,
documents. (Wakily Decl., Exhibi~ A.) The entities produced nothing at their deposition.
Defendants request (1) that the court order the entities to comply with their obligations
pursuant to the -subpoena; (2) an order that the answer to deposition categories identified
by defendants be given on the resumption of the deposition pursuant to CCP
2025.480(e); and (3) monetary sanctions in the amount of$1410.
The second motion is directed at PCM. PCM designated plaintiff Stephen
Gaggero C'Gaggero") and his estate planning attorney Joseph Praske ("Praske") as the
PMKs for deposition. Praske was deposed on 2/11/13 and did not produce the requested
documents. Defendants claim that Praske admitted that he did not read the deposition'
subpoena; however, Praske's deposition testimony reveals that he actually testified that
he did "not really" do anything to prepare for the deposition and did not review any
documents to prepare. (Wakily Decl. '1[27, Exhibit M p. 15.) Gaggero refused to answer
questions that involved information based on his personal capacity. Defendants argue
that PCM's designation of Gaggero as the PMK was improper because he was not
capable of testifying on the subjects noticed by defendants. Defendants seek (1) an order
compelling PCM to answer deposition questions and to produce documents identified in
the subpoena; (2) an order that the answer to deposition categories identified by
defendants be given on the resumption of the deposition pursuant to CCP 2025.480(e);
and (3) monetary sanctions in the amount of $6240.
In opposition, the non-parties argue that defendants failed to meet and confer
prior to filing the instant motion and instead waited until three business days before the
deadline to file their motions to request an extension of the deadlines for filing the
motions. (Cathfield Declaration ~7.) It is confirmed by the moving papers that defense
counsel sent a meet and confer letter counsel for the non-parties on 4/16/13. (Wakily
Decl. ~21, Exhibit G.) Wakily claims that she was unable to review the deposition
transcripts earlier because she was working on an earlier deadline for filing a motion to
compel as to Gaggero's discovery response. (Id. at ~16.)
In light of the conduct of plaintiff in this case (who was the witness for the nonparty entities), the court may find that the motions are warranted. These parties have
basically refused to produce any documents or provide any meaningful information that
would allow defendants to evaluate and defend against plaintiff's claims. The motions
are GRANTED as to resumption of the depositions and production of documents.
It is noted that defendants are also correct to argue that defendant's separate
statement does not comply with eRC 3.1345(c), which provides that the text of each
question and response must be provided. In light of the defects with the separate
statement and defendants' lack of meaningful meet and confer efforts, the court will
decline to grant defendants sanctions.

Department 17
Monday - June 17,2013

Calendar No. 12
PROCEEDINGS
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.

BC286924
Defendants' motion for reconsideration of April 18, 2013 order on plaintiff's
motion to quash
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Knapp, Petersen and Clarke ("KPC"); Steven Ray Garcia; Stephen M.
Harris; and Andre Jardini ("defendants") moves for reconsideration of the court's 4/18/13
order concerning plaintiff s motion to quash the subpoena for production of documents to
Peter Bezek previously served by KPC.
Plaintiff filed a motion to quash on 1125/13, which was denied by the court on
2/22/13. Plaintiff petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate and pursuant to
the Court of Appeal's order dated 4/8/13, this court issued its new ruling on 4/18/13,
modifying its previous order. The minute order and order dated 4/18/13 provides that:
This court upon review ofthe Court of Appeal order dated April 8, 2013 and
received by this court on April 18 will modify its previous ruling as follows:
The motion to quash is granted as to attorney-client communications (Southern
Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 31, 40-44;cf.
Schumberger Limited v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal. App. 3d 386, 393), and
Attorney Bezek shall prepare a privilege log identifying purported protected work
product he seeks to withhold for purposes of further consideration of the
distinction between absolutely protected material and material subject to qualified
protection that may be overcome if in the interest offaimess (Code Civ. Pro.
section 2018.30; see National Steel Products v. Superior Court (1984) 164 Cal.
App. 3d 476,490-491)
The privilege log shall be filed within 30 days of this order.
Defendants argue that after KPC filed its opposition to the motion to quash in
February, plaintiff served additional responses to written discovery. Defendants state that
the "merits of KPC' s Opposition are fortified by the new facts set forth by Plaintiff in
discovery ... in his most recent discovery responses, Plaintiff affIrms his contention is [sic]
that KPC's conduct contributed to his trial counsel's loss at trial ... " (Motion p. 3;
Feldheim Decl. ~5.)
In opposition, plaintiff argues that there are no "new or different facts to warrant
reconsideration of the court's 4/18/13 order. As the moving papers indicate, defendants
were well aware of plaintiff's contention that KPC's conduct contributed to his trial
counsel's loss at trial.
,/
In response, defendants claim that the Court of Appeal's order did not address the
new fact that plaintiff now claims that attorney Bezek lost his case at trial because of
KPC's conduct in the initial handling of the lawsuit. This new claims places Bezek's
decisions, strategy, and conclusion directly at issue in this lawsuit and KPC should be
allowed to obtain information on plaintiffs new theory. Alternatively, plaintiff should be
precluded from claiming that KPC's conduct impaired Bezek's handling of the lawsuit
while preventing KPC from confirming the statements from Bezek.
Defendants' argument is unpersuasive. As plaintiff correctly argues, there are no
new or different facts to warrant reconsideration of the court's 4/18/13 order. It seems
that defendants were aware ofplaintiffs contention that KPC's conduct contributed to his
trial counsel's loss at trial prior to subsequent discovery responses "affirming" this
contention. This is not new or different facts warranting reconsideration of the court's
ruling. Defendants also make arguments about a privilege log. (Motion pp. 7-9.) These
arguments are unnecessary as the court's 4/18/13 order already directed attorney Bezek to
prepare a privilege log.
The motion of defendants Knapp, Petersen and Clarke ("KPC"); Steven Ray
Garcia; Stephen M. Harris; and Andre Jardini ("defendants") for reconsideration of the
court's 4/18/13 order is DENIED.
,I

Department 17
PROCEEDINGS
Monday - August 27,2012

Calendar No.1

BC 286 924
Motion to Compel Reque~t for Production of Documents re: Request for
Production of Documents (Set One) and Document Request With Notice of
Deposition
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Steven Ray Garcia, Stephen M. Harris and
Andre Jardini's Motion to Compel Request for Production of Documents re: Request for
Production of Documents (Set One) and Document Request With Notice of Deposition is
granted. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants negligently advised
Plaintiff of "any risk of his losing his right to purchase the properties," and that "as a
result of Defendants' negligence, [Plaintiff] lost the right to purchase the 938 Property,
and lost the right of first refusal for the two other properties .... " SAC, ~ 26. Defendants
now seek documents evidencing Plaintiff s ability to purchase those properties. Plaintiff
objects on the grounds that these documents are irrelevant to this case, however, they are
clearly relevant as Plaintiff is claiming damages in this action based on his loss of the
right to purchase these properties .. Furthermore, documents relating to the trusts at issue
are also relevant based on testimony in the underlying case that Plaintiff was to purchase
these properties with funds from an estate plan Praske implemented, and identifying these
trusts as part of that estate plan. See Wakily Decl., Ex. R (Plaintiffs counsel: "The
evidence will be [] that Mr. Gaggero commanded more than sufficient resources - that's
what the law requires - - to close this transaction. And the sources were a personal trust.
And you're going to hear testimony not only from Mr. Gaggero, but from Mr.
Praske ... It's a trust that he funded, and the particulars ofthat trust were created by an
estate planning lawyer by the name of Mr. Praske.")
In the alternative, Plaintiff claims that these documents are not in his possession,
custody or control because Joseph Praske is in possession ofthem. See Opposition to
Separate Statement at pp. 57-57 & 67-70. Plaintiff further states that Praske is not his
attorney citing to Praske's declaration. Id. However, Praske does not state in his
declaration that he is not Plaintiffs attorney. See Praske Decl. Furthermore, at the postmediation status conference, Plaintiff's counsel confirmed that Praske was Plaintiff's
estate planning attorney. See Wakily Decl., ~~ 2-6. As Plaintiff's attorney possesses the
sought-after financial documents, they are in Plaintiffs control and should be produced.
In the alternative, Piaintiff argues that these financial documentsare protected by
the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine andlor right to privacy. See
Opposition to Separate Statement at p. 59. It is Plaintiff's burden as the responding party
to justify the validity ofthe objections asserted against production. See Kirkland v. Sup.
Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2000) 95 Cal.AppAth 92,98. Here, Plaintiff has not adequately
explained why documents relating to his ability to purchase the subject properties fall
under these privileges or should be protected from production due to his right to privacy
when they are directly relevant to his claim for damages in this case. On these grounds,
the motion is granted as to Requests for Productions Nos. 1-3 & 7-10 in the Notice of
DepositIOn and Request for Production of Document forJPlaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero.
Plaintiff also generally contends that he- has withheld documents pursuant to
"attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, right to privacy, and confidential or
proprietary privilege," however, the privilege logs produced by Plaintiff only identify
documents withheld pursuant to the attorney-client and work product privileges. See
Opposition at 4:19-22. If Plaintiff is withholding additional documents on the grounds of
"right to priyacy, and cQnfidential or promietary privilege," Plaintiff is ordered to>
p'roduce those documents on the grounds that Plaintiff has not justified these objections in
his opposition to this motion. Defendants also request that the Court require Plaintiffto.remove improper boilerplate objections which make it difficult to determine the extent
that Plaintiff has complied with each discovery requests, however, as Plaintiff state
he has only withheld documents pursuant to "attorney-client privilege, work product
privilege, right to privacy, and confidential or proprietary privilege," Defendants' request
is moot.
Defendants also seek to compel Plaintiff to categorize the documents he produced
on the grounds that 16,500 documents were produced as "loose files" or "unlabeled" files
and appear substantially displaced. In response, Plaintiff contends that he has produced
these documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business. c.c.P. 2031.280
provides that "[a]ny documents produced in response to a demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course
of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the
demand." It is not credible that Plaintiff kept such a large number of documents without
any apparent order or labeling system, therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to orga$e and label
those documents to correspond with the categories in each aemand
Lastly, Defendants ask that Plaintiff be required to amend his privilege log to
include specific factual descriptions of the documents withheld. However, Plaintiff has
adequately identified the majority of documents-I-iS:t~Q-il:lihe privilege log, including the
number of pages of each document, thtdate of each ~ent, a description of its
contellt, the author, recipient and what'priviregeisCfaimed. See W~ily Decl., Exs. I~ N
& Q; see Hernandez v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285,292 ("The purpose of a
'privilege log' is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of
substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document
production."). Defendants identify two examples of insufficient entries where Plaintiff
failed to identify the recipient of a document but referred to "unknown counsel," and
where Plaintiff sent documents to his personal assistant, Bob Haber. Plaintiff has not
explained why he cannot identify who the "unknown counsel" is who received that
particular document, and is ordered to identify this individual. With respect to the
documents received by Haber, Plamtiff adequately expiaim-that-Haber was
Plaintiffs counsel's legal assistant at the time he received the document ee Chatfield
Decl., ~ 5. On these grounds, no further revisions to the privilege log are ordered.
.Sanctions are awarded to Defendants in the amount~See Wakily Decl.,
~34;seeC.C.P.2031.310(h).

Yura - Court Orders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yura - Court Orders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Honorable Richard

Tuesday - January 29, 2013

Friday - February 22, 2013

Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.

Plaintiff Stephen Gaggero ("Plaintiff') seeks to quash the subpoena for

Friday - March 8, 2013

Honorable Richard Rico

Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.

STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual,

[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Richard E.

NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO

Defendants KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.

1) The Motion to Quash is DENIED;

2) All objections to the subpoenas to the Non-Party Trusts are OVERRULED.

Dated: March 12,2013

RMDALL A. MIL ER;ESQ.

NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

Friday - March 8, 2013

Honorable Richard Rko

by causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office of the

by causing such docUl11ent(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed

by causing to be personally served to the person(s) to the person(s) at the

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEPHEN M.

David Blake Chatfield, Esq.

Attorney Plaintiff STEPHEN M.

Edward A. Hoffinal1, Esq.

Attorney for PACIFIC COAST

J.Janne y & Janney

COURT SERVICE INSTRUCTION FORM

Attorney Service, Inc.

Please submit in duplicate (2 copies)

3-03-12 11: 16:27

For J&J use only

FIRM NAME: & ADDRESS:

S. Flower Street, Ste.

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Dept. 17

CONTACT: Jasmine Takhtalian

ATTORNEY: Austa Wakily

Stephen Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al

Additional I Special Instructions

LAST DAY TO FILE ITO day

Please file Notice of Ruling on Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Production

1545 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 311 \

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Attorneys for Defendants KNAPP, PETERSEN &

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual,

[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Richard E.

NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING

Complaint Filed: December 12, 2002

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual,

[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Richard E.

Complaint Filed: December 12, 2002

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 20,2013 in Department 17 of the above-

following rulings at the Status Conference.

September 26, 2013 at 8:30 am;

for Reconsideration set for April 26, 2013;

1, 2013 trial date;

5) Counsel for Defendants was ordered to give notice.

Dated: March 21, 2013

NOTICE OF RULING AT TRIAL SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE