Yura - RT Proceedings

1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
HON. RICHARD E. RICO, JUDGE
4
5
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
6
7
Plaintiff,
v.
8
KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE, ET AL.,
9
Defendants.
10
)
)
)
)
)
) No. BC286924
)
)
)
)
)
)
11
12
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13
AUGUST 27, 2012
14
15
A P P E A R A N C E S:
16
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
BLECHER & COLLINS

BY: HOWARD K. ALPERIN, ESQ.
T. GIOVANNI ARBUCCI, ESQ.
Suite 1750
515 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MILLER LLP
BY: AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
City National Plaza Suite 2150
515 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ATKINSON-BAKER, INC.
25
26
COURT REPORTERS
(800) 288-3376
www.depo.com
27
REPORTED BY:
28
FILE NO. A607FBD
MARGARET McVEY,
CSR NO. 4746
CASE NUMBER:
BC286924
CASE NAME:
GAGGERO V. KNAPP
LOS ANGELES, CA
August 27, 2012
DEPARTMENT 17
APPEARANCES:
(AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
REPORTER:
MARGARET MCVEY, CSR NO. #4746
TIME:
8:48 A.M.
8
9
10
THE COURT:
All right, on Gaggero versus Knapp,
Petersen.
11
MR. ARBUCCI:
Your Honor, Mr. Alperin, who is doing
12
the argument on this motion, is in another hearing in
13
Department 50.
14
as he can, and we can, perhaps, put it off until he gets
15
here?
He said he's going to be down here as soon
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. ARBUCCI:
All right.
Thank you, your Honor.
18
19
20
(A recess was taken while other unrelated

matters were heard by the Court.)
21
22
THE COURT:
23
MS. WAKILY:
24
25
26
27
28
On Gaggero versus Knapp, Petersen.

Good morning, Austa Wakily appearing
for defendants Knapp, Petersen, and Clarke.

MR. ALPERIN:
Good morning, your Honor, Howard
Alperin for the Plaintiff, Stephen Gaggero.

THE COURT:
All right.
This is a motion to compel.
I believe I've spoken with the attorneys about this
before.
Do you wish to be heard?
MR. ALPERIN:
I guess, being the Plaintiff, given
the nature of the tentative, I'd like to be heard, your
Honor.
THE COURT:
looked it over.
the stuff.
All right, just briefly, because I have

Seems to me they're entitled to some of
MR. ALPERIN:
Well, I'll listen to the Court's
10
direction on this, your Honor, but seeking trust formation
11
documents that are not within our client's control --
12
13
14
THE COURT:
Well, just giving them to an accountant
doesn't make them out of your client's control.

MR. ALPERIN:
He's not an accountant, your Honor.
15
He's a professional trustee.
16
states in his declaration -- it's not refuted -- that
17
Mr. Gaggero does not have the documents, has never had the
18
documents.
19
And Mr. Praske clearly
They've served the subpoena on Mr. Praske.
20
They've not followed through with that.
21
are not within our client's care, custody, and control.
22
He's testified in his declaration he's never had them.
23
The statements by his prior counsel at the hearing
24
attached to the declaration --
25
26
27
28
THE COURT:
Okay.
These documents
Let me stop you there.
So what
do you say?
MS. WAKILY:
Your Honor, they haven't stated in the
declaration that Mr. Gaggero has attempted to get the
documents from Mr. Praske or that Mr. Praske is not his
estate planning attorney.
testified in the underlying lawsuit as a witness for the
Plaintiff.
5
6
7
THE COURT:
That's his role.
All right.
That's fine.
And he
There you go.
So that's what I'm faced with when I read these things.

MR. ALPERIN:
I understand that, your Honor.
We've
stated in the opposition that no one is relying upon these
documents.
At the trial they relied upon other documents.
10
That's a matter of public record.
11
defendant's counsel is seeking these documents, as we
12
state, for purposes of their collection in another matter,
13
not for this matter.
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. ALPERIN:
Plaintiff's --
And secondarily, your Honor --
Well --- with regard to these documents, the
16
broad scope of the request, it's not a function of the
17
trust formation documents, which Mr. Praske has an
18
obligation to protect beneficiaries and trustees, that
19
Mr. Gaggero is not a beneficiary as testified.
20
THE COURT:
Let me stop you there because we can
21
just go on and on.
22
face value, and that's the reason I'm ruling the way I'm
23
going to rule.
24
there's no way, no how we can get the documents, and the
25
other side will be entitled to evidentiary sanctions which
26
I will impose.
27
28
Look -- so, taking what you say at
Fine.
MR. ALPERIN:
You want to put in your declaration
And we've placed that in our papers,
your Honor.
THE COURT:
Then that's what will happen.
But first
we have to go through this process here.
request, I grant it.
there's nothing we can do, under oath, et cetera, et
cetera, in the responses to discovery, then I will grant
them eventual evidentiary sanctions upon what your client
can and cannot say during the course of the trial.
simple.
MR. ALPERIN:
They make the
You say no way, no how we have them,
Very
Then I would respectfully request,
10
your Honor, that we have an opportunity to provide
11
supplemental responses in view of the Court's order.
12
THE COURT:
I'm granting their request.
If you want
13
to give them now some stuff and some documents and some
14
information, that's fine, and we'll see how far it goes.
15
And they can make a request that you -- well, I'm not
16
going to speculate as to what they're going to do.
17
let's see what happens.
18
But
But I think at first cut, they're entitled to
19
this information, the way I see it.
20
to respond to that.
21
position is.
22
MR. ALPERIN:
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. ALPERIN:
Okay?
And you do your best
I mean I understand what your
Well -Just let it go at that.

-- secondarily, your Honor, I'd like
25
to address the issue of sanctions in that, you know, we
26
produced as we stated.
27
THE COURT:
28
MR. ALPERIN:
All right.
And that --
1
2
THE COURT:
Well, I'm not big on sanctions, so -- at
first cut.
What do you say to that, Counsel?
MS. WAKILY:
Your Honor, the conduct in this case, I
think, clearly warrants sanctions.
They gave us an
amended privilege log after six weeks, and all they did
was insert the words "Gaggero versus Yura" in each entry,
and there was no reason for that level of delay.
We spent a lot of time trying to get them to
10
cooperate and produce all these documents and supplement
11
the amended privilege log months ago, and all it's done is
12
cost our client a lot of money, and especially the very
13
disorganized document production and the failure to
14
identify documents that are responsive.
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. ALPERIN:
17
That's right.
I forgot about that.
But I'd like to address that, your
Honor.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. ALPERIN:
Sure.
Go ahead.
Two specific events on that:
Our lead
20
paralegal that was handling this case -- I know it still
21
falls on the attorney -- but he was engaged in an
22
eight-week trial in Santa Barbara in which half our office
23
was engaged, so there's a legitimate reason that there was
24
some delay in there.
25
We produced the --
26
THE COURT:
27
MR. ALPERIN:
28
Honor.
Well -No.
It's a legitimate factor, your
I'm not making light of it.
I have never told
Ms. Wakily that we were not going to give her an amended
privilege log, but it takes time to put the stuff
together.
THE COURT:
Again, sorry to interrupt, but what
about the manner in which the documents were produced?
Because I was going to come up with a different solution,
but --
8
9
MR. ALPERIN:
Well, we stated very clearly in the
declarations, your Honor -- and I've tried to address this
10
to the Court -- Mr. Gaggero provided to his counsel,
11
Mr. Chatfield, the documents; the documents were provided
12
to us in the way they were kept in the ordinary care, and
13
that's the way they were produced except for the documents
14
that were withheld on the basis of the privilege log that
15
were identified in the privilege log.
16
And we have specifically stated -- and it's in
17
one of the exhibits from Ms. Peters from our office --
18
that no documents have been withheld on any basis that's
19
not asserted on the privilege log, so it was basically
20
from one place to another to production.
21
THE COURT:
22
MS. WAKILY:
Well, okay.
What do you say?
That makes all of this even more
23
confusing.
24
withheld and they're identified in the privilege log, but
25
I can't tell from reviewing this where those documents
26
are.
27
28
I mean they're saying financial documents are
All that it says is "Gaggero vs. Yura

Litigation," so -- and there's nothing withheld on -- I
have no idea what's being withheld at this point.
And Ms. Peters states that the -- by the
documents withheld, financial documents are identified in
the privilege log.
find out where those documents are.
MR. ALPERIN:
I cannot -- I've looked and I cannot
Your Honor, to the extent that
Ms. Wakily is saying what I said in chambers about
Mr. Praske, his testimony, when we reset the hearing date
on this, Ms. Wakily said that she would sent me a new
10
meet-and-confer letter regarding the amended privilege
11
log.
12
still don't know from the motion what is being complained
13
of in the privilege log.
14
privilege log that need to be addressed, we'll address
15
them.
16
No letter was sent until the motion was filed, and I
THE COURT:
But if there are issues with the
Let's do this.
As I said I'm not big on
17
sanctions, but I do set them out to encourage the parties
18
to -- well, I guess -- further meet and confer.
19
But as to the substance of my tentative, I'm
20
going to stick with it.
I'll strike the sanctions at this
21
point.
22
out this issue with the privilege log.
But you're ordered to meet and confer and figure
23
Also, I'm still not convinced about the way
24
the documents were kept, quite frankly.
I understand what
25
you're saying.
26
about that.
27
still an issue regarding the privilege log and/or the
28
manner in which these documents were produced, then I'll
But you're ordered to meet and confer
And if there is no resolution, if there's
reconsider the sanctions.
tentative will stand.
MS. WAKILY:
But the substance of my
That will be the Court's order.
I'm sorry to interrupt, your Honor.
Can I just get one clarification?
entries identified as an example, but we respectfully
request if the Court can extend that to all entries that
are undated or where there's an unknown author and where
applicable --
THE COURT:
I know that we have two
Meet and confer.
Let's get that
10
resolved.
If you can resolve it, great, there will be no
11
sanctions; if you can't resolve it and you have to come
12
back here, there will be.
13
MS. WAKILY:
14
MR. ALPERIN:
15
THE COURT:
16
Sounds good.
That be will the Court's order.
MS. WAKILY:
Yes, your Honor.
Notice
Is there a deadline
for -THE COURT:
20
MR. ALPERIN:
What's a reasonable deadline, Counsel?

I'd like to digest this and meet with
co-counsel and --
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. ALPERIN:
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. ALPERIN:
26
19
21
Okay.
waived?
17
18
Simple as that.
30 days.
30 days?
30 days.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, your
Honor.
27
THE COURT:
28
MR. ALPERIN:
And do we have another date set?

Nothing on calendar other than, I
1
2
think, trial and a pretrial -THE COURT:
There's a post-mediation, post-mediation
status conference in November.
So unless there's some
problem with this, I'll see you then.
come back.
But if there is,
All right.
MR. ALPERIN:
THE COURT:

Thank you.
8
9
(The proceedings were concluded.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
4
5
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
6
7
Plaintiff,
v.
8
KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE, ET AL.,
9
Defendants.
10
)
)
)
)
)
) No. BC286924
)
) Reporter's
) Certificate
)
)
)
11
12
I, MARGARET MCVEY, official reporter of the
13
Superior Court of the State of California, for the
14
County of Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the
15
foregoing pages, 1 through 9, inclusive, comprise a
16
full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings
17
held and the testimony taken in the above-entitled
18
matter on August 27, 2012.
19
DATED THIS September 4, 2012.
20
21
22
23
24
25
__________________________
MARGARET MCVEY, CSR #4746
OFFICIAL REPORTER
26
27
28
11
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
5
6
7
8
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
No. BC286924
9
10
11
12
13
14
Friday, February 15, 2013
15
16
17
18
(Appearances on next page.)
19
20
21
22
23
COURT REPORTERS
24
(800) 288-3376
25
www.depo.com
26
27
28
DANA L. SHELLEY, RPR, CSR #10177

FILE NO. A701C5B
OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEM
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Blecher & Collins

BY:
Maxwell M. Blecher
Howard K. Alperin
Kristen M. Peters
515 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA
90071
(213) 622-4222
For Defendant:
Miller LLP
BY:
Randall A. Miller
Austa Wakily
Jonathan A. Feldheim
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA
90071
(800) 720-2126
For Peter Bezek:
Kaufman Dolowich Voluck &

Gonzo
By:
Nancy Lucas Ezzell
11755 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA
90025
(310) 775-6531
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case Number:
BC286924
Case Name:
Gaggero vs. Knapp Petersen
Department: 17
Hon. Richard E. Rico
Reporter:
Dana Shelley, RPR, CSR #10177
Los Angeles, California
Friday, February 15, 2013
Time:
9:09 a.m.
Appearances:
(As heretofore noted.)
8
9
10
THE COURT:
MR. MILLER:
15
Good morning, your Honor.
MS. WAKILY:
Austa Wakily for defendants; Miller
LLP.
MR. FELDHEIM:
Jonathan Feldheim, also for
16
defendants, your Honor.
17
MS. EZZELL:
18
19
Randy
Miller, from Miller LLP, for Defendants.
13
14
On Gaggero vs. Knapp
Petersen.
11
12
All right.
Nancy
Ezzell on behalf the purported deponent, Peter Bezek.

MR. BLECHER:
Maxwell
20
Blecher, Howard Alperin, and Kristen Peters, all for the
21
plaintiff.
22
THE COURT:
23
24
25
26
27
28
Good morning, everyone.
All right.
judgment.
So this is a motion for summary
Have you seen the court's tentative?

Anybody wish to be heard?
MS. WAKILY:
Yes, your Honor.
With respect to the Court's ruling on the

summary adjudication, I'd like to point out that the
Page 1
notice of motion is actually specifically noticed for
summary adjudication.
And with respect to the breach of fiduciary
duty claim, No. 4 on the list of grounds for this motion
specifically states that the summary adjudication is
based on the ground that the plaintiff fails to plead
any cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against
the defendant.
9
10
THE COURT:
MR. BLECHER:
All right.
Any response?
The notice is for summary judgment
11
only, your Honor.
12
adjudication," which is not adequate to inform the other
13
side of the actual motion.
14
gets it right.
15
THE COURT:
Only the caption says "summary
Yeah.
So we believe your tentative
Usually, I see these things --
16
and indeed, you can go to the Rutter book and find
17
you're supposed to have it all set forth in the notice
18
so that the Court can understand and the other side can
19
understand what the actual issues are.
20
MS. WAKILY:
Your Honor, the statute that is
21
actually referenced in the notice of motion is
22
437(c)(f), and that's the statute that's --
23
THE COURT:
24
you want to say?
25
MS. WAKILY:
26
THE COURT:
27
28
I know the statute.
Your Honor, the other -I'm more concerned with the other
ones, actually, quite frankly.

MS. WAKILY:
So what else do
But what else?
Just to stay on that point for one
Page 2
moment, the plaintiffs were not prejudiced in any way by
the notice.
merits that there was a breach of fiduciary duty claim.
However, they failed to identify any intent
They did argue in their opposition on the
on the part of any of the defendants to support their
claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
simply repeat their claims of negligence, which is
insufficient.
9
10
THE COURT:
All right.
Instead, they
Anything else you want to
address?
11
MS. WAKILY:
With respect to the others, your
12
Honor, we don't believe that there's any admissible
13
evidence to support the claim for negligence as to the
14
defendants, particularly with respect to causation and
15
damages.
16
As of the date of this hearing, your Honor,
17
there's not one single evidence that plaintiff
18
personally suffered any damages.
19
continuing to assert the right to privacy and is
20
refusing to provide those documents.
21
THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Gaggero is
Well, I think I explained how
22
we're going to handle that later on at trial, but go
23
ahead.
24
25
26
27
28
Do you want to respond?

MR. BLECHER:
I don't want to take up any time
unless you have questions, your Honor.

THE COURT:
summary judgment.
No.
I don't think this is a case for
You may be right, and you can file --
Page 3
I mean, make a motion for nonsuit at the end; but I
think it has to at least get to that point first,
frankly.
The Court adopts its tentative.
You give notice.
MR. BLECHER:
THE COURT:
8
9
10
11
12

Where do we stand now on the next
court dates?
MR. BLECHER:
MR. MILLER:
Well -Your Honor --
I'm sorry.
MR. BLECHER:
Go ahead, Max.
I wanted to take up the -- there's a
13
March 4th hearing which was set on a motion for
14
evidentiary sanctions.
15
You may recall that last Friday you heard
16
the parties -- the defendant tried to advance that date
17
from March 4th to today.
18
you suggested that that motion was too close to trial
19
for you ordinarily to grant it.
20
suggested they file an in limine motion.
21
You rejected that.
I think
I think you also
Our understanding is that the defendant
22
still believes the matter is calendared for full hearing
23
on March 4th.
24
THE COURT:
Okay.
What I did -- okay.
I know
25
what I did, which is, I rejected an ex parte application
26
to move things forward.
27
is properly -- as long as it's properly noticed, I'll
28
entertain the motion.
As to whether or not the motion
Page 4
I may just say do what you suggest -- or
what I may have suggested, which is maybe it's a motion
in limine; but parties are entitled to do so under the
code.
realize that.
So if it's a properly noticed motion, it
goes forward.
And I believe it is.
I just follow the code, Counsel.
You should all
All I did is, on ex parte, which is what I
do generally, is -- I do not like ex partes, and I do
not grant them unless there is really ex parte reason
10
for doing so; that is, some sort of an emergency:
11
Somebody is dead or dying, or there's some extreme
12
circumstance under which to grant an ex parte.
13
was none in that case, and I told counsel that.
14
15
So we'll see what happens.

MR. MILLER:
There
Okay.
There was another matter on calendar
16
for today, your Honor.
17
by plaintiffs.
It was a motion to quash brought
It's been fully briefed.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. MILLER:
That I don't see.

Yeah, that's what I suspected because
20
I didn't see a tentative, and I didn't see it on the
21
calendar.
22
to your calendar today.
23
So I suspected this may not have made its way
It was actually -- the hearing date was the
24
subject of an ex parte, in which the hearing was
25
advanced, I think, from the 28th until today.
26
to do with the deposition of one of Mr. Gaggero's
27
attorneys, Peter Bezek.
28
the courtroom today, Nancy Ezzell, and we were prepared
This has
And he's got counsel here in
Page 5
to argue that.
It doesn't look like --
THE COURT:
MR. MILLER:
THE COURT:
the calendar.
THE COURT:
10
MR. MILLER:
You may still find it on the 28th.

Yeah, I see it on the 28th.
It was to be advanced, pursuant to
the ruling at the ex parte --
12
14
-- so I don't know whether it is on
(Discussion held off the record.)

MR. MILLER:
13
-- the Court has that on its radar.
Let me just see.
11
It didn't make it here --
THE COURT:
Somehow we missed it.
Sorry about
that.
MR. MILLER:
Okay.
It is an important issue.
15
We'd like it heard as soon as possible.
16
came in on the ex parte to have it advanced.
17
obviously, we're prepared to deal with it.
18
way we can --
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. MILLER:
21
THE COURT:
22
23
That's why we
And
Is there a
I guess the discovery can't -- sorry.

Go ahead.
The discovery can't be completed until
that's taken care of; right?

MR. MILLER:
Well, it's an important issue for a
24
number of bases.
25
the motion to quash.
26
pending.
27
from going forward at all, and so we're in limbo.
28
It's explained in our opposition to

The deposition is obviously still
The motion to quash effectively prevented it
Ms. Ezzell, who can speak for herself with
Page 6
respect to her client's position, has documents to
review and, depending on the Court's ruling on privilege
issues, has some leg work to do before the deposition
even can take place.
THE COURT:
MR. MILLER:
THE COURT:
calendar.
So there's some urgency.
Yeah, I do remember it now.

Yeah.
Unfortunately, it just missed the
Okay.
MS. EZZELL:
Your Honor, I was not served with the
10
opposition papers.
11
had, I think I would have filed something in response to
12
them.
13
this morning in court, but I had not seen them before
14
today.
15
I represent Peter Bezek.
And if I
Mr. Miller was good enough to let me review his
THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I'm not going to
16
entertain it now, so I'm just trying to give you another
17
date.
18
Well, next Friday, I suppose.
19
22nd.
20
following week.
21
That's the
If you need a little bit more time, sometime the
MR. MILLER:
You all tell me.

Well, we'd like it heard as soon as
22
possible because it's holding up this deposition, which
23
is an important deposition.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. MILLER:
Okay.
I think the only issue would be to
26
give Ms. Ezzell enough time to file whatever she wants,
27
now that she's read the opposition.
28
THE COURT:
Would that give you enough time, or do
Page 7
you want me to give you more time?
till the following week, the 25th or 26th.
you want?
4
5
MS. EZZELL:
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor, I'll accommodate the
The 22nd is good for the defense,
your Honor.
8
9
Which one do
Court and the other parties.
6
7
I can put it over
THE COURT:
22nd.
All right.
I'll put it over to the
And if you have something you want to put in
10
writing, do so, and just get it to me by Tuesday, the
11
19th.
12
13
MS. EZZELL:
THE COURT:
8:30, Friday.
Yeah, 8:30, Friday is
fine.
16
All right.
17
time I'll see you all.
18
8:30,
Friday?
14
15
Thank your, your Honor.
MS. EZZELL:
Then I guess that's the next
And if Mr. Miller's office could
19
email me or fax me a copy of the opposition to my
20
office, we'd appreciate that.
21
MR. MILLER:
We certainly will do that.
22
MS. EZZELL:
Thank you.
23
MR. MILLER:
Your Honor had inquired about
24
something else coming up on the calendar.
25
respond to that.
26
coming up on the 27th.
27
attending that.
28
I'm happy to
We do have an MSC with Judge Meisinger

So we're obviously planning on
We've got, obviously, a final status
Page 8
conference and a trial date set on this, as well --
THE COURT:
MR. MILLER:
4
5
6
7
Right.
-- and the schedule is getting quite
compacted by some of these discovery issues.

THE COURT:
All right.
on the issues that -MR. BLECHER:
I have a conflict on the 4th on that
evidentiary hearing.
out a date during that week?
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. WAKILY:
12
MR. BLECHER:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. BLECHER:
15
THE COURT:
16
MS. EZZELL:
17
THE COURT:
18
Would it be all right if we worked
Yes.
That's fine, yes.
Thank you.
Let me check.
It's March 4th?
Yes.
That's the Monday?
Okay.
We'll submit something to your Honor.

Just submit something in writing.
That's fine.
19
MR. BLECHER:
20
THE COURT:
21
I'm going to listen to you
Thank you.
I can work with you on that.
that's fine.
22
MR. BLECHER:
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. WAKILY:
Thank you.
25
MR. MILLER:
26
Yeah,

All right.
Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded at 9:19 A.M.)
27
28
Page 9
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
5
6
7
8
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
No. BC286924
9
10
11
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
12
13
I, Dana L. Shelley, RPR, CSR No. 10177, do
14
hereby certify that the foregoing pages, 1 through 9,
15
comprise a full, true, and correct transcript of the
16
proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on Friday,
17
February 15, 2013.
18
Dated February 24, 2013.
19
20
___________________________
Official Reporter Pro Tem
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 10
DEPARTMENT 17
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, AN
INDIVIDUAL,
)
)
TRANSCRIPT OF
)
HEARING
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
VS.
)
HON.
)
RICHARD E. RICO
KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE,
)
JUDGE
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;
)
STEVEN RAY GARCIA, AN
)
INDIVIDUAL; STEPHEN M.
) CASE NO. BC286924
HARRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL; ANDRE
)
JARDINI, AN INDIVIDUAL; DOES
)
1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
______________________________)
13
14
FEBRUARY 22, 2013
15
16
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
17
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

BLECHER & COLLINS
BY:
MAXWELL M. BLECHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
-ANDKRISTEN M. PETERS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
515 S. FIGUEROA ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
18
19
20
22
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

MILLER, LLP
BY:
JONATHAN A. FELDHEIM, ATTORNEY AT LAW
515 S. FLOWER ST., #2150, LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
23
-AND-
24
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO, LLP

BY:
NANCY LUCAS EZZELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
11755 WILSHIRE BLVD., #2400, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
21
25
26
27
JESSICA DAVIS, CSR 12646

REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
28
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2013
MORNING SESSION
(PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT:)
4
5
THE COURT:
MR. FELDHEIM:
MS. EZZELL:
Nancy Ezzell
for Peter Besack.
10
11
Good morning, Jonathan Feldheim for
the defendants.
8
9
Stephen M. Gaggero vs. Knapp.
MR. BLECHER:
Maxwell
Blecher and Kristen Peters for the plaintiff.
12
THE COURT:
All right.
The motion to quash.
13
have seen the court's tentative?
14
everything pretty succinctly.
15
know, I've already talked about these issues before, but
16
whatever.
17
Anybody?
18
MS. EZZELL:
You
I think I have explained
Do you wish to be heard?
You
Your Honor, I just have a point of
19
clarification.
20
attorney-client documents and I didn't understand until when
21
we were here last week and I saw the defendants' opposition,
22
that they were all also taking the position that the
23
work-product privilege has been waived because --
24
Your tentative discusses only the
THE COURT:
Well, if the attorney-client privilege
25
is waived, then the other is the more difficult one to
26
overcome.
27
28
MR. EZZELL:
Well, the -- Mr. Besack is the holder
of the work-product privilege.
And the documents containing
1
2
his thoughts, impressions are absolutely privilege.

THE COURT:
No, they're work product, but under the
circumstances there isn't attorney-client.
privilege is not absolute.
MR. FELDHEIM:
The work-product
Well, first of all, I think the issue
is kind of moot because Mr. Gaggero himself has produced
Mr. Besack's work product in various capacities in other
document production already, your Honor, so --
9
10
THE COURT:
There you go.
its tentative.
11
You give notice.
12
MR. FELDHEIM:
13
MR. BLECHER:
14
THE COURT:
15
The court is going off
Thank you.
Your Honor --
I know.
Have a seat.
(proceedings concluded)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3
State of California
County of Los Angeles
)
)SS.
)
5
6
I, Jessica Davis, CSR 12646, Reporter Pro Tempore in
and for the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the foregoing
transcript is a true and correct transcript of my shorthand
10
notes, and is a full, true and correct statement of the
11
proceedings had in said cause.
12
13
Dated this 4th day of March, 2013.
14
15
16
________________________________________
JESSICA DAVIS, CSR 12646
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
3
4
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
5
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
)
)
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
VS.
) CASE NO. BC286924
)
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, A
)
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; STEVEN RAY
)
GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL; ANDRE JARDINI, )
AN INDIVIDUAL; DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
)
INCLUSIVE,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
______________________________________)
13
14
15
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2013
16
17
APPEARANCES:
18
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE

BY:
MAXWELL M. BLECHER, ESQ.
BY:
KRISTEN M. PETERS, ESQ.
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
SUITE 1750
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
90071-3334
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
MILLER
LLP
BY: JONATHAN FELDHEIM, ESQ
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
SUITE 2150
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA
90071
27
REPORTED BY:
ROSA M. SAMPLES
C.S.R. NO. 12383
28
JOB NO: A703B0F
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CASE NUMBER:
BC286924
CASE NAME:
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO VS. KNAPP,
PETERSEN AND CLARKE
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2013
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
APPEARANCES:
(AS HERETOFORE NOTED)
REPORTER:
ROSA SAMPLES, C.S.R. NO. 12383
TIME:
MORNING SESSION
9
10
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. BLECHER:
13
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
MAXWELL
BLECHER AND KRISTEN PETERS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
14
15
GAGGERO VERSUS KNAPP, PETERSEN.
MR. FELDHEIM:
YOUR HONOR, GOOD MORNING.
JONATHAN
FELDHEIM FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
16
MS. WAKILY:
17
THE COURT:
AUSTA WAKILY FOR DEFENDANTS.

GOOD MORNING.
ALL RIGHT.
THIS IS THE
18
MOTION FOR, I GUESS, CHANGE EXPERT WITNESSES.
19
OUTLINED -- MY PROBLEM IS YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME A REASON, AND
20
"A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE" ISN'T SUFFICIENT AS FAR AS I CAN
21
TELL FROM THE CODE, BUT I'M WILLING TO LISTEN TO YOU,
22
COUNSEL.
23
MR. BLECHER:
I THINK I
I'VE READ THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND
24
WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, AND I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THE
25
REASON WHICH WE OUTLINED WHICH BASICALLY IS THAT THERE WAS A
26
TENSION DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE WITNESS AS A
27
RESULT OF THE HONEYMOON MAY NOT BE THE MOST COGENT REASON;
28
ON THE OTHER HAND, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE KEY TO THIS IS
WE'RE SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM TRIAL.
INVESTMENT IN MR. JACOBSON.
THEY DIDN'T DO HIS DEPOSITION, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO PREJUDICE TO ALLOW A SUBSTITUTION AT
THIS STAGE.
6
7
8
9
10
THE COURT:
THE DEFENDANT HAD NO
THEY DID NO WORK-UP ON HIM.
ALL RIGHT.
LET ME -- WHAT'S YOUR
PREJUDICE?
MR. FELDHEIM:
YOUR HONOR, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO
DEPOSE JACOBSON, FOR TWO MONTHS NOW -THE COURT:
I UNDERSTAND, BUT OTHER THAN THAT
11
TRYING TO DEPOSE -- I GUESS, THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE YOU
12
THIS OTHER PERSON; RIGHT?
13
MR. FELDHEIM:
14
MR. BLECHER:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. FELDHEIM:
WELL -YES.
I JUST NEED SOMETHING, AND I DON'T -WELL, THAT'S JUST IT, YOUR HONOR.
17
WE'RE HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS.
18
ME THINK WHY CAN'T -- MY CLIENT DECIDE THEY WANT A DIFFERENT
19
EXPERT TOO AND JUST ASK FOR IT AND GET IT.
20
THESE COMPLICATED EXPERT COURT RULES FOR A REASON.
21
KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR JACOBSON FOR -- EVER SINCE
22
WE GOT THE DESIGNATION, WHEN THEY SAID, "WE'RE GOING TO USE
23
LAWRENCE JACOBSON."
24
PREPARING WITH THAT EXPERT IN MIND EVER SINCE --
25
THE COURT:
THERE'S NO REASON GIVEN THAT MAKES
WE SAID, "OKAY."
OKAY.
HOW'S THIS?
WE HAVE ALL
YOU
SO WE'VE BEEN
CAN YOU SHOW ME
26
SOMETHING?
27
SHOW ME SOMETHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER; SO THAT I COULD
28
MAKE A RULING.
IN OTHER WORDS, WELL, EITHER ONE OF YOU, CAN YOU
I MEAN, I PUT THIS OUT AS A TENTATIVE
BECAUSE I WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHERE I'M AT; AND AS FAR AS I'M
CONCERNED, I LAID IT OUT PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED HERE; AND I
THOUGHT I ELIMINATED THE PROBLEM BY SAYING "DON'T WORRY
ABOUT IT.
5
6
THERE'S A NEW TRIAL DATE."

MR. BLECHER:
COULD WE HAVE THREE DAYS TO FILE A
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT:
MR. FELDHEIM:
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, YOUR HONOR, I MEAN --
WELL, NO-NO-NO.
LET'S DO THIS.
I'LL
10
GIVE HIM THREE DAYS, BUT THEN I WANT YOU TO TELL ME YOUR
11
PREJUDICE, AND IF IT'S MONEY THAT WAS SPENT, IF IT WAS SOME
12
TIME THAT WAS SPENT, YOU GIVE ME THAT.
13
I'M GOING TO DO, I THINK --
14
MR. FELDHEIM:
AND YOU KNOW WHAT
WELL, I CAN TELL THE COURT RIGHT
15
NOW, YOUR HONOR, I'VE ALREADY SPENT SEVERAL HOURS INVESTING
16
IN A DEPOSITION OUTLINE FOR MR. JACOBSON, SPECIFICALLY.
17
18
THE COURT:
OKAY.
THERE WE GO.
AS COSTS, AND I WILL CONSIDER THAT.
19
YOU PUT THAT DOWN
ALL RIGHT?
SO AGAIN THAT'S WHAT I NEED.
I NEED REALLY
20
SOMETHING.
21
SIDES, QUITE FRANKLY.
22
DAYS.
I'LL PUT IT OVER UNTIL FRIDAY IF YOU WANT -- OR HOW'S
23
THIS?
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
24
BOTH SIDES, WITH CONCRETE EVIDENCE, AND IF IT'S FROM COST
25
BILL ON THE DEFENSE SIDE; AND FROM PLAINTIFF, A REAL REASON
26
WHY SOME INCAPACITY -- QUITE FRANKLY ON THE PART OF
27
MR. JACOBSON -- OR NOT INCAPACITY BUT SOMETHING AKIN AS TO A
28
BASIS FOR WHICH I WOULD RELIEVE THE PARTY AS COUNSEL.
RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, FROM BOTH

SO DO THAT.
I'LL PUT IT OVER THREE
FILE DECLARATIONS,
IT'S
THE SAME KIND OF ANALYSIS.
BREAKDOWN AND FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE"; SO YOU PUT THAT IN
THE DECLARATION, AND WE'LL PUT THIS OVER TO FRIDAY WHICH IS
THE 12TH.
MATTER UNDER SUBMISSION, AND THEN I'LL MAKE MY RULING.
HOW'S THAT?
NO.
FILE IT BY THE 12.
MR. BLECHER:
THE COURT:
AGAIN, I NEED MORE THAN "A
I'LL READ IT.
THAT'S FRIDAY.
YES.
GET THE DECLARATIONS IN HERE
DIRECTLY --
10
MR. BLECHER:
11
THE COURT:
I THINK THAT'S VERY FAIR.

GIVE IT TO EACH OTHER, AND LET ME LOOK
12
AT IT, AND THEN I WILL ISSUE A RULING.
13
CONSIDERED SUBMITTED ON THE 12TH.
14
15
16
TAKE THE
MR. BLECHER:
THANK YOU.
WE'LL HAVE IT
I THINK THAT'S ABUNDANTLY
FAIR.
MS. WAKILY:
YOUR HONOR, THERE'S ONE MORE ISSUE
17
THAT'S GOING TO COME UP.
18
MARCH 21ST IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARCH 20TH STATUS
19
CONFERENCE; AND ON MARCH 29TH, I BELIEVE, PLAINTIFF'S
20
COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE NOTICE OF RULING, AS TO THE -- AS TO
21
THE PORTION THAT SAYS, THE COURT CONTINUED THE HEARING DATE
22
ON DISCOVERY MOTION, I WAS THERE AT THE DISCOVERY -- I MEAN,
23
I WAS THERE AT THE STATUS CONFERENCE.
24
THE REQUEST, AND THE REASON WHY THE OBJECTION WAS FILED WAS
25
BECAUSE I HAD SENT TWO OR THREE MEET AND CONFER LETTERS
26
ABOUT -- LETTING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL KNOW THAT I WAS GOING
27
TO FILE A MOTION TO COMPEL.
28
GRANT MY REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE -- TO FILE THE MOTION TO
I SUBMITTED A NOTICE OF RULING ON
I'M THE ONE WHO MADE
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL DID NOT
COMPEL AND HAD REQUESTED THAT WE DISCUSS THAT HERE TODAY
WITH RESPECT TO THE COURT'S RULING ON MARCH 20TH.
THE COURT:
I THINK I'VE TOLD YOU ALL BEFORE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT DISCOVERY -- LOOK.
THESE THINGS ONE THING AT A TIME.
YOU WANT TO OPPOSE IT.
I'LL MAKE A RULING BASED ON WHATEVER --
MR. BLECHER:
THE COURT:
10
MS. WAKILY:
11
MR. BLECHER:
12
THE COURT:
I JUST DEAL WITH
YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION.
GO AHEAD, IF YOU SAY IT'S UNTIMELY,
THANK YOU.
THAT'S ALL.
OKAY.
THAT'S FAIR.
THAT'S BASICALLY -- BECAUSE THE EXPERT
13
DEPOSITIONS ARE BEING CONTINUED, OBVIOUSLY, I'M GOING TO
14
ALLOW DISCOVERY MOTIONS ON THAT AND THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES.
15
MR. FELDHEIM:
WELL, YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, WHEN
16
EXPERTS -- EXPERT DEPOSITIONS IS BEING CONTINUED, WHAT DOES
17
THAT MEAN BECAUSE --
18
THE COURT:
WELL, IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T ANSWER A
19
QUESTION AND YOU WANT TO -- DURING THE DEPOSITION AND YOU
20
WANT TO MAKE A CLAIM THAT THEY SHOULD BE FORCED TO ANSWER,
21
YES, FILE A MOTION, AND I WILL RULE ON IT ACCORDINGLY.
22
THAT'S ALL.
23
THAT'S A DISCOVERY MOTION.
MS. WAKILY:
YOUR HONOR, THE OTHER THING IS THERE
24
ARE PENDING REGULAR -- GENERAL DISCOVERY MOTIONS RIGHT NOW,
25
INCLUDING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SET ON APRIL --
26
27
28
THE COURT:
WELL, RECONSIDERATION IS DIFFERENT.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE; RIGHT?

MS. WAKILY:
IT WAS WITH RESPECT TO DISCOVERY
MOTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:
OKAY.
YES.
BUT, NONETHELESS, THAT
DOESN'T FALL INTO THE AMBIENT OF A NEW DISCOVERY MOTION.
IT'S REALLY JUST A CONTINUATION OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
MR. BLECHER:
THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT
THOSE MOTIONS THAT SHE'S NOW TRYING TO RESUSCITATE WITH
ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION DIED --
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
THE COURT:
TIME OUT.
CUFF.
AGAIN, THAT'S --
THAT'S WHY I DON'T RULE ON THOSE THINGS OFF THE
YOU ALL TELL ME -MR. BLECHER:
THAT'S FAIR.
I THINK WE CAN GET --
IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE.
THE COURT:
THAT'S WHAT I DO.
I'LL RULE ON IT
ACCORDINGLY.
15
MR. BLECHER:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. BLECHER:
18
WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY.
THANKS.
IT WAS NICE SEEING YOU AGAIN, EVERY
TWO WEEKS TODAY.
19
20
(THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED.)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
3
4
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
5
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
)
)
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
VS.
) CASE NO. BC286924
)
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, A
)
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; STEVEN RAY
)
GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL; ANDRE JARDINI, )
AN INDIVIDUAL; DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
)
INCLUSIVE,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
_____________________________________ )
13
REPORTER'S
CERTIFICATE
14
15
I, ROSA M. SAMPLES, C.S.R. NO. 12383, COURT
16
REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
17
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
18
FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL,
19
TRUE, AND CORRECT COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPT OF THE
20
PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON APRIL 8,
21
2013.
22
23
DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013.
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________
ROSA M. SAMPLES, C.S.R. 12383
PRO TEMPORE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
SUPERIOR COURT .OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES r CENTRAL DISTRICT
HON. RICHARD E. RICO r JUDGE
DEPARTMENT NO. i7
.STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
PLAINTIFF r
VS.
CASE NO. BC286924
9
10
KNAPP r PETERSEN & CLARKE r A

CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONj STEVEN RAY
GARCIA r AN INDIVIDUALj ANDRE JARDINIr
AN INDIVIDUALj DOES 1 THROUGH 50 r
INCLUSIVE r
11
DEFENDANTS.
12
REPORTER'S
CERTIFICArE
13
14
15
Ir ROSA M. SAMPLES r C.S.R.NO. 12383
COURT
16
REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA r
17
FOR THE COUNTY OF.LOSANGELES r DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
18
FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 6 r INCLUSIVE r COMPRISE A FULL r
19
TRUEr AND CORRECT
20
PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON APRIL 8 r
21
2013.
COMPUTER~AIDED
TRANSCRIPT OF THE
22
23
DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL r 2013.
24
25
26
27
28
PRO TEMPORE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
2
3

DEPARTMENT 17
4
5
STEPHEN GAGGERO,
6
7
8
9
10
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
M. HARRIS, AND ANDRE JARDINI,
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. BC286924
)
)
11
12
13
14
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013
15
16
17
18
19
COURT REPORTERS
(800) 288-3376
WWW.DEPO.COM
20
21
REPORTED BY: KAREN ALGORRI, CSR NO. 8319
22
FILE NO. A704F61
23
24
25
26
27
28
A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
FOR PLAINTIFF:
3
4
5
6
BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE

BY:
HOWARD K. ALPERIN AND KRISTEN
M. PETERS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
515 S. FIGUEROA ST., SUITE 1750
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
(213) 622-4222
7
FOR DEFENDANT:
8
9
10
MILLER LLP
BY:
AUSTA WAKILY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
515 S. FLOWER ST., SUITE 2150
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
(213) 493-6400
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NUMBER:
BC286924
CASE NAME:
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO VS. KNAPP
PETERSEN AND CLARKE
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013
DEPARTMENT NO. 17
HON. RICHARD E. RICO,
JUDGE
REPORTER:
8319
TIME:
KAREN ALGORRI, CSR NO.
A.M. SESSION
10
11
APPEARANCES:
12
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN GAGGERO, REPRESENTED
13
BY COUNSEL HOWARD K. ALPERIN AND
14
KRISTEN M. PETERS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW;
15
DEFENDANT KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE,
16
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AUSTA WAKILY,
17
ATTORNEY AT LAW; SPECIALLY APPEARING
18
FOR NON-PARTY, DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD,
19
ATTORNEY AT LAW
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ALPERIN:
ALPERIN AND KRISTEN PETERS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MS. WAKILY:
GOOD MORNING.
AUSTA WAKILY FOR THE
DEFENDANT.
THE COURT:
THIS IS HERE ON THE MOTIONS.
26
SEEN THE COURT'S TENTATIVE.
27
ANYTHING MORE TO BE SAID, BUT ANYTHING?
28
HOWARD
MR. ALPERIN:
YOU HAVE
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS
IF I COULD BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
I APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT'S
TENTATIVE, AND I JUST THINK THAT GIVEN THE RECORD THAT
WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT ON THIS, IS THE COURT'S ORDER
LIMITED TO THESE DISCOVERY ISSUES, OR HAS THE COURT
REOPENED FACT DISCOVERY?
THE COURT:
MR. ALPERIN:
THE COURT:
OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT IS UNCLEAR.
I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR LAST TIME.
WHATEVER WAS OUTSTANDING LAST TIME WAS OPEN TO DEBATE.
10
THIS DISCOVERY WAS OUTSTANDING LAST TIME, OPEN TO
11
DEBATE.
12
ET CETERA; RIGHT?
13
LAST TIME, BUT YOU DON'T SEEM TO GET IT.
IT WAS OPEN TO COUNSEL MAKING MOTIONS,
14
MR. ALPERIN:
15
THE COURT:
16
17
18
19
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I MADE CLEAR
IT'S NOT -ENOUGH THEN, SO I THINK IT'S CLEAR.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

MR. ALPERIN:
AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT -THE COURT:
I'M NOT SAYING START DISCOVERY ALL
20
OVER AGAIN, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, DOING THINGS THAT WERE
21
BEYOND THE SCOPE, BUT I THINK THAT THINGS THAT WERE
22
OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME THAT THIS WHOLE ISSUE AROSE
23
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED AND COMPLETED TO THEIR
24
LOGICAL CONCLUSION.
25
MR. ALPERIN:
26
THE COURT:
27
MR. ALPERIN:
28
OKAY.
AND THAT'S -- MY TENTATIVE SAYS SO.
OKAY.
I DON'T WANT TO BE FACED, AS
THE PLAINTIFF SAID, WITH A NEW ROUND OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTIONS, A NEW SET OF DISCOVERY AND SUCH THAT --
2
3
THE COURT:
DON'T KNOW.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
5
6
MS. WAKILY:
THE COURT:
IT.
NEVER ASKED FOR IT.
NOT GOING TO GET
END OF STORY.
9
10
I NEVER ASKED FOR FACT DISCOVERY TO
BE REOPENED.
7
8
I ASSUME THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT I
COURT ADOPTS ITS TENTATIVE.

MS. PETERS:
YOUR HONOR, CAN I JUST BRING UP ONE
11
MORE ISSUE RELATED TO THE EXPERT DEPOSITION OF CHRIS
12
ROLAND THAT WE'VE SCHEDULED FOR MAY 24TH?
13
ORDER ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO PAY FOR THE DEPOSITION, AND
14
WE WOULD JUST REQUEST THAT THAT BE LIMITED TO ONE
15
SEVEN-HOUR DAY THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
16
PAYING FOR.
17
THE COURT:
THE COURT'S
WELL, HE'S -- YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
18
PAYING WHATEVER IT TAKES.
19
UNNECESSARILY DELAYING IT, YOU CAN ASK A REQUEST FROM
20
THE COURT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT OFFHAND.
21
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
IF THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT
22
GOING SEVEN HOURS -- I DON'T SEE THAT, BUT CONCEIVABLY
23
IF THERE'S A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT, THEN SO BE IT.
24
MS. WAKILY:
25
MR. ALPERIN:
26
MS. WAKILY:
27
28
THAT'S FAIR.

YOUR HONOR, ONE MORE QUESTION.
CAN I
GET A DEADLINE FOR THESE RESPONSES?

THE COURT:
HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, COUNSEL?
1
2
MR. ALPERIN:
YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE
TENTATIVE.
I'M IN COURT WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF OUR
FIRM, AND MS. PETERS IS OUR OFFICE PERSON ON THE CASE.
WE'RE GOING TO BE IN TRIAL IN DEPARTMENT 57 FOR ABOUT
TWO WEEKS.
TO GET THIS DONE.
IF WE CAN HAVE THREE AND A HALF, FOUR WEEKS,
THE COURT:
MR. ALPERIN:
10
THE COURT:
11
MS. WAKILY:
12
13
30 DAYS.
MUCH APPRECIATED, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.
BACK FOR YESTERDAY, THE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER.

MR. ALPERIN:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. ALPERIN:
17
THE COURT:
18
WHAT YOU PLEASE.
19
MR. ALPERIN:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. ALPERIN:
22
THE COURT:
24
OKAY.
THERE WAS ONE ISSUE YOU ASKED US TO COME
14
23
THERE ARE QUITE A FEW REQUESTS THERE.
AM I ALLOWED TO TAKE THE TENTATIVE?

SURE.
THAT'S YOURS.
SOME COURTS TAKE THEM RIGHT BACK.

THAT'S YOURS TO KEEP AND DO WITH IT
CHERISH.
YES.
THANK YOU.
COUNSEL, DID YOU WORK OUT SOMETHING ON
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER?

MS. WAKILY:
YOUR HONOR, I DON'T BELIEVE WE
25
REACHED AN AGREEMENT.
26
INSISTING ON SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT THIS COURT
27
REJECTED, INCLUDING THE MOTION -- OR THE SEALING OF
28
RECORDS.
I THINK MR. CHATFIELD WAS
I DID DRAFT A SEPARATE ONE, AND I GAVE IT
TO HIM YESTERDAY.
BELIEVE THAT WILL PROTECT ANY ISSUES RELATING TO
CONFIDENTIALITY THAT MIGHT BE OF CONCERN FOR THE
THIRD-PARTY WITNESSES RELATING TO ANY FINANCIAL
DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION.
I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM HIM, BUT I
MR. CHATFIELD:
YOUR HONOR, I SUBMITTED TO THE
COURT -- THIS IS DAVID CHATFIELD ON BEHALF OF JOSEPH
PRASKE.
10
I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT A PROPOSED ORDER WHERE
I --
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. ALPERIN:
13
THE COURT:
14
MS. WAKILY:
15
MR. ALPERIN:
WELL, WHEN DID YOU DO THIS?
TODAY?
YES, TODAY.
WELL, I HAVEN'T READ IT YET.
I HAVEN'T READ IT EITHER, YOUR HONOR.
WHERE I INCORPORATED ALL OF
16
MS. WAKILY'S CONCERNS AND THE COURT'S CONCERNS.
I TOOK
17
OUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH ATTORNEYS' FEES.
I TOOK
18
OUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SEALING DOCUMENTS.
19
MS. WAKILY:
20
THE COURT:
21
I HAVEN'T HAD A -TIME OUT.
YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN IT TO COUNSEL.
22
SEAT.
23
MOMENTS.
HAVE A
LOOK IT OVER, AND THEN GET BACK TO ME IN A COUPLE

I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET.
24
25
(A DISCUSSION WAS HELD IN CHAMBERS,
26
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED.)
27
28
(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)
3
DEPARTMENT 17
4
5
STEPHEN GAGGERO,
6
7
8
9
10
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
M. HARRIS, AND ANDRE JARDINI,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. BC286924
REPORTER'S
CERTIFICATE
11
12
13
I, KAREN ALGORRI, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE
15
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DID
16
CORRECTLY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINED HEREIN AND
17
THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE,
18
COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE
19
PROCEEDINGS AND TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF THE
20
ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013.
21
22
DATED THIS
7TH
DAY OF MAY, 2013.
23
24
25
KAREN ALGORRI, CSR NO. 8319

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
26
27
28
2
3
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT. 17
4
5
6
7
8
9
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
)
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
VS
) CASE NO.: BC286924
)
KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
___________________________)
10
11
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS
12
THURSDAY, MAY 16TH, 2013
13
14
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD

ATTORNEY AT LAW
2625 TOWNSGATE ROAD
SUITE 330
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361
(805) 267-1220
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MILLER, LLP
515 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
SUITE 2150
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
(213) 493-6375
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPORTED BY
JANE HONG-ELSEY
CSR 11975
(800)288-3376
JOB NO.: A705401
WWW.DEPO.COM
1
2
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA;

DEPT. 17
--OOO--
A.M. SESSION
THE COURT:
MS. WAKILY:
NUMBER 1, GAGGERO.
AUSTA
WAKILY FOR DEFENDANTS.
8
9
THURSDAY, MAY 16TH, 2013
MR. CHATFIELD:
DAVID CHATFIELD ATTORNEY FOR THE
NON-PARTICIPANT OPPONENT.
10
THE COURT:
11
THE COURT'S TENTATIVE?
12
BEFORE.
13
ALLOWED, BUT IT WAS.
THIS IS THE MOTION TO COMPEL.
YOU SEE
I THINK WE'VE GONE OVER THESE ISSUES
THERE WAS CONFUSION ON WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERY WAS
14
ANYTHING TO SAY?
15
MR. CHATFIELD:
WELL, YOUR HONOR, THERE SHOULD BE
16
NO ISSUE AS TO THE DOCUMENTS.
17
DEPOSITION THAT HE PREVIOUSLY GAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE
18
HAD RESPONSIVE TO THE SUBPOENA TO ME.
19
I GAVE THEM TO BLECHER AND COLLINS AND I BELIEVE THAT
20
BLECHER AND COLLINS PRODUCED THEM.
21
MR. PRASKI TESTIFIED AT THE
I SAID ON THE RECORD
REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IS, AT THE DEPOSITION,
22
MR. PEPPERMAN COULD NOT ANSWER MS. WAKILY'S QUESTIONS ABOUT
23
THE PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS.
24
DEPOSITION, I PROVIDED MS. WAKILY WITH THE BATES NUMBERS IN
25
THE PRODUCTION WHERE THE DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED IN RESPONSE
26
TO HER REQUEST.
27
28
HOWEVER, IN THE
AND I SENT HER THE DOCUMENTS A SECOND TIME.
THE COURT:
STOP YOU THERE.
SO NOW YOU CAN FINISH
THE DEPOSITIONS WITH THE DOCUMENTS, RIGHT?
CORRECT?
MR. CHATFIELD:
THE COURT:
MS. WAKILY:
THE COURT:
YES.
OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANT.

OKAY.
I DON'T SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM
IS.
MR. CHATFIELD:
YOUR HONOR, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH
DEPOSITION IT IS THAT YOU'RE ORDERING CONTINUED BECAUSE
MR. PRASKI'S DEPOSITION WAS --
THE COURT:
10
I'M GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST.
PERIOD.
11
THANK YOU.
12
MS. WAKILY:
13
THE COURT:
14
MS. WAKILY:
15
MR. CHATFIELD:
16
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR

YOU GIVE NOTICE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
(ADJOURNED.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3

DEPT. 17
4
5
6
7
8
9
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
)
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
VS
) CASE NO.: BC286924
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
___________________________)
10
11
12
13
I, JANE HONG-ELSEY, C.S.R. NO. 11975, REPORTER OF THE

ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
THAT I AM A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER OF THE STATE
14
OF CALIFORNIA, DULY LICENSED TO PRACTICE; THAT I DID REPORT
15
IN STENOTYPE ORAL PROCEEDINGS, PAGES 1
16
OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CAUSE AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN
17
BEFORE SET FORTH; THAT THE FOREGOING CONSTITUTE TO THE BEST
18
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT
19
TRANSCRIPTION FROM MY SAID SHORTHAND NOTES SO TAKEN FOR THE
20
DATE OF MAY, 16TH, 2013.
21
TO
2 UPON HEARING
DATED AT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA MAY 25, 2013.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_______________________________
JANE HONG-ELSEY; C.S.R., 11975
2
3
HON.
DEPT. 17
RICHARD E.
RICO,
JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STEPHEN M.
GAGGERO,
)
)
PLAINTIFF,)
)
VS
) CASE NO.:
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS.)
BC286924
---------------------------)
I,
JANE HONG-ELSEY,
ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT,
C.S.R. NO. 11975, REPORTER OF THE
DO HEREBY CERTIFY:-
THAT I AM A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER OF THE STATE.
14
OF CALIFORNIA,
15
IN STENOTYPE ORAL PROCEEDINGS,
16
OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CAUSE AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN
17
BEFORE SET FORTH; THAT THE FOREGOING CONSTITUTE TO THE BEST
18
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, A FULL,
19
TRANSCRIPTION FROM MY SAID SHORTHAND NOTES SO TAKEN FOR THE
20
DATE OF MAY,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DULY LICENSED TO PRACTICE; THAT I DID REPORT
16TH,
PAGES 1
TO
2 UPON
TRUE, AND CORRECT
2013.
DATED AT RIVERSIDE,
HEA~INd
CALIFORNIA MAY 25,
2013.

Yura - RT Proceedings

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Yura - RT Proceedings

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

HON. RICHARD E. RICO, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUGUST 27, 2012

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

BLECHER & COLLINS

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

FILE NO. A607FBD

CSR NO. 4746

August 27, 2012

HON. RICHARD E. RICO, JUDGE

(AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

MARGARET MCVEY, CSR NO. #4746

All right, on Gaggero versus Knapp,

Your Honor, Mr. Alperin, who is doing

the argument on this motion, is in another hearing in

as he can, and we can, perhaps, put it off until he gets

He said he's going to be down here as soon

(A recess was taken while other unrelated

On Gaggero versus Knapp, Petersen.

for defendants Knapp, Petersen, and Clarke.

Good morning, your Honor, Howard

Alperin for the Plaintiff, Stephen Gaggero.

This is a motion to compel.

I believe I've spoken with the attorneys about this

Do you wish to be heard?

I guess, being the Plaintiff, given

the nature of the tentative, I'd like to be heard, your

All right, just briefly, because I have

Well, I'll listen to the Court's

direction on this, your Honor, but seeking trust formation

documents that are not within our client's control --

Well, just giving them to an accountant

doesn't make them out of your client's control.

He's not an accountant, your Honor.

He's a professional trustee.

states in his declaration -- it's not refuted -- that

And Mr. Praske clearly

They've served the subpoena on Mr. Praske.

They've not followed through with that.

are not within our client's care, custody, and control.

He's testified in his declaration he's never had them.

The statements by his prior counsel at the hearing

attached to the declaration --

Let me stop you there.

Your Honor, they haven't stated in the

declaration that Mr. Gaggero has attempted to get the

documents from Mr. Praske or that Mr. Praske is not his

estate planning attorney.

testified in the underlying lawsuit as a witness for the

That's his role.

There you go.

So that's what I'm faced with when I read these things.

I understand that, your Honor.

stated in the opposition that no one is relying upon these

At the trial they relied upon other documents.

That's a matter of public record.

defendant's counsel is seeking these documents, as we

state, for purposes of their collection in another matter,

not for this matter.

And secondarily, your Honor --