E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G-84481

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G-84481"

Tiffany Farmer
5 years ago
Views:

1 E-FILED Jun 13, :57 PM David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Case #1-13-CV Filing #G By A. Ramirez, Deputy

5 Exhibit A

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA E-FILED Mar 9, :32 PM David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Case #1-13-CV Filing #G By R. Walker, Deputy TO: FILE COPY RE: CASE NUMBER: Cilker Apartments, LLC v. Western National Construction, et al CV ORDER AFTER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE A Case Management Conference was recently held for the above entitled case and the following determinations were made with reference to the trial: 1. Essential parties have been served or appeared. This case is At-Issue. 2. Parties, including fictitious ones, who have not been served or who have not appeared, are severed and ordered off the Civil Active List. 3. Jury demanded by TBD. Jury waived by TBD. Trial estimate is TBD days. 4. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE set for January 20, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 1. See Attachment A for further requirements. 5. MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE set for January 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept JURY TRIAL set for February 1, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept Settlement Conference and Trial at 191 North First St., San Jose, CA All parties shall comply with Local Rules of Court. 9. Trial attorneys are as recited into the record. For further information, contact the Complex Civil Litigation Department, (408) Date: March 9, 2015 Hon. Peter H. Kirwan Judge of the Superior Court If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator s office at (408) , or use the Court s TDD line, (408) or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service, (800)

7 E-FILED: Mar Jun 13, 9, :32 1:57 PM, Superior Court of of CA, County of of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G #G Prior to the Pretrial Conference, counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange a meet and confer session at a mutually agreeable time and location. At the meet and confer, the parties shall: 1. Exchange exhibits and inspect photos and diagrams (to be submitted on the date of trial), excluding those contemplated to be used for impeachment or rebuttal. 2. Stipulate to all facts amenable to stipulation. 3. Prepare a Joint Statement of the Case. 4. Prepare a Joint Witness List, excluding impeachment or rebuttal witnesses, with accurate time estimates for direct and cross-examination (direct, cross, re-direct only) 5. Prepare a Joint List of Controverted Issues. If all the parties fail to agree to an issue as controverted or uncontroverted, then the issue is controverted. (Required for both jury and non-jury trials) 6. Exchange all motions in limine and determine whether they can stipulate to any in limine motions. Counsel shall review the Court of Appeal s decision in Amtower v. Photon, (2008) 158 Cal.App. 4 th 1582, , which describes the Sixth District s concerns about the misuse of motions in limine. 7. Prepare voir dire questions for the Court to include in its voir dire. (Jury trials only) 8. Execute the Statement of Compliance. 9. Prepare joint proposed jury instructions and exchange disputed instructions. The above items, including opposition to motions in limine, trial briefs and the Statement of Compliance signed by all counsel, shall be submitted to the Complex Civil Litigation Desk or to the courtroom clerk in the department of the judge to whom the case has been assigned for trial, no later than noon of the Friday before trial. The Joint Final Pre-Trial Conference Statement shall be submitted at least five (5) days in advance of the hearing. Agenda items in the Joint Final Pre-Trial Conference Statement shall include, but is not limited to, the following: Starting date of the trial and the schedule to be followed. The issues to be tried. If separate trials are to be held, the issues to be tried at the initial trial. The witnesses to be called and the exhibits to be offered by each side (other than for impeachment or rebuttal). Whether additional undisclosed or other specified evidence is precluded. Which objections are to be deemed waived. Procedures for consolidation or severance or transfer of cases. Procedures for the presentation of testimony and exhibits. Other matters to expedite trial. Attachment A Requirements for Pretrial Conference Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

8 Exhibit B

9 E-FILED Aug 19, :00 PM David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Case #1-13-CV Filing #G By C. Pinacate, Deputy

10 E-FILED: Aug Jun 13, 19, :57 5:00 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G #G-75654

11 E-FILED: Aug Jun 13, 19, :57 5:00 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G #G-75654

12 Exhibit C

13 TO: E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G FILE COPY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA E-FILED Nov 5, :18 PM David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Case #1-13-CV Filing #G By R. Walker, Deputy RE: CASE NUMBER: Cilker Apartments, LLC v. Western National Construction, et al CV ORDER AND NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND TRIAL The Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial for the above entitled case have been rescheduled and you are directed to appear in court on: Settlement Conference: June 8, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1 JURY Trial: June 13, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1 Location: Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA All trial counsel, parties or other persons with full settlement authority shall personally appear on the above date, unless excused by the Court. If insurance coverage is available to satisfy plaintiff s settlement demand and a representative of defendant s insurer with full settlement authority attends the mandatory settlement conference with defendant s trial counsel, named defendants need not attend unless their personal consent is necessary to settle the case. Personal appearances by claims representatives and/or principals may be waived, only with the Special Master s approval and the Court s written permission, for those claims representatives and/or principals who have provided maximum settlement authority to their trial counsel. Named defendants must also personally attend the mandatory settlement conference when (1) there is an insurance coverage dispute; (2) plaintiff seeks to recover damages not covered by insurance; and (3) plaintiff s demand exceeds insurance policy limits. All remaining active parties must electronically file and serve a Settlement Conference Statement not to exceed five pages, excluding exhibits, no later than five court days before the settlement conference date above. Failure to appear as ordered and/or timely file settlement conference statements may cause sanctions to be imposed pursuant to CRC Rule For further information, contact the Complex Civil Litigation Department, (408) Date: November 5, 2015 Hon. Peter H. Kirwan Judge of the Superior Court If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator s office at (408) , or use the Court s TDD line, (408) or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service, (800)

14 Exhibit D

15 E-FILED Nov 9, :00 PM David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Case #1-13-CV Filing #G By G. Duarte, Deputy

16 E-FILED: Nov Jun 13, 9, :00 1:57 PM, Superior Court of of CA, County of of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G #G-84481

17 Exhibit E

18 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ---O0O--- CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. No. 113CV WESTERN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, et al., 8 9 Defendants. / 10 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. / DEPOSITION OF DONALD WHITE (PMK for White Residential, Inc.) VOLUME II (Pages 249 through 477) Taken before KIMBERLEY RICHARDSON, RPR, CCRR CSR No April 6, Aiken Welch Court Reporting 23 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250 Oakland, California (510) /(877) Fax (510)

19 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page DONALD WHITE, resworn as a witness, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Good morning, Mr. White. Welcome back. A. Thank you. Q. Thank you for accommodating us here today. It's my understanding that you're being produced today as a person most knowledgeable for White Residential, Inc. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. I just wanted to briefly cover some areas that I didn't quite get to in your first deposition session. In particular I want to talk a little bit about White Residential's insurance history, if I could. Did you have any involvement in procuring insurance, liability insurance, on behalf of White Residential, Inc.? A. Yes. MR. PERRETTA: I'll object to the extent it's vague and not reasonably calculated. But you certainly may ask these questions. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. What was your role in purchasing or attaining DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

20 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page insurance for White? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. Calls for a narrative. You can answer, Don. THE WITNESS: When we first started our business, we started a project in Sacramento, California, and that was for Holland Partners, and I needed to get general liability insurance for it, so I attained that through a broker in Bothell, Washington. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. And which carrier issued the policy, that initial policy? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You may answer. THE WITNESS: I believe Marshall Paris was my broker who's an insurance agency. Since then I believe he has gone out of business. He was an older gentleman at the time. But he wrote it through Golden Bear Insurance Company. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. And do you recall how many years White Residential, Inc., was insured through Golden Bear? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You may answer. THE WITNESS: I can't tell you exact years, but DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

21 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page we did I believe probably three projects with them and then switched over. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Okay. Do you know which company you switched over to? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You may answer. THE WITNESS: Hub International again was the broker. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Okay. Thank you. Was there someone in your office who was responsible for working with Marshall Paris in obtaining the liability coverage for the company or was that your role? MR. PERRETTA: Same previous objections. Compound. You can answer. THE WITNESS: At that time I was the one that took care of it because I didn't have anyone -- we didn't have that many employees at that time in the office. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. And you mentioned that you did two or three projects, I believe your indication was, while you were DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

22 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page insured by Golden Bear. Did I hear that correctly? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You can answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. The policies that you attained through Golden Bear, were they project-specific policies, in other words, just covering individual projects? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Okay. We took the deposition of Keyston Smith in this matter, and it's my understanding that at some point in time Keyston became involved in obtaining insurance on behalf of White. Is that correct? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. I believe he testified that that was one of his responsibilities as an operations manager for your company. MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. BY MR. DANSKIN: DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

23 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page Q. Is that correct? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You can answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Was there anyone who preceded him in that role? MR. PERRETTA: Same objections. You may answer. THE WITNESS: No. But Mark Peerboom may have helped me somewhat on it, but I'm the one who contacted Marshall, and he and I would take care of it. (Exhibit No. 752 marked for Identification.) BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. All right. I'm going to show you what we've marked as Exhibit 752. I'll hand that to your counsel. For the record, Exhibit 752 is Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant White Residential, Inc., Amended Verified Statement of Insurance Propounded By Case Management Order No. 1, Exhibit F. If you would just take a moment and review that document. A. Okay. Q. All right. You've had a chance to review Exhibit 752? DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

24 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page A. Yes. Q. There is a verification on the sixth page of that document, and there is a signature there. Is that your signature? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And have you reviewed this Amended Verified Statement? A. This? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And did you review it before you signed the verification that's attached to it? A. As far as I know. Q. Okay. Focusing on page 5, the first paragraph that appears at the top of the page there. It says: "Responding party did not procure or maintain any policy of insurance, whether primary, excess, umbrella, general liability, builder's risk, course of construction and/or difference in conditions insurance that would have afforded insurance coverage for any of the claims or cross claims being asserted against it in the instant action." Do you see that? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that a "yes"? DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

25 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Remember, we have to keep the record clear. I appreciate that. Can you tell me what that paragraph means? MR. PERRETTA: I'm going to object to the extent the document speaks for itself. It calls for a narrative. You can answer. THE WITNESS: Whether I had insurance or not. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Okay. White Residential did obtain liability insurance in the years both during and after this project was completed; correct? A. Yes. MR. PERRETTA: Objection. Mischaracterizes the witness' testimony. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Why would that insurance that White purchased not, in your words, afford White insurance coverage for any of the claims in this instant action? MR. PERRETTA: And I'll object to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion. I'll also warn you, Don, that the question DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

26 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page potentially seeks to invade the attorney/client privilege. If you know why and you learned it from an attorney representing you in this case, don't answer the question. If you have some other information that you gathered that wasn't from an attorney, you can certainly answer. THE WITNESS: Would you ask the question again? BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. You have testified that White obtained insurance during the years that this project was ongoing and afterward; correct? MR. PERRETTA: Objection. Mischaracterizes the witness' testimony. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. You may answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. My question is simply -- and, again, I don't, as your counsel's pointed out, want to get into discussions you might have had or information you learned from your attorneys. But why wouldn't that insurance coverage apply to this case and the claims made in it? DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

27 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page MR. PERRETTA: Again, objection. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Calls for a legal conclusion. Potentially invades the attorney/client privilege. Again, Don, my warning to you is if you learned something from an attorney, and that's the basis, I don't want you to answer anything. If you have some other information that you didn't gather from an attorney, you have to tell Sam. THE WITNESS: Well, White Residential only had an agreement with Cilker Orchards and was being identified for the project, and it also was being built by Western National who carried liability insurance on it. They were the general. White Residential was not. We did not participate in building the project. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Okay. Again, aside from any information you might have obtained from your attorneys, why would those facts preclude insurance coverage from applying to the claims being made against White in this matter? MR. PERRETTA: Again, the question is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. It also calls for a legal conclusion, Sam. It's also beyond anything this witness can answer. And he's already answered. I'll say asked and answered DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

28 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page Again, if it had something to do with communications between attorneys and White Residential, Inc., in this case, don't answer. If you have other information that you can add to that answer, please do. If not, you can tell Sam. THE WITNESS: Again, we only provided liability insurance on projects that we were the general contractor on and built for owners. We were not the general contractor on this project. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Has White made any claim to any of its liability insurance providers as a result of the claims made in this case? MR. PERRETTA: I'm going to object again to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion. It seeks to invade the attorney/client privilege, so I don't want you to answer that. And if we could go off the record, please. (Discussion held off the record.) BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Mr. White, aside from anything that your lawyers might have done separately on your behalf, did you or anyone affiliated with White Residential make a claim to any insurance carriers arising out of the claims in this case? DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

29 YVer1f E-FILED: Jun 13, :57 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-13-CV Filing #G Page MR. PERRETTA: And, again, the question is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. But you can certainly answer the question. THE WITNESS: We had a claim that we had in Vacaville, California, where the architect had specified a certain material which bled through the siding, and that is a claim that we had. MR. PERRETTA: I think he's asking you in this particular action, this Cilker Apartments vs. Western National, did you on behalf of White Residential, Inc., tender to some carrier? THE WITNESS: I see. No. MR. DANSKIN: That is what I'm asking. MR. PERRETTA: And I'll repeat my objections. BY MR. DANSKIN: Q. Since the first session of your deposition, have you had any communication with any of the Cilker entities or individuals involved with the Cilker entities? A. No. MR. PERRETTA: Just object to the extent the question is vague and ambiguous. You can answer, Don, I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: No DONALD WHITE 04/06/2016

30 Exhibit F

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA GREEN & HALL, LLP MICHAEL J. PEPEK, State Bar No. 1 mpepek@greenhall.com SAMUEL M. DANSKIN, State Bar No. 10 sdanskin@greenhall.com MICHAEL A. ERLINGER, State Bar No. 1 merlinger@greenhall.com 11 East