Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al

Filing 146

DECLARATION of Dean A. Dickie in opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Protective Order for Postponing Depositions 141 and in support of Memorandum re Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION 144 filed by Plaintiff Bryan Pringle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W)(Hampton, George)

From:
To:
Cc:

Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

George Hampton
"Cenar, Kara"
Mary Ann Hoyer; Pink, Jonathan Stuart; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Colin Holley
RE: Pringle v. William Adams, Jr. et al.
Friday, March 25, 2011 3:42:00 PM
Stipulated Protective Order re Confidential Information (Pringle).doc

Dear Kara,
              This e-mail message responds to your March 22, 2011 e-mail in the above referenced matter. 
As Kate Koppenhoefer and I previously informed you during the Rule 26(f) conference in the Pringle
matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel do not believe that a protective order is necessary or appropriate in either the
Batts or Pringle matters.  Accordingly, your statement that you and the other defense counsel are
looking to Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide a draft of the proposed protective order is incongruous. Be that
as it may and because you have expressly conditioned the depositions on receiving a “draft protective
order,” attached please find a draft protective order for your review and comment.  Please note that
nothing herein shall be construed as an admission that: (1) a protective order is necessary and
appropriate; (2) Plaintiffs will stipulate to the entry of the draft protective order; or (3) information or
documents designated as confidential under any protective order are properly designated as such. 
               Your position with respect to withdrawal of the deposition notices and rescheduling the
depositions also does not square with reality.  As set forth in my March 21, 2011 letters and as
reiterated in my e-mail messages of earlier today, we are more than willing to reschedule the
depositions once we have alternative dates.  Your continued refusal to provide such dates, conditioning
the depositions upon the receipt of a “draft protective order,” and demanding that we withdraw the
deposition notices as a condition precedent to further discussions regarding scheduling, all suggest that
defendants are merely trying to forestall the discovery process. 
               I don’t know how much more unequivocal I can be in trying to work out mutually convenient
dates.  Again and for the third time, please provide me with alternative dates for the depositions.
George Hampton
George L. Hampton IV
HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP
2101 East Coast Highway
Suite 260
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
DID 949.718.4551
Fax [phone]
www.hamptonholley.com

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use
of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or contain
attorney work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify George Hampton immediately by e-mail, at [e-mail] and delete the
original message.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

-----Original Message----From: Cenar, Kara [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:44 PM
To: George Hampton
Cc: Mary Ann Hoyer; Pink, Jonathan Stuart; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Colin Holley
Subject: Re: Pringle v. William Adams, Jr. et al.
George,
Please forward a draft protective order governing confidentiality. As Plaintiff we look to you to provide a
draft or this proposed order.
As for deposition dates, we are willing to work with you to set up an appropriate schedule and location,
but unless the Notices are withdrawn or you indicate unequivocally an agreement to work out in good
faith mutually convenient dates and locations ( our clients may be out of the country on your arbitrarily
selected dates and I have a jury trial) we cannot interpret your actions as an indication to cooperate. 
Let us know. 
Please send the draft protective order, which will be required before any depositions can go forward,
and please provide your written agreement to agree to mutually agreed to dates and locations which
will accommodate schedules of counsel and witnesses work schedules and locations.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Kara
On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:34 PM, George Hampton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Counsel,
>
> The depositions will remain as noticed unless and until the parties agree to mutually agreeable
alternative dates.  Accordingly, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with proposed alternative
dates for the depositions.
>
> George
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Cenar, Kara [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:40 AM
> To: Mary Ann Hoyer
> Cc: Pink, Jonathan Stuart; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Colin Holley; George Hampton
> Subject: Re: Pringle v. William Adams, Jr. et al.
>
> Counsel
>
> We will have to discuss alternative dates as the proposed dates conflict with pre set jury trials. I will
talk with my clients as well, but the dates will have to be on a different date for counsel's schedule.  I
reserve all other objections to the Notices as served.
>

>
>
> Kara
>
> On Mar 21, 2011, at 9:18 PM, "Mary Ann Hoyer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Please see the attached correspondence and deposition notices.
>>
>> Mary Ann Hoyer
>> Office Manager
>> HamptonHolley LLP
>> 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
>> Corona del Mar, CA 92625
>> [phone]
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential
use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or
work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify Mary Ann Hoyer immediately by e-mail, at
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, and delete the original message.
>>
>> <2011.03.21GLH(Pringle).pdf>
>
> This electronic message is from a law firm. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender to advise of the error and delete this
transmission and any attachments.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction
or matter addressed herein.
> bcllp2010