)

Transcription

1 1 C. D. Michel - SBN Joshua Robert Dale - SBN Tamara M. Rider - SBN MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.e East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200 Long Beach, CA Telephone: (562) Fax: (562) Attorneys for Defendant WARREN E&P, INC. 6 and Cross-complainant WARREN RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SOUTH DIVISION - LONG BEACH COURTHOUSE 11 BOSCO TUAN TRAN, et ai., ) CASE NO. NC ) Plaintiffs, ) Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Judge 13 ) Ross M. Klein, Department vs. ) ) MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5: TO WARREN E&P, INC., etc., et ai. ) EXCLUDE UNDESIGNATED EXPERT 15 Defendants. ) EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND I ) REPORTS ) ) WITNESSES AND UNDISCLOSED 17 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION ) [Filed concurrently with [Proposed] Order] ) Date: June 13,2013 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Dept.: TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the Final Status Conference on this matter, set to be 22 heard on June 13,2013 in Department 11 ofthe above-listed Court, Defendant Warren E&P, Inc. 23 and Cross-complainant Warren Resources of California, Inc. (the "Warren Parties") will jointly 24 move the Court in limine for an order restricting all parties from: Presenting any and all opinion testimony from undesignated expert witnesses; Presenting testimony or reports from witnesses who were not produced during 27 discovery after receiving notice to produce such witnesses for deposition; 28,.., J. Presenting testimony from properly designated expert witnesses that is based upon 1 W")7,P & WRC'I MOTION TN T,TMTNR NO.5 f# NC

2 1 reports or consultation with expert witnesses who were not disclosed or not produced for 2 deposition testimony; and 3 4. Presenting any and all undisclosed expert opinion and testimony. 4 This motion is based on the grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section and is further based upon this notice and the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the 6 attached declaration of Joshua Robert Dale, upon all pleadings and documents filed in this matter, 7 and upon any other oral and/or documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing ofthis 8 motion. Defendant has complied with Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.57, as set 9 forth in the supporting declaration Dated: May 30, 2013 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Josh Ro rt Dale Atto e for Defendant WARREN E&P, INC. and Cross-complainant WARREN RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 2 WF.P & WRrI MOTION TN T,TMTNR NO.5 f# NC

3 1 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section , the trial court must exclude expert 3 opinion testimony offered by a party who has failed to comply with the exchange requirements 4 upon the objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with the 5 requirements. Section provides in pertinent part: 6 [O]n objection of any party who has made a complete and timely compliance with Section , the trial court shall exclude from evidence the 7 expeli opinion of any witness that is offered by any paliy who has unreasonably failed to do any of the following: 8 (a) List that witness as an expert under Section (b) Submit an expeli declaration. 10 (c) Produce reports and writings of expert witnesses under Section (d) Make that expert available for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section ) In Kennemur v. State a/california (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907,919, the Court of Appeal 15 upheld the comi's exclusion of a party's expert witness testimony at trial because that pal'ty had 16 failed to disclose the substance the expert's testimony in either the witness exchange list or at 17 deposition. The Kennel11.ur court stated: 18 [T]his means the party must disclose... at his expert's deposition, if the expert is asked, the substance ofthe facts and the opinions which the expert will testify to at 19 trial. Only by such disclosure will the opposing party have reasonable notice of the specific area of investigation by the expert, the opinions he has reached and the 20 reasons supporting the opinions, to the end the opposing party can prepare for cross-examination and rebuttal of the expert's testimony. Only by such a disclosure 21 will the possibility of a reasonable settlement of the case before trial be encouraged. 22 (Id. at p. 920.) In Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097,1118, the Court of Appeal upheld the 25 trial court's order in limine excluding expert witness testimony for plaintiffs failure to comply 26 with expert disclosure requirements, even though the effect in that instance was to terminate the 27 plaintiffs lawsuit. The Zellerino court stated: 28 III 3 W'R,P &- WRf"T MOTTON TN T,TMTNR NO, 5 r# NC

4 The designation of an expert both informs all parties of the nature of his or her testimony and permits application of discovery of that the expert's testimony through oral and 2 written depositions. (citation omitted). In actions requiring expert testimony, 'the need for pretrial discovery is greater with respect to expert witnesses than it in the case of ordinary fact 3 witnesses. If a party is going to present the testimony of experts during the trial, the other parties must prepare to cope with the testimony to be given by people with specialized knowledge in a 4 scientific or teclmical field.' (citations omitted) (Ibid.) Necessarily, attempts by any party at trial to offer testimony from an expert who was not disclosed, and therefore who was not made available to be deposed prior to trial, creates unfair surprise and a distinct tactical advantage for the secreting party. Additionally, allowing an expert to testify who a party refused to be produced for deposition also results in unfair surprise. As such, Code of Civil Procedure section was enacted to eliminate such tactical gamesmanship by requiring disclosure under penalty of exclusion. The Warren Parties therefore request that the COUli exercise the authority given to it by the Legislature and order all undisclosed expert witnesses, and all undisclosed expert opinions and repolis, to be excluded from trial. Dated: May 30, 2013 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C bert Dale Att 'n s for Defendant WARREN E&P, IN nd Cross-complainant WARREN RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC WEP & WRCI MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5 f# NC

5 1 DECLARATION OF JOSHUA ROBERT DALE 2 I, Joshua Robert Dale, declare, 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of 4 California and arn an attorney with Michel & Associates, P.C., attorneys ofrecord for Defendant 5 Warren E&P, Inc. and Cross-complainant Warren Resources of California, Inc., parties of record 6 in the subject litigation, Bosco Tuan Tran, et al. v. Warren E&P, Inc., Los Angeles County 7 Superior Court Case No. NC I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as 9 a witness, could and would competently testify to such facts under oath. 10 ').J. This declaration is made in support of Warren E&P, Inc.'s and Warren Resources 11 of California, Inc. 's joint Motion in Limine No On behalf of the Warren Parties, on May 23, 20l3, I prepared and sent a letter to 13 Plaintiffs' counsel describing the motions in limine I planned to file on my clients' behalf and 14 seeking a stipulation as to those issues upon which the parties could agree. A true and correct 15 copy ofthat letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" In response, Plaintiffs' counsel responded in a letter dated May 23, 2013 indicating 17 his clients' opposition to one of the eight motions in limine identified relating to exclusion of 18 Plaintiffs' late-designated expert witness. A true arld correct copy of that letter is attached hereto 19 as Exhibit "B" On May 27, 2013, I traveled to Plaintiffs' counsel's office to conduct the meet-and- 21 confer session regarding trial documents. During that meeting, we discussed his clients' and my 22 clients' proposed motions in limine Plaintiffs' counsel expressly reserved opinion on whether his clients would support 24 or oppose this motion, and no stipulation to that effect was discussed The specific prejudice that will be suffered if the motion is not granted is that any 26 testimony offered by an undisclosed expert witness, or regarding topics which Plaintiffs' sole 27 designated expert witness did not testify about in his deposition, will cause unfair surprise to the 28 Warren Parties. The Warren Parties will have not been given an opportunity to depose the W~P & WRrT MOTTON TN T,TMTNF, NO. ~ 5 f# NC

6 1 undisclosed expert prior to trial, and therefore be unable to adequately cross-examine such expert 2 or offer rebuttal testimony. As to new topics and opinions offered by Plaintiffs' designated expert 3 at trial, because of the experi witness' refusal to disclose such topics or opinions at his deposition, 4 the Warren Parties will not have been given an opportunity to depose the expert witness on these 5 issues, prepare to cross-examine the expert witness at trial on these undisclosed topics and 6 opinions at trial, or prepare and offer rebuttal testimony on these undisclosed topics and opinions 7 at trial. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 9 foregoing is true and correct. 10 Executed this 30 th day of May, 2013, at Long Beach, California wvp, WnrT MOTTON TN T.TMTNF. NO 'i r# NrO'::;72()~1

7 EXHIBIT "A"

8 SENIOR COUNSEL C. D. MICHEL'" SPECIAL COUNSEL -JOSHUA R. DALE W. LEE SMITH ASSOCIATES ANNA M. BARVIR SEAN A. BRADY SCOTT M. FRANKLIN THOMAS E. MACIEJEWSKI CLINT B. MONFORT TAMARA M. RIDER -JOSEPH A. SILVOSO, III Los ANGELES, CA ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ;". I ;.. ",i.. 1" MleHEL!&WSSOCnlATES/p~C. Atto.rneys at Law OF COUNSEL DON B. KATES BATTLEGROUND, WA RUTH P. HARING MATTHEW M. HORECZKO Los ANGELES, CA GLENN S. McRoBERTS SAN DIEGO. CA AFFILIATE COUNSEL JOHN F MACHTINGER -JEFFREY M, COHON Los ANGELES, CA DAVID T HARDY TUCSON, AI WRITER'S DIRECT CONTACT" I JDALE@MICHELLAWYERS.COM May 23, 2013 VIA U.S. MAIL & E- MAIL Dave Vo, Esq. VO LAW FIRM 7372 Prince Drive, Suite 108 Huntington Beach, CA davevoesq@gmail.com Re: Bosco Tuan Tran, Inc., et al. t v. Warren E&P, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. NC Meet-and-confer under Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.57 Dear Mr. Vo, below. I am requesting that the parties meet and confer regarding the evidentiary issues identified The purpose of this proposed meet-and-confer is to determine whether the following issues can be informally resolved or will require my clients to file motions in limine regarding their admissibility at trial. Additionally the parties are obligated to submit a joint trial witness list (including time estimates) ajoint exhibit list; and a proposed joint statement of the case on or before May 30 th. The parties are also required to meet and confer regarding proposed jury instructions, and any special instructions or verdict forms. Because Plaintiffs did not deposit jury fees, however, it is the Warren Parties' position that Plaintiffs have waived a jury trial and that a meet-and-confer on the issue of jury iiisfl:uctions.. al'icrvefaict forms ' i~"'unriecessary. I propose the following date and time for the in-person meet-and-confer session: May 28, 2013 at my office following the hearing on the Warren Parties' motions to compel. 1 1 In light of our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon, I understand that you were unaware of the Court's local rule regarding filing of the pre-trial documents by the 30 th Further, I also understand that you anticipate your current trial going until May 29 th or 30 th, making you personally unavailable to participate in a meet-and-confer on the 28 t \ or the in any of the depositions scheduled 180 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SUITE 200 LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA TEL: FAX: WWW,MICHELLAWYERS,COM

9 Mr. Dave Vo, Esq. May 23,2013 Page 2 of 5 Evidentiary Issues/Motions in Limine 1. Exclusion of testimony at trial by Armando Dupont and reports generated by him. Plaintiffs failed to timely exchange their expert witness designation as required under Code of Civil Procedure sections , , and Plaintiffs did not serve their Expert Witness Designation until April 30, The date on which the parties were required to exchange their expeli witness information was April 28, The Wanen Parties timely tendered their list and existing expert reports. Plaintiffs did not, and instead used their delay to study the Warren Parties designation and then brazenly copied and pasted that information almost verbatim into their late-served list. It is patent that in order to be valid an exchange of expert witness information must be mutual and simultaneous. (Code Civ. Proc., , subd. (a).) Plaintiffs lmew they would need an expeli consultant to prove establish the land boundaries in their Quiet Title claims, and were therefore obligated to retain and identify one as part of their initial expert witness exchange. (See, e.g., Bryant v. Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.4th 47, 53, ) Plaintiffs have no reasonable excuse for any delay in identifying such a known and key witness to their case. Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that Plaintiffs delayed in order to gain an unfair advantage by waiting to see whom the Wanen Parties designated so that Plaintiffs could craft their designation in response. This is the antithesis of both the letter and the spirit of the mutual and simultaneous exchange requirement. Such prejudicial delay mandates exclusion of the expeli's testimony and witnesses at trial. (See Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1019,1021; see also Hernandez v. Superior Court (2d Dist. 2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285.) 2. Exclusion of evidence and testimony regarding Plaintiffs' alleged business losses. Evidence of Plaintiffs' alleged business losses should be excluded at trial under Evidence Code sections 210,350, and 352 as both inelevant and prejudicial. Any testimony about their losses would constitute an undue consumption of the court's time and the jury's time because Plaintiffs' business losses are, by Plaintiffs' own claims, inelevant to this case. (Evid. Code, 352; see also Notrica v. State Camp. Ins. Fund (2d Dist. 1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 911, 950.) More importantly, testimony regarding Plaintiffs' damages would create substantial danger of undue prejudice, unnecessarily confuse the issues, and undoubtedly mislead the jury. (Evid. Code, 352.) A prescriptive easement is proven by use of real property, for a statutory period of five years, which has been "(1) open and notorious; (2) continuous and uninterrupted; (3) hostile to the true for the 29 th and 30th. Given these scheduling issues, in order to comply with the Court's requirements regarding pre-trial filings, I am available this Sunday, May 26 th or Monday, May 27th to personally meet-and-confer at either of our offices. If you are unavailable on the 26 th or 27 t \ or cannot anange to have a representative meet with me on the 28 t \ it is unclear when the parties might otherwise meet as required. I 80 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SUITE LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA TEL: I FAX: I

10 Mr. Dave Vo, Esq. May 23,2013 Page 3 of5 owner; and (4) under claim of right." (Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (2d Dist. 1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305 [citations omitted].) Adverse possession is established by proving "(1) possession under claim of right or color of title; (2) actual, open, and notorious occupation of the premises constituting reasonable notice to the true owner; (3) possession which is adverse and hostile to the true owner; (4) continuous possession for at least five years; and (5) payment of all taxes assessed against the property during the five-year period." (ld. [citations omitted].) Evidence ofloss of business does not tend to prove or disprove any of the above elements. "[E]vidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the jurors' emotional reaction." (People v. Howard (201 0) 51 Ca1.4th 15,32.) Here, testimony about Plaintiffs' alleged business losses would inflame the emotions of the jury by creating sympathy for Plaintiffs' purported financial situation. This would prejudice the Warren Parties because the jury would be more likely to punish the Warren Parties for Plaintiffs' alleged loss of business rather than decide whether Plaintiffs meet their burden of proving a prescriptive easement. In the same vein, evidence of Plaintiffs' alleged business losses would unnecessarily confuse the issues and mislead the jury. (See People v. Wagner (2d Dist. 1982) l38 Cal.App.3d 473, 481; see also Pannu v. Land Rover N Am., Inc. (2d Dist. 2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, ) If the jury heard evidence of Plaintiffs' alleged business losses, it would be confused as to whether Plaintiffs' claims at issue are in fact equitable. Thus the jury would also be mislead by evidence of Plaintiffs' alleged losses. Therefore, any testimony about Plaintiffs' alleged business losses should be excluded as irrelevant under Sections 210 and 350, and prejudicial under Section Exclusion of evidence and testimony regarding Plaintiffs' alleged monetary damages. Because Plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence during discovery of non-business loss monetary damages, the Warren Parties' position is that Plaintiffs are barred from presenting evidence of such damages or referencing them at trial. (See Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2d Dist. 2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202.) 4. Exclusion of documents not disclosed during discovery. Given the public policy for full disclosure during discovery, it is within the court's discretion to ~---._.._excludeinformation aurial which has been intentionally withheld fromanotl1er party. (See Cod~ Civ. Proc., , subd. (c); and Thoren v. Johnson & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270,274 [excluding witness undisclosed by party from testifying at trial].) Thus, where a party willfully fails to disclose documents in response to a request for production, the evidentiary sanction at trial is appropriate. (See Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241, ) 5. Exclusion ofreferences to the parties' respective financial conditions. References to the relative wealth of one party to another, or that Plaintiffs lack the ability to pay ajudgment, are the sort of references that are highly prejudicial and likely to confuse ajury as to the relevant issues at trial. Thus, courts have recognized the grave prejudice that can be suffered where I 80 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SUITE 200 LONG BEACH 0 CALIFORNIA TEL: FAX:

11 Mr. Dave Vo, Esq. May 23,2013 Page 4 of 5 the ability or inability of a party to pay a judgment is argued to a jury. "Justice is to be accorded to rich and poor alike, and a deliberate attempt by counsel to appeal to social or economic prejudices of the jury, including the wealth or poveliy of the litigants, is misconduct where the asserted wealth or poverty is not relevant to the issues of the case." (Hoffman v. Brandt (1966) 65 Cal. 2d 549, ) 6. Exclusion of percipient witnesses whose identities were known to Plaintiffs but not disclosed during discovery. The purpose of discovery is to allow "discovery of any factual information which will lead to the efficacious disposition of the pending litigation by settlement or by trial.... " (Doak v. Superior Court (2d Dist. 1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 825, 830.) California has "[done] away with the spoliing theory of litigation -- namely, surprise at the trial." (Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court (State Bar of Calif) (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548, 561.) Given the public policy for full disclosure, it is within the court's policy to exclude discovery which has been intentionally withheld from another party. (See Code Civ. Proc., , subd. (c); and Thoren v. Johnson & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270, 274 [excluding witness undisclosed by party from testifying at trial].) The willful failure to disclose the identity of known witnesses in discovery is one of the misuses of the discovery process for which ajudge may sanction the party by barring it from having the witness testify at trial. (See Thoren, supra, at 274.) 7. Exclusion of reports and testimony from undisclosed expert witnesses. A court may properly exclude the testimony of an expert witness due to Plaintiffs' failure to comply with expert disclosure requirements by identifying that witness. (See Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1118.) A court may also properly exclude expert witness testimony at trial because that party had failed to disclose the substance the expert's testimony in either the witness exchange list or at deposition. (See Kennemur v. State of Calf forni a (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 919.) 8. Exclusion of questioning at voir dire regarding specific dollar amounts. The purpose of voir dire is to select a fair and impartial jury. (See Barton v. Owen (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 484.) Specific damages amounts sought by Plaintiffs for damages are not relevant to whether a particular juror is fair and impartial. Such questioning would only serve to educate the jurors as to the facts of the case, and such a purpose is wholly improper. (See Rousseau v. West Coast House MoYer.L(1262)226 Cal.App,2d878, 882; and see People v. Pedersen (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 987 [inquiries into jurors' understanding of relative monetary amounts at issue at trial by asking them about their yearly income is improper].) I 80 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SUITE 200 LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA TEL: I FAX: I

12 Mr. Dave Vo, Esq. May 23, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Please let us know if one or more of the proposed dates and times for the meeting is available on your schedule. Sincerely, Michel & Associates, P.e. I 80 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SUITE 200 LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA TEL: I FAX: I

13 E "B"

14 RIVERSIDE: 424 East Sixth Street, Suite 4 Corona, California MANAGING ATTORNEY: Phuong Dave Vo FIRM 7372 PRINCE DRIVE, SUITE 108 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA VVW\V. THEVOLA \VFIRM.COM LOS ANGELES: 388 E. Valley Boulevard, Suite 213 Alhambra, California OF COUNSELS: Robert Hultgrien Tony Wong Qais Safuri Benjamin Hung May 23,2013 Joshua R. Dale, Esq. MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Long Beach, CA SENT VIA & FIRST CLASS MAIL RE: Bosco Tuan Tran, et al. v. Warren E & P, Inc. Case No.: NC MyfileNo.: Response Letter To Mr. Dale's Letters, Dated May 21 & 23, 2013 Dear Mr. Dale: My office is in receipt of several letters, dated May 21 & 23, This letter shall serve as a reply to them. Letter Re: Further Meet and Confer Regarding Depositions of Sonny Tran & PMQ at S & B, Inc., dated May 21,2013 As you recalled, Mr. Dale, Mr. Bosco Tuan Tran ("Bosco") only deferred the questions about Sonny & Bosco, Inc.'s ("S & B ") accounting questions to Sonny Tran ("SOlmy"), and did his best to answer your set of questions regarding S & B. To this date, Bosco is still the person most qualified ("PMQ") to testify on behalf ofs & B as he is the person that managed S & B since Sonny lives in Las Vegas. As Sonny's deposition was already set for May 29, 2013, and he would be answering any questions about S & B that Bosco is not knowledgeable about, my office did not think it was a big deal and certainly did not, in any shape or form, misled or withheld the PMQ for S & B from your office. In addition, contrary to what you stated - that Bosco admitted he had undertaken no efforts to prepare himself to testify about the categories in Defendant's Notice of Deposition ("depo") of PMQ, Bosco did mention that my office did prepare for the depositions ofpmq & himself with him, which my office honestly did. As you know, Mr. Dale, as much as you prepared a deponent, sometimes it does not go your way, and the deponent insists not competently and correctly testified to the issues that counsel has gone over with him. Mostly in the situation that we had at Bosco's depo where the Vietnamese Interpreter (whom was supposedly VOLAWFIRM TELEPHONE: FACSiMILE: dave@thevolawfirm.com

15 VO LAW firm, APLC certified) was misinterpreting a lot of your office's questions and Bosco's answers to them. For that reasons, Bosco misunderstood some of your office's questions. To avoid such problem from occurring again, my office respectfully requests that your office set up a different certified Vietnamese Interpreter for the continual depo of Bosco set for May 29, Hopefully everything will be more smoother that day. As for your contention that my clients' objections to the production of documents listed in your client's notice of deposition are improper, my office entirely disagreed. At this point in the litigation and through all the discovery performed by the parties, my clients had produced all the documents that they have in their possession that are relevant to the issues that will be tried in this case. My clients are not withholding any documents that are relevant from your client as your office is contending. For the above reasons, my clients' objections stand as is. Of course, if your office wishes to make an issue out of a minuet or non-issue, and burden the court with unnecessary motions, then my office can only deal with it when the time comes. Letter Re: Meet and Confer Under LA Local Rule 3.57, dated May 23, 2013 After conversing with you yesterday, my office did check with the department clerk to confirm whether pretrial documents are due 14 days from the FSC date, and it is due on May 30,2013. As you are aware, and I want to give you a heads up so don't think that my office or clients are conspiring or intending to prejudice your client's case in any way, I am in trial right now on another matter and there is a good chance that the trial will not end until late next week. Thus, there is a chance that my office will not be able to file all of our pretrial documents by the above due date. With that said, my office will do our best to meet and confer with your office regarding the pretrial documents. At this point, and without the parties exchanging their exhibits list yet, it is very hard for my office to know exactly all of Motion in Limine (M.LL.) that my office would be filing as we do not know what evidences your client intends to admit at trial. Thus, my office reserves the right to provide additional M.LL. once the parties exchanged their exhibits list. However, at this time, my office anticipates filing the following M.LL.: 1) Motion to Bifurcate the Equitable Reliefs from the Legal Reliefs. 2) Motion to Bifurcate the Punitive Damages Issue. 3) Motion to Exclude Any Evidences Not Produce During Discovery and Prior to Trial. As for your client's anticipated M.LL., it is duly noted, but I would only make a comment on your client's anticipated M.I.L. on the expert witness, Armando Dupont, and the reasons your client stated. First, the reports provided with the designation of expert witness was provided during discovery and, in fact, your office has possession of it since the commencement of this lawsuit, so it certainly not a document of surprise to your office and client. For the your office allegation of untimely designation of the expert witness, please note that it was prepared and signed on April 28, 2013 (Sunday), but apparently, my secretary did not get to it and sent it out until April 30, 2013 (Tuesday). As you know, since the due date falls on the weekend, the document is not really due until the following Monday (April 29, 2013) - one day 2

16 VO LAW FllRM, APLC difference, so if your office wants to make a big deal about it, then my office will deal with it when the time comes. With respect to the other pretrial documents, my office suggests the followings: 1) Short Statement ofthe Case - if your office can prepare it and it to my office, I will take a look at it and revise it from there if necessary. 2) Joint Witness List - my office will prepare it and will it to your office within the next few days; whereupon, your office can add your witnesses onto the list. 3) Proposed jury instructions and verdict forms - since my client's claims are equitable claims and your client is party requesting a jury trial, then your office will have to prepare it and send it to my office for review. Ifmy office has any objections to any of the proposed instructions or verdict forms, we will contact you. 4) Exhibit List - my office suggests that each party prepares their own exhibit list instead of ajoint one. Since my clients are the Plaintiffs, we will take number 1 to 100, and your client would take 101 and up. Other than the above pretrial docs, if my office is missing any other docs, please contact us on it to discuss. Thanks! Letter Re: Meet and Confer Re: Supplemental Discovery Response Verification, dated May 23, 2013 First, thank you for sending your client's verifications to the supplemental responses to my clients' supplemental discovery requests! As for the missing verification of Sonny's further responses to the Form Interrogatories, it was an inadvertency on my office. We thought it was already sent to your office at the time of serving the further responses. My office's apology. My office will send you the verification within the next few days, if not earlier. Letter Re: Meet and Confer Re: Conformance With Court's 4/30/2013 Awarding Attorney's Fees As you know, on the Court's order of April 30, 2013, there is no indication of when the Plaintiffs and my office must pay the attorney's fees award. Besides that point, pursuant to the Rutter Guide and CCP, an award of attorney's fees is enforced in the same manner as enforcing a judgment, so your statement that your office will request the Court for an OSC Re: Contempt and sanctions in an improper method of enforcing an attorney's fees award. I suggest your office re-iook at the Rutter Guide and the CCP on said issue, and ifmy office is wrong, we will surely apologize. 3

17 vo LAW FIRM, APLC Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the foregoing matter, please feel free to contact my office. Very Truly Yours, VO LAW FIRM, APLC By: Dave Vo, Esq. Attorney at Law PDV/pdv 4

18 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I, Christina Sanchez, am employed in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, 4 California. I am over the age eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200, Long Beach, California On May 30, 2013, I served the foregoing document(s) described as 6 MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5: TO EXCLUDE UNDESIGNATED EXPERT WITNESSES 7 AND UNDISCLOSED EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND REPORTS 8 on the interested parties in this action by placing [ ] the original 9 [X] a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: 10 Dave Vo, Esq. 11 VO LAW FIRM Prince Drive, Suite Huntington Beach, CA (BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the 14 U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Long Beach, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party 15 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. 16 Executed on May 30, 2013, at Long Beach, California ll ~ (PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on May 30, 2013, at Long Beach, California. (OVERNIGHT MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery by UPS/FED-EX. Under the practice it would be deposited with a facility regularly maintained by UPS/FED-EX for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope was sealed and placed for collection and delivery by UPS/FED-EX with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance. Executed on May 30, 2013, at Long Beach, California. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of the member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was m(j;a~'v ' ~ 1I[fI;;r?; L J1 D t. CHRIST [SANCIJt2f 28 7