Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) 18 08-17 Francis Motion For Sanctions.

1
•
McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
Matthew S. McNicholas, State Bar No. 190249
•
2
Courtney M. McNicholas, State Bar No. 130358
3 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90024
4 Tel: (310) 474-1582; Fax: (310) 475-7871
5 TAYLOR & RING, LLP

John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
6 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 360
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
7 Tel: (310) 209-4100; Fax: (310) 208-5052
s
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
n
9 JENNIFER FRANCIS
io
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
at
11
COUNTY OF LOS. ANGELES
12
13 JENNIFER FRANCIS,
ul
CASE NO. BC 526258
[,:4ssignedfor all purposes to the Honorable Holly J.
ib
14
Plaintiff, Fujie, Dept. 56]
15
vs.
Tr
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER FRANCIS' NOTICE OF
16
MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUE,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a government
17 EVIDENTIARY, MONETARY AND/OR
. entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR WILLFUL
Inclusive,
&
18 AND INTENTIONAL DUSODEDIENCE OF

COUT ORDERS IN DISCOVERY ABUSE OF
19 Defendants. DISCOVERY AND DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT
ORDERS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
ls
20 AUTHORITIES; FOR AN OSC RE: CONTEMPT

OF CITY ATTORNEY'S CONTINUOUS,
21
ia
WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL

DiSOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS RE:
22
DISCOVERY [CCP §§ 1209, 1211, LASC LOCAL
Tr
23 RULE 3.11]; AND DECLARATION OF

COURTNEY C. MCNICHOLAS
24 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY C.
MCNICHOLAS; (PER COURT ORDER)
25
p RES ID: 180814340105
c.,::, 26
•- ..
r~-J
27 Date: August 31, 201'8
s:;,?
-i:.~ Time: 9:30 a.m.
r,..,.i
(;;;) 28 Dept.: 56
~:I'-
(;;,;:,
1..
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY, MONETARY AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR ABUSE
OF DISCOVERY AND DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS
1
2
Trial Date: May 14, 2018
3 Complaint Filed: October 30, 2013
5 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
6 RECORD:
7 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 31, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
s
8 counsel may be heard in Department "56" of the above-entitled Court, .Plaintiff, JENNIFER
n
9 FRANCIS (hereinafter, "Plaintiff'), will move the Court pursuant to CCP § 2031.31 0(i) for an order
io
10 of either terminating sanction~, issue sanctions or evidentiary sanctions against Defendant City of
Los Angeles. Plaintiff makes this motion pursuant to the CCP §§20131.3 l(i) and 2023.010, et seq.
at
11 I
12 The grounds for this motion, as detailed in the attached Memorandum of Points and
13
ul
Authorities and supporting declarations, exhibits, evidence and the August 16, 2018 ex parte
ib
14 application are as follows:
15 Defendant intentionally abused the discovery process by knowingly violating the following
Tr
16 Court Orders:
1. On or before March 13, 2018, City was to serve and file a Notice of Compliance with
17
responsive Pitchess materials related to the Court's March 6, 2017 and May 5, 2017 Pitchess orders.
&
18
19 The Notice of Compliance is to include the following:

ls
20 1. The items ordered for in camera review never existed; or
21
ia
2. The items existed but were destroyed; or

22
3. Some, but not all, of the items were produced (and why the other
Tr
23
documents were not produced); or
24
4. All of the responsive items were produced
25
,Z) 2. On or before May 11, 2018, City was to Defendant to file and serve (via electronic mail) its
Co?
26
-..
I',.,)
a;;, 27 Points and Authorities · supporting its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining
..
"'-~ 2,8
,;;;;.
!-•.:,,
o~ 2
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSU:, EVIDENTIARY, MONETARY AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR ABUSE
1
• -
documents requested in Request for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or different discovery
2 method because the City objected to Request for Production No. 2.
3 3. On or before May 25, 2018, City was· to email to Plaintiff the "DOCUMENT CHART"
4 (transmitted by Plaintiff on May 11, 2018) with the following additional information for each
5
document (or category of documents) requested from the City in discovery that has not been
6
produced: 1.) Will be produced;
7
2) Whether the document exists;
s
'8
n
3.) Whether the document does not exist;
9
io
10 4.) Why the document does not exist;
at
11 5.) What privilege is being asserted (if any);
12 6.) All information required when a privilege is asserted; and

13
7.) Obje'ctions.
ul
ib
14
4. On or before I May 25, 2018, in addition to the "DOCUMENT CHART" that includes the
15 I
Tr
City's responses, objections and privileges, the City was to serve Plaintiff with all documents that
16
17 existed as identified by Defendant on the chart other than those to which a privilege or objection is
&
18 asserted.
19 5. On or before June 8, 2018, City was to submit first draft of Joint Discovery Statement to
ls
20 Plaintiff; and
21
ia
6. Five days before the IDC, City was file and serve finalized Joint Discovery Statement.
22
Tr
Because the City has acted without substantial justification by (a) violating the court's orders,
23
despite acknowledging the obligation to do so, (b) not seeking relief form the court to release the
24
25 City from its obligations to comply with the court's orders, if the City believed it was warranted or
0
c,::i 26 necessary, (c) ignored repeated attempts by Plaintiff to obtain compliance with the court-ordered
..
r-..,:,
1:;;D 27 discovery, and because the City's actions have prejudiced Jennifer Francis in not only the preparation
,...,.,)
28
0
f-~
of her case for trial but also consuming time/energy of her attorneys that could have been spent 011
0::,
3
OF DISCOVERY AND DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS .
1
- -
other trial preparations, Plaintiff further moves the court for an award of monetary sanctions against
2 the City ofat least $35,000.00 pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.310(i) and 2023.010 et seq.
3 The Court issued additional orders which the City also been ignored 1.
4
The Police Employment Litigation Section of the City Attorney, and John Anthony in
5
particular, has a policy and a consistent and continuous custom, habit, pattern and practice of these
6
same discovery abuse tactics in other City employment cases.
7
Defendant and its attorney of record, John Anthony, have intentionally repeatedly and
ns
8·
continuously abused and delayed the discovery process by knowingly and willingly and continuously
9
io
violating the Court's orders related to discovery, and specifically the orders issued on
10
March 6, 2018 and April 26, 2018,
at
11
This motion will be based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
12
ul
Authorities, the declaration of Courtney C. McNicholas and the exhibits attached thereto, the
13
complete file in this action (including the August 16, 2018 ex parte appli~ation) and such further
ib
14
evidence and argument that the court may receive at the hearing of this matter.
· 15
Tr
Respectfully submitted,
16
Dated: August 16, 2018 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
17
&
18
19
ls
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff

21 JENNIFER FRANCIS
ia
22
Tr
23
24
25
0
0~ 26
(',,,.)
27
°''
~-- 1 This Court is familiar with the discovery issues, however, for ease of reference Plaintiff attaches Ex. 6 which was
"'~' 28
C::) filed with the August 16, 2018 ex parte application. Ex. 6 is a chronological log of the courts organized by date that
..... the City has disobeyed for the time period March 6, 2018 - August 17, 2018 .
cs:i
4
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONFOR ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY,MONETARYAND/OR TERMINATINGSANCTIONSFOR ABUSE
OF DISCOVERYAND DISOBEDIENCEOF COURT ORDERS
1 MEMORANDUM OF POI~TS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I. INTRODUCTION
3
Plaintiff has diligently pursued discovery in this matter for over two years. For over two
4
years Defendant has bobbed, weaved, and shuffled in every way imaginable to avoid cooperating
5
and complying with discovery.
6
The City has avoided its discovery obligations by defying several court orders, ignoring meet-
7 ' .
and-confer attempts, asserting boilerplate, frivolous objections and stringing Plaintiff along with
s
8
n
false representations of imminent compliance in order to intentionally delay and avoid the
9
io
detrimental results of the discovery ordered by the court.
10
A cursory review of this Court's docket evidences the numerous attempts by Plaintiff (and
at
1-1
the court) since January 2017 to obtain the discovery: written "ineet and confer" letters (Ex. 1); ex
12
13
ul
parte applications; discovery motions; and IDCs. All attempts were rebuffed and/or ignored and
Plaintiff was forced to seek court intervention to obtain court orders compelling Defendant City of
ib
14
Los Angeles to fulfill its statutory discovery obligations. Defendant disregarded the court orders.
15
Tr
In addition to the exparte and discovery motions, Plaintiff attempted to obtain discovery via
16
several Informal Discovery Conferences. The Court issued additional orders at the IDC's which the
17
City also ignored2.
&
18
19 II. CITY DISOBEYS COURT ORDERS
ls
20
It is undisputed that the City knowingly and intentionally disobeyed this Court's orders.
ia
21
Documents that the Court ordered filed months ago remain conspicuously absent from the court file,
22
Tr
for example, 1) Notice of Compliance re: Pitchess Documents; 2) the "DOCUMENT Chart" with
23
24 City's entries and objections; 3) Joint Discovery Statement; 4) Memorandum of Points and
25 Authorities supporting its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining documents requested in
,::::i
(:);) 26
....
I',..)
<.D 27
""··
..)
2 This Court is familiar with the discovery issues, however, for ease ofreference Plaintiff attaches as Ex. 2, 3 to the
a:,
.......
28
McNicholas Declaration the Notice of Ruling and Court Orpers for the March 6, 2018and April 26, 2018 IDCs .
o~
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSCE, EVIDENTIARY,MONETARYAND/OR TERMINATINGSANCTIONSFOR ABUSE
1
- -
Request for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or different discovery method because the City objected
2 to Request for Production No. 2.
3
A. City Refuses to Produce Documents
4
This Court ordered the City to produce all Pitchess documents pursuant to the 2017 order of
5
Judge Rosenfeld on or before March 13, 2018. City still has not produced all of the responsive
6
documents. (Judge Rosenfeld ordered the documents to be produced over a year ago - on or before
7
May 12, 2017)
ns
8
This Court ordered the City to produce all non-privileged documents requested in discovery
9
(and itemized by Plaintiff in the "Document Chart") on or before May 25, 2018. City has not
io
10
produced them, nor complied with this Court's order to provide all necessary information per Code
at
11
regarding any documents being withheld on the basis of privilege.
12
ul
This Court ordered the City to create and file a Joint Discovery Statement that included
13
information from both sides by June 8, 2018. City ignored the order. In an abundance of caution,
ib
14
Plaintiff prepared a Discovery Statement and served it on the City. The City did not contribute any
15 ' I
Tr
items to the Statement. The Statement on file contains only information from Plaintiff.
16
B. City Forces Plaintiff to File Motions to Compel Documents Reviewed by City
17
Controlled Witnesses
&
18
Plaintiff was forced to file two (2) motions to compel in order to obtain the most basic
19
discovery: documents reviewed by a deponent to refresh his recollection/prepare for deposition.
ls
20
Plaintiff made attempts to obtain the do_cumentsinformally. The City ignored those attempts.
ia
21
Defendant and its attorney, John Anthony, have repeatedly ignored and violated the orders
22
and instructions issued by this court.
Tr
23
It is respectfully submitted that terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions should be
24
awarded for defendant and its attorney, John Anthony, abuse of discovery, and disregard of court
25
orders to the detriment of Plaintiff, or at a minimum issue and evidence sanctions.
C:'"J
o~ 26
..
t-,..)
a, 27
..
-
t-,..)
,z, 28
o~ 2
PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONFOR ISSUE,EVIDENTIARY,MONETARYAND/ORTERMINATINGSANCTIONSFOR ABUSE
OF DISCOVERYAND DISOBEDIENCEOF COURTORDERS
1 III. DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEY JOHN ANTHONY REPEATEDLY COMMIT
2 DISCOVERY ABUSE AND DISOBEY COURT ORDERS
3 A. Instructing Witnesses to Ignore and Disregard Subpoenas
4 In 2015, defendant falsely represented that a critical percipient witness, Dorothy Tucker (the
5 LAPD Behavioral Science Section psychiatrist Plaintiff was forced to see) was dead.
6 In fact, Dorothy Tucker was very much alive and living in Los Angeles. When Plaintiffs
7 investigator located the (alive) Dorothy Tucker, Plaintiff served a proper, valid deposition subpoena ..
ns
8 In response, the City instructed Dorothy Tucker to disregard the subpoena and not to appear. On
9 February 16, 2017, the Court ordered the City to produce Tucker for deposition. The City never
io
10 produced the witness for deposition.
at
11 In December 2018,-Tucker died. (Ex. 4)
12 Tucker was the sole witness with first-hand information about the pre-textual ~irected referral
13
ul
by Plaintiffs supervisors. She was also the sole witness to what information she was requested to
ib
14 elicit from Plaintiff in those mandatory sessions.
15 In December 2017, Dorothy Tucker passed away. Plaintiff is forever precluded from
Tr
16 obtaining the information that Tucker possessed. In fact, this was the City's goal all along.
17 Plaintiff also served Det. Jim Nuttall with a proper, valid subpoena. Defendant and its
&
18 attorney, John Anthony, instructed Det. Nuttall to disregard the subpoena and not to appear for his
19 deposition. Det. Nuttall testified that he had received the subpoena but was instructed not to appear.
ls
20 When asked by whom he was instructed defendant and its attorney, John Anthony, invoked the
ia
21 attorney-client privilege and instructed Det. Nuttall not to answer. (Ex. 5)
22 IV. TERMINATil'l'G/ISSUE/EVIDENCE SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AW ARD ED

Tr
23 Code of Civil Procedure§ 2031.3 l0(i) provides that terminating, issue, evidence or monetary
24 sanctions may be awarded under Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010 for misuse of the discovery
.25 process. Of the nine misuses listed, defendant and its attorney, John Anthony, have engaged in six:
,~) (d) Failing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,·
,;.o 26
··~ (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery,·
t,...)
(f) Making an evasive response to discovery,· ·
.. 27
,;;,;,
(g) Disobeying a court order toprovide discovery,·
-
1,•.,1
0 28 (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial-justification, a motion to
_c,:, 3
1
compel or to limit discovery; and
-
(i) Failing to confer ... in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any
2 dispute concerning discovery. [Emphasis added.}
A. Evidence and Issue Sanctions Should be Awarded

3
In Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4 th 1611, the court upheld the
4
imposition of a terminating sanction. The trial court had compelled further discovery responses.
5
Defendant submitted insufficient responses; plaintiff moved for sanctions. The court struck
6
defendant's answer. On Appeal the court stated:
7
What we have here is defendants' persistent refusal to share with plaintiff the facts
ns
8 underlying their denial of liability and their purported affirmative defenses. We also have
an approaching trial date scheduled for less than two months after the sanction hearing. On
9 this we conclude that, "[i}n choosing this sanction, the court was attempting to tailor the
io
sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery. (Sauer v Superior (1987) 195
10
Cal.App.3d 213, 229)."
at
11 The Collisson & Kaplan court further noted that as a result of discovery abuses, "Plaintiff
12 did not 'Have a usable answer to discovery," i.e., a response that might be used as an admission of a
13
ul
party. The trial court acknowledged that plaintiff had been prejudiced since the trial date had been
ib
14, vacated." Id at 1618. The court also determined that the trial court did not need to "utilize the least
15 severe sanction necessary to achieve the objectives of discovery" because "imposition of a lesser
Tr
16 sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling and evasion tactics. The
17 trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse." Collisson,
&
18 supra, 21 Cal App.4 th at 1620. Obtaining discovery from the defendant in this case has been like
19 pulling t~eth. The discovery history speaks for itself."' Id at _1616.
ls
20 Here as in Collisson, the City's answer should be stricken as a sanction. The City has ignored
21
ia
court orders to provide responses to court-ordered discovery, continues to ~ithhold relevant

22 documents in the possession, custody and control of the City, and has not even bothered to try to
Tr
23 justify the discovery abuse and audacious disobedience of this Court's orders.
24 Alternatively, sanctions involving issue preclusion have been upheld even where no order
25 has been violated because - as here - the conduct involved repeated, willful refusals to permit
0
cc 26 discovery over a lengthy period, culminating in evidence and witnesses becoming mysteriously
~--
r,••)
~) 27 "unavailable". Vall bona v. Springer ( 1996) 43 Cal. App.4 th 1525 or with defendant suddenly "unable
~-
-
t-..)
,:;::, 28 to provide the promised items of discovery." Do It Urselfv. Brown (1992) 7 Cal.App.4 th 27, 36.
~~,:i
. 4
1 In Do It Urself, the court upheld evidence preclusion sanctions for the defendant's failure to
2 produce a single audit report. The court found that the trial court had a wide discretion in granting
3 sanctions for discovery violations, and that an evidence preclusion sanction fell within the Superior
4 Court's discretion because after stalling for a year about producing the single report, the defendant
5 was no longer able to provide the promised di~covery. Under the circumstances of the case, a
6 warning in the form of a formal order to comply would have been "futile" and so evidence preclusion
7 was proper.
ns
8 Similarly, in Val/bona, supra, 43 Cal.App.4 th at 1546 the trial court imposed an evidence and
9 issue sanction for defendants' noncompliance with plaintiff's earlier discovery request to produce
io
10 documents, even though no motion to compel was brought by plaintiff. On appeal, the court found
at
11 that the evidence sanction "reflected the court's attempt to 'tailor' the sanction to the harm caused
12 by the withheld discovery" since '[r]equiring plaintiffs here to seek a formal order to compel
13
ul
defendants to comply with discovery would have been futile.". It also held that "Imposition of a
ib
14 lesser sanction here would have permitted defendants to benefit from their withholding of discovery
15 by forcing plaintiffs 'to proceed to trial without the benefit of the bargained-for evidence.'". Id at
Tr
-16 1546. The court also upheld "an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as
17 established." See also Deeter v. Angus (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 241, 255 (excluding audio tape not
&
18 produced in response to discovery requests as sanctio~ which evidence Defendant concealed).
19 B. Terminating Sanctions Are Warranted

ls
20 The facts here also more than warrant terminating sanctions. In Los Defendores, Inc. v.
ia
21 . Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 377, 391, the decision upheld the award of terminating sanctions for
22 having "provided none of the above described documents and records [requested in RFP] identified
Tr
23 during defendant's deposition." The court concluded that

The power to impose discovery sanctions. is a broad discretion subject to reversal
24
only for arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical action ... The trial court may order a terminating
25 sanction for discovery. abuse 'after· considering the totality of the circumstances:
[the]conduct to the party to determine if the actions were
,;;;~)
c,;:, 26 willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal
.,...
1-...._:i attempts to obtain the discovery ... where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse,
,;;p 27 and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the
~.
1-,.,) discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. ". Id at 390.
,:;;:, 28
i-,,-,,
i:;,:J 5
1
- -
See also Lang v. Hochman, (2000)77 Cal.App. 4th 1225, 1244-1246 (affirming terminating sanctions
2 for violation of order to produce documents where offending party spent months evading discovery
3 and conduct showed actions were willful, detrimental to propounding party; and there were many
4 formal and informal attempts to get the discovery).

5
The phrase "substantial justification" means that a justification is clearly "reasonable because
6
it is well-grounded in both law and fact." Doe v. US. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4 th 1424,
7
1434. But here, defendants repeated abuses do not and cannot meet that standard.
s
8
n
The "dismissal sanction [is] the culmination of a history of acts in which appellants obstructed
9
io
10 discovery" and "[t]he failure or refusal of a party to submit voluntarily to discovery which is
at
11 inevitable can only be viewed as an attempt to harass the opposition or as a technique to churn
12 attorney's fees." Laguna v. Farmers (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 486-487 (terminating sanctions
13
ul
"even though the court did not impose prior monetary sanctions"). Here, as in Laguna "the
ib
14
justification for imposing discovery sanctions was based upon not one, but a multitude of violations.
15
Tr
Where, as here, the record is replete with instances of delay and failure to comply with court orders,
16
17 dismissal may be proper." Id At 481, 489. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions given the costs
&
18 and expenses incurred by repeatedly being forced to attempt to obtain discovery over the past two
19 . years.
ls
I 20
V. CONCLUSION
ia
21
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court should grant her
22
Tr
motion for terminating sanctions as well as at least $30,000.00 in monetary sanctions agains~
23
defendant and it attorney John Anthony.
24
At a minimum;Plaintiff is entitled to issue and evidentiary sanctions, excluding any evidence'
25
(!)
of any affirmative ·defe:11-ses,
contentions or other information contained in its answer, as well as a
s:.,";f::i 26
-~...,
~,.) \ jury instruction stating that City obstructed discovery by improperly failing to produce witnesses and
(.;;) 27
""··
r-,,.)
documents and refusing to provide evidence which made it difficult for Plaintiff to prepare her case
(.D 28
...... 6
co
I
I
L__ - --
1
• -·
(including the loss of a critical witnesses}- and that the jury should (or may) find that City did so
2 because the subject information and witnesses would have supported Plaintiff and been detrimental
3 to defendant.
4 Respectfully submi~ed,
5 Dated: August 16, 2018 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
s
8
n
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff
io
JENNIFER FRANCIS
10
at
11
12
"\
13
ul
ib
14
15
Tr
16
17
&
18
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
,::::::, .
C::•;l 26
....
f'..)
.... 27
,S)
f'..)
0
!"r.,:..
28
f.:),;l 7
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSCE, EVIDENTIARY, MONETARY AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR ABUSE
c:)
Tr
ia
DECLARATION
ls
&
Tr
ib
ula
tio
n s
1
-
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY C. MCNICHOLAS
--
2 I, Courtney C. McNicholas, declare:
3 I am an Attorney at Law, duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California.
4 I am an associate with McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this
5 matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, and I reasonably believe that if called
6 upon to testify those matters, I would and could competently testify thereto. This Declaration is
7 submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery
ns
8 A. Instructing Witnesses to Ignore and Disregard Subpoenas
9 1. In 2015, defendant falsely represented that a critical percipient witness, Dorothy
io
10 Tucker (the LAPD Behavioral Science Section psychiatrist Plaintiff was forced to see) was dead.
at
11 In fact, Dorothy Tucker was very much alive and living in Los Angeles. When Plaintiffs
12 investigator located the (alive) Dorothy Tucker, Plaintiff served a proper, valid deposition subpoena.
13
ul
In response, the City instructed Dorothy Tucker to disregard the subpoena and not to appear. On
ib
14 February 16, 2017, the Court ordered the City to produce Tucker for deposition. The City refused
15 to produce the witness for deposition. In December, 2017, Dorothy Tucker died, taking information
Tr
16 that only she possesses with her. (Ex. 4)
17 2. Plaintiff also served the investigating detective, ·Jim Nuttall with a proper, valid
&
18 subpoena .. True to form, defendant and its attorney, John Anthony, instructed Det. Nuttall to
19 disregard the subpoena and not to appear for his deposition. When Det. Nuttall's deposition was
ls
20 finally taken, he testified that he had received the subpoena but was instructed not to appear. When
ia
21 asked by whom he was instructed defendant and its attorney, John Anthony, invoked the attorney-
22 client privilege and instructed Det. Nuttall not to answer. (Ex. 5)

Tr
23 B. Willful Disobedience of Court Orders

1. On or before March 13, 2018, City was to serve and file a Notice of Compliance with
24
25 responsive Pitchess materials related to the Court's March 6, 2017 and May 5, 2017 Pitchess orders.
0
co 26 The Notice of Compliance is to include the following:
"".)
c::i 27
~-- 1. The items ordered for in camera review never existed; or
!',.)
0 28
I-" 2. The items existed bpt were destroyed; or
cc::,
1
-3.
-
Some, but not all, of the items were produced (and why the other
2 documents were pot produced); or
3 4. All of the responsive items were produced
4 2. On or before May 11, 2018, City was to Defendant to file and serve (via electronic mail) its
5
Points and Authorities supporting its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining
6
documents requested in Request for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or different discovery method
7
because the City objected to Request for Production No. 2.
ns
8
3. On or before May 25, 2018, City was to email to Plaintiff the "DOCUMENT CHART"
9
io
10 (transmitted by Plaintiff on May 11, 2018) with the following additional information for each
at
11 document (or category of documents) requested from the City in discovery that has not been
12 produced: 1.) Will be produced;

13
2) Whether the document exists;
ul
ib
14
3.) Whether the document does not ex.1st;
15
Tr
4.) Why the document does not exist;
16
17 5.) What privilege is being asserted (if any);

&
18 6.) All information required when a privilege is asserted; and
19 7.) Objections.
ls
20 4. On or before May 25, 2018, in addition to the "DOCUMENT CHART" that includes the
ia
21
City's responses, objections and privileges, the City was to serve Plaintiff with all documents that
22
Tr
existed as identified by Defendant on the chart other than those to which a privilege or objection is
23
asserted.
24
25 5. On or before June 8, 2018, City was to submit first draft of Joint Discovery Statement to
(:l")
0~ 26 Plaintiff; and
-,
I'-,.)
,;!:) 27 6. Five days before the IDC, City was file and serve finalized Joint Discovery Statement.
....
-
t•·.)
0 28
():3' 2
1
- -
Because the City has acted without substantial justification by (a) violating the court's orders,
2 despite acknowledging the obligation to do so, (b) not seeking relief formthe court to release the
3 City from its obligations to comply with the court's orders, if the City believed it was warranted or
4 necessary, (c) ignored repeated attempts by Plaintiff to obtain compliance with the court-ordered
5
discovery, and because the City's actions have prejudiced Jennifer Francis in not only the preparation
6
of her case for trial but also consuming time/energy of her attorneys that could have been spent on
7
other trial preparations, Plaintiff further moves the court for an award of monetary sanctions against
ns
8
· the City of at least $35,000.00 pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.3 lO(i) and 2023.010 et seq.
9
io
1.0 The Court issued additional orders which the City also been ignored . (Ex. "1 ", Notice of
at
11 Ruling and Court Orders Made at March 6, IDC; Ex. "2" Notice of Ruling and Court Orders Made
12 at April 26, IDC)
13
ul
Defendant and its attorney of record, John Anthony, has refused to engage in the meet and
ib
14 confer process to resolve the discovery issues created by defendant.
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
Tr
16 is true and correct. Executed this August 16, 2018, at Los Angeles,· California.
17
&
18
Courtney C. McNicholas
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
0
,:o 26
t'-,.J
1::=:) 27
r,,._)
,:::
..:, 28
J-."""
Ci:)
3
---~
EXHIBIT 1
Tr
ia
ls
&
Tr
ib
ul
at
io
n s
-
MCNICHOLAS
TRIAL
&3MCNICHOLAS,
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 WILSHIRE: BLVD .. SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA ~90024
PHONE: (310) 474•1582/,AX 1310) 475•7·871
.....
vww.McN1cHOLASLAW.COM
March 8, 2018
ViaEmail: jol111.ant/10ny@lacity.org& il1ail
John Anthony III, Esq.

City Attorney's Office
200 N. Main Street, ?1hFloor
s
Los Angeles, CA 90012~4131
n
Re: . Francis v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
io
LASC Case No. BC 526258
Complaint Filed: October 30, 2013
Five Year Statute: October 30, 2018
at
Dear Mr. Anthony:
ul
Pursuant to Judge Fujie's order at the IDC on Tuesday (March 6, 2018) attached are two of
my recent letters (dated February 15, 2018 and February 20, 2018) related tQ the discovery issues
ib
discussed with the judge, and specifically, the·"Priority Witness Lists".
DEPOSITION DATES
Tr
Below is a list of the dates that John Taylor and I are available for depositions .. [NOTE:
These are harvested from the dates provided by Justice Cooper's assistant.]
&
March
12, 13, 15, 16,22,26,30
ls
April
2,3,4,5,6,9, ll, 12, 16, 18, 19,20,23,24,26,27
ia
Thank you.
Tr
Very truly yours,·
[Dictated but not read to avoid delay]
Courtney C. McNicholas
CCM/js
Attachments
cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring - Via Email Only

Hon. Candace,Cooper (Ret.) - Via Email Only
-
MCNICHOLAS
TRIAL
t3 MCNICHOLAS,
LAWYERS
LLP
10866 VltLSHIRE: BLV·O .. SUl"':"E l•lOO •. LOS ..:.NGE.LCS, CAL1F"O~NIA 90024
PHONE: (310) •17•l·1582/F':- .. x 1310) •\75-7871
:..-1c"l1CH0L ..4.$Ll',\"./.COM
February 15, 2018
& U.S.Mail
Via Email: jo/111.a11tlumy@lacity.org
John Anthony Ill, Esq.

Citv Attornev's Office
ns
200 N. Main. Street, 7'11 Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4131
io
Re: Francis v. Cit)! of Lo.,·.'Inge/es, et al.
at
· Dear ivlr. Anthony:
ul
Now that we have settled into 2018, it is time to complete the court-ordered depositions
in h·ancis v LAPD. I am copying John Taylor as well as Justice Cooper and her assistant on this
ib
lellcr to expedite the scheduling process. (The idea here is that you will begin contacting the
City-controlled witnesses simultaneous ,vith JAiv!Sproviding open dates on .Justice Cooper's
calendar.)
Tr
There arc still witnesses on the original (October 17, 2017) "Priority List" whose
depositions have not been completed.:
&
Priority 'Witness List j#l !

I. Det. C:iregStearns (Session I completed on December 7, 2017)
2. Det. Cliff Shepard
3. Jeffrey Thompson
ls
4. Dr. D9rothy Tucker

ia
Mr. Taylor and I have discussed the Second Priority List and have compiled the
following !isl of City-controlled witnesses to be comple.tecl:
Tr
Prioritv \Vitncss"List 1#2!

I. Custodian orRecords for Request for Production of Documents, Set 2
2. Oct. Dan Jaramillo·
3. Det. iV!ikcBerctta
4. Lt. Oka .Jiro
5. Del. Vivian Flores
6. Deputy Chief Kirk /\lbanesc
..
John T. Anthony Ill, Esq.
• McN I CHO LAS •
8 McN ICHOLAS LLP
February 15, 2018

Page 2
The following represents the Third Priority List of witt'1esse·s:
Priority Witness List 1#31

I. Author of the Complaint Review Report (original notice served January 25,
2017);
2. The Person Most Knowlcd!.!eable

-
Re the lnvesti!.!Utorassigned
v
to CCU who
ns
reviewed the lawsuit brought by Plaintiff (original notice served January 25, 2017); and
3. The Person Most Knowledgeable Regarding the LAPD Policy, Protocol and
io
Procedure regarding the Physical Transf"cror a Murder Investigation File (original notice served
January 25. 20 I 7). ·
at
The foregoing priorities arc provided as a guideline. Plaintiff's preference is to complete
the depositions; we will take them ''out of order" rather than wait weeks or more to complete
them as listed by priority.
Thank you. ul
ib
Very truly yours. _"-
......
) // '] .. ' . .1/.J--

Tr
I • /""'\ . •
[n,:,, 1ti.';..l'{- · 7v / ..i C J-,c t<Z
. . , {
"vC
Co unney ,GJcNicholas
&
CCivl/js
cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring

ls
Hon. .Candace Cooper (Ret.) - Via Email Only

\
ia
Tr
G)
,::,;, .
!
~-.:>
C~)
""-~
•
MCNICHOLAS
TAIAL
6 MCNICHOLAS.
LAWYEAS
• LLP
10866 W1L!:,t--t1r~e BLVD .. SUITE 1400 • LOS ANCl::.LES. CALlf-~OANII\ ~•OOf.!-\
PI-IONE (.3101 474-1582/F'AX 13101 -\7S-7071
\VV\/1;'/ MCNtCMOLASLAVI.COt-1
February 20, 2018
Via Ovemigltt

s
200 N. !\fain Street, t 11Floor
n
io
Re: Francis v. City <d"LosAngeles. et al.
Complaint filed: October 30,2013
at
Dear Mr. Anthony:
Five Year Statute (CCP §583.310) ul

ib
PlaintilTs complaint was filed October 30, 2013. We calculate the 5-year date as October
Tr
30,2018.
Thus, we plan on advising the court of the date and ,,viiirequest that the trial begin AT
LEAST 30-days before that to make sure ,-vedo not run afoul of the rule. The 5-year rule will give
&
us preference.
If you could double-check what you come up with as the 5-ycar rule so we are on the same
page on this discrett: issue.
ls
Unverified Pitcltess Production For CF# 09-004318

ia
This is the third time I will have brought to your attention that the Pitches.,·docun1ents you
Tr
sent were not accompanied by a Proof of Service and/or Verification and/or proper Notice of
Compliance executed by the appropriat~ Custodian of Records.
There are three (3) mqtions pending before the court regarding the City's failure to comply
with discovery, misuse of discovery and disobedience of court orc:ers [related to discovery).
My preference is that you simply provide a proper verification or Notice of Compliance

along with the responsive documents so that I am not forced to file another motion.
There is no inadvertence here. You have quite blatantly refused to abide by the discovery
rules.
f
I
John T. Anthony ITI,Esq.
McN 1cHOLAS -8 McN ICHOLAS LLP
February 20, 2018

Page 2
I will explain. A Pitchess motion is a discovery vehicle to compel production of otherwise

protected documents. Thus, the actual production of the documents ordered produced pursuant to
the discovery motion (i.e.. Pitchess) must also comply with the discovery rules. This necessarily
includes a vcri fication of some type.
I intend lo raise this with the court on February 27, 2018 unless you comply with the
ns
foregoing request beforehand.
Please remember that you are obligated to serve all attorneys of record with all discovery
io
responses and pleadings. (This is my third reminder to you of this obligation). I intend to raise this
with the judge on February 27, 20 I 8 as well.
at
Cin 's Verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set. No. 2
1
ul
Attached hereto is Plaintifrs extensive meet and confer speci fie to the City's responses to
discovery served on f ebruary 2, 2017 (RFP Set No. 2). The arguments remain the same.
ib
The City served verifications on February 5, 2018, but did not change, edit, amend or
supplement its responses in any manner. NOTE: This correspondence was originally transmitted
Tr
to you via email and U.S. Mail on April 14, 2017; the City did not respond to the meet and confer.
In light of the deposition testimony of Oct. Nuttall and Det. Stearns that the documents you
claim are "privileged" v,ere used in the criminal trial, and are therefore a matter of public record, I
1
request that you review your responses and provide updated, amended responses and documents
&
that are consistent with the law.
You have no legitimate basis upon ,vhich to refuse to produce the documents. (Judge
ls
Johnson told you this as well).

ia
Please provide your response to the foregoing meet and confer no later than February 28,
2018. We intend to file a motion to compel further responses and to strike the frivolous,
unjustified, boilerplate objections. And, we will seek monetary sanctions for the unjustified
Tr
objections.
Depositions
Plaintiff is hoping to receive a status update by Thursday, February 22, 2018 regarding
potential witness deposition dates/availability so we can continue our discovery (per my letter to
you on February 15, 20 I 8).
Please add Commander Rick Webb to the First Priority List. I understand he is retired; if
you cannot confirm your representation of Commander Webb (in writing) by Friday, February 23,
2018, we will proceed to secure his presence at deposition by other means.
John T. Anthony III, Esq.
McN 1c1,10LAS
I;,> - 8 McN ICHOLAS LLP
February 20, 2018

Page 3
Plaintiffs amended, updated Priority List(s) are provided below for ease of reference. With
the exception of Commander Webb, the lists remain unchanged from February 15, 2018.
First Priority \-Vitncss List

I . Det. Greg Steams (Session I completed on December 7, 20 I 7)
2. Det. Cliff Shepard .
s
3. Jeffrey Thompson
4. Dr. Dorothy Tucker
n
5. Comm. Rick Webb (Ret.)
io
Prioritv Witness List 1#2!
1. Custodian of Records for Request for Production of Documents, Set 2
at
2. Oct. Dan Jaramillo
3. Del. Mike Berctta
ul
4. Lt. Oka Jira
5. Det. Vivian Flores
6. Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese
ib
The following represents the Third Priority List of witnesses:
Tr
Prioritv Witness List !#3!
I. Author of the Complaint Review Report (notice served January 25, 2017)
Retired LAPD Emplovcc Depositions

&
As you know, Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to depose critical retired LAPD
employees in this matter. All efforts have been thwarted or otherwise impeded as a result of action
ls
and tactics of the City.

ia
On November 29, 2017, (the City (i.e., you) articulated the City's position regarding
. depositions of retired employees: -
Tr
"I am writing regarding coordinating the depositions of

Retired LAPD Employees. As a threshold matter. as a retired
e1i1p/oyee'sformer employer, the City is neither authorized
nor obligated to make them appear/or deposition.
Further, as former employees and/or retired peace c~/Jicers,

the City is not authorized to provide their home address or
contact information without an interrogatory, document request,
a11dlorPitches.\· motion.
'l'lwt said, the City has at all times represented it would

facilitate coordinating these individuals' depositions by reaching
-
McN 1cHOLAS § McN 1cHoLAs LLP
February 20, 2018

Page 4
out to them on an voluntary basis. The City has already done so

wirh ref ired DerecriveCl(l/"Sheppard.The Ciry will cominue ro do
so for all orher refired personnel." ·
Thus far your attempts to "facilitate coordinating the ... depositions by reaching out to them
on a voluntary basis" [Email, supra] have not resulted in any substantial success.
ns
For example, I ,viii use Ret. Det. Cliff Shepard whom you name in your email:
I. The first Deposition Notice for (Ret.) Det. Cliff Shepard was served December 29, 2015
io
(no, that is not a typo.) The City did not make any representation that it did not represent Shepard
nor that he would not be produced for his deposition. The City cancelled the deposition at the
request of Mr. Aguilera (City Attorney# I.)
at
2. The second Deposition Notice for (Ret.) Det. Cliff Shepard was served six months later
ul
in June 2016. The City did not make any representation that it did not represent Shepard nor that
he would not be produced for deposition. The City again requested the deposition be rescheduled
in order for Mr. Sarni (City-Attorney #2) to get up to speed on the file.
ib
3. The third Deposition Notice for (ReL) Det. Cliff Shepard was served on January 20,
2017. A Certificate of Non-Appearance was taken after you (City Attorney #3) failed to appear or
Tr
to advise that you did not represent Oct. Shepard.
4. The fourth Deposition Notice for (Ret.) Oct. Cliff Shepard was served with a subpoena
on February 13, 2017 ,.vitha subpoena. Det. Shepard called me upon receipt of the subpoena and
&
advised that he had spoken with Mr. Anthony (City Attorney #3) who advised he need not appear as
you ,,vererepresenting him. I then spoke with you - you confirmed that you would produce Det.
Shepard. Based on your word, I agreed to reschedule the proceeding.
ls
5. The fifth Deposition Notice for (Ret.) Det. Cliff Shepard was served on November 6,
ia
2017. The date was set pursuant to your ,vritten representations as follows:
"I have also 'co111111u11icared

wirh Retired Detective Cl({l
Tr
Shepard who is amenable lo silfingfor deposirion on I 1/20. However,

he has requested his deposirion be raken in doH11/ow11LA because of
1
proximity to his residence."
(See, Email dated October 24,2017 at 4:34 p.m.)
'1' On November 9, 2017, you claimed that Oet. Shepard was "retired" and therefore you would
cl not produce him for the scheduled deposition.
-.,.J
McN1cHOLAS4! McN1cHoLAS LLP

February 20, 2018
Page 5
What is the status specifically regarding the retired witnesses Plaintiff seeks to depose? It is
difficult to rely upon your representations based on the history v,1hichrequired Plaintiff to file the
three motions (Contempt, Sanctions and Compel) pending in Department 56.
Thank you.
ns
Very truly yours,
• l
I
i tw,p,~c1v:,b~ .
io
I
Courtney&)McNicholas
at
CCM/js
ul
Hon. Candace Cooper (Rel.) - Via Email Only
ib
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
-
MCNICHOLAS
TRIAL
8 MCNICHOLAS.
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 WILSHIRE 6LVO .. SUITE 14-00 • LO~ ANG.E.LES, CALIFORNIA 90024
PHONE: 13101 474-1582/FAX 13101 475-7871
WVj.W.M~NICHOLASLAW.COM
March 13, 2018
Via Email: jolm.antlzony@lacity.org & U.S. Mail

200 N. Main Street, ih Floor
ns
io
Re: Francis v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
at
Five Year Statute: ·October 30; 2018
ul
Dear Mr. Anthony:
I am responding to your email dated March 13, 2018 as follows:

ib
"Hi Courtney, John and Matt:
Tr
I'm sure Courtney shared with you all that Judge Fujie
asked us to meet and confer on a new proposed trial date
in Francis.
&
It appears ourfive:.year rule deadline is I0/30/2018.

Matt, I believe you are traveling out of the coimtry in
July and August. · ·
ls
I have a trial in mid-September and one in late October

ia
with your office, Matt and Courtney. Courtney indicated

tome that we can slipulate to move that trial, however.
Tr
My mid-September trial is not that old of a case, but I have

Been instructed by the judge in that matter that trial dates
in that department will not be moved.
Thatsaid, I imagine with Mall's travel schedule, my trial

Schedule and the work that needs to be done in Francis
that we should shoot for mid-October for trial.
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
John"
- McN ICHOLAS - § McN I CHO LAS LLP
March 13, 2018

Page 2
Trial Date
(
1. You have not identified the judge, case or department for the September trial. It is
possible that the judge won't move the date for you. However, it is unlikely the judge would force a
trial when the trial attorney is unavailable due 'to a 5-year statute threat on a case with a conflicting
trial date. Judge Fujie can help with that one.
ns
2. October 15, 2018 appears to be a reasonable date to begin trial in Francis v City of Los
Angeles, assuming Dept. 56 can accommodate us on or about Octoper 15, 2018.
io
Depositions
. .
To remind, the City has a few outstanding items due tomorrow:
at
1. Deposition dates for all City employees identified by Plaintiff. Please refer to Plaintiffs
ul
"Priority List(s) forwarded to you in February and last week;
2. A list of each City employee for whom Plaintiff requested deposition that you are not
ib
representing; and
3. Notice of Compliance Re: Court's Order on Plaintiffs Pitchess motion.

Tr
Reserved Dates for Citv Witness Depositions
The following dates are still oil reserve on both John Taylor's calendar and mine. We have
&
already lost some of the dates that were reserved for us.
March
ls
15, 16, 22, 26, 30
April
ia
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27

Tr
Thank you.
.,
f, C'CM
Coo/tney C. McNicholas
CCM/js

Hon. Candace Cooper (Ret.) - Via Email Only
-
McN1cHOLAS
TRIAL
& McNrcHOLAS,
LAWYE:RS
- LLP
108156 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGE:L.ES, CALIF'ORNIA 90024
PHONE (3101 474-IS82/FAX (310) 475-7871
www.McNICHOLASLAW.COM
April 24, 2018
Via Email: john.anthony@lacity.org & U.S. Mail

200 N. Main Street, 7th Floor
s
n
io
at
John:
Violation of April 5, 2018 Court Order Issued by Justice Cooper

ul
ib
I have not had a response to my letter requesting that you comply with Justice Cooper s 1
[April 5, 2018] order to produce the documents reviewed by Det. Cliff Shepard (Ret.) in preparation
Tr
for his deposition.
For ease of reference, and a clear record, I reiterate the following chronology of.events:
&
On April 5, 2018, you refused to produce the documents that Det. Shepard reviewed to
prepare for his deposition. You asserted numerous objections, including those based on privilege.
Justice Cooper ordered you to produce all documents that were.reviewed with the exception
ls
of those you claim are subject to attorney-'client privilege. You were to produce the documents by
April 10, 2018. (See, Attachment 1, Deposition of Cliff Shepard, 136:23 - 141 :11.)
ia
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018, you sent the following email to Plaintiffs attorneys and Justice
Tr
Cooper (Deposition Referee):
"Greetings All,
At the April 5, 2018 deposition of retired Detective Clifford

Sheppard, Del. Sheppard testified that he reviewed documents in
preparation.for his deposition.
Pursuant Justice Cooper's order [sic}, I have reviewed the

documents Det. Sheppard reviewed to confirm none were attorney-client
privileged in advance of producing same to Plaintiff. [Emphasis
added.]
• McN1cHOLAs' McN1cHOLAS LLP
April 24, 2018

Page 2
I have con.firmedthat none of the documentsappear to be

attorney-clientcommunications. As such, my office is preparing the
documentsfor production via overnight delivery..
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Have a good evening.
ns
John"
(See, Attachment 2, Email dated April I 0, 2018.)
io
On April 11, 2018, I advised you that we had not received the documents and inquired as to
at
when the .documents might be in our office. You did not respond; you simply looked at me without
speaking.
ul
On April 13, 2018, I sent you a letter (See, Attachment 3, Correspondence dated April, 13,
2018) advising that you were in violation of Justice Cooper's order.
ib
You did not respond to the April 13, 2018 correspondence.
: ' - . .
Tr
On April 20, 2018, at the deposition ofDet. Mike Beretta, I advised Deputy City Attorney
Casey Shim that the City had failed to produce documents as ordered by Ju~tice Cooper on April·5,
2018. He said he would relay the message to you as he was just sitting in for the day.
&
On April 23, 2018, Mr. Shim appeared in your stead for the deposition of Deputy Chief Kirk
Albanese (Ret.). I inquired about the documents reviewed by Det. Shepard. Mr. Shim did not have
any information on the topic.
ls
As of today (April 24, 2018), you have not produced the documents per Justice Cooper's
order. Your written representation that the documents were being sent overnight was. clearly
ia
untrue. This same "sendingovernight" tactic was utilized by you with regard to court-ordered
production of Pitchess documents. (See, Attachment 4, Correspondence dated May 16, 2017.)
Tr
Violation of March 6, 2018 and March 21, 2018 Court Orders
1. Deposition Dates for Priority Witnesses
On April 13, I requested that you provide dates for the Priority Witnesses pursuant to Judge
Fujie's March 6, 2018 order. (See, Attachment 3). You were to have provided the dates on or
before March 13, 2018. (See, Attachment 5, Correspondence March 13, 2018.) We still do not have
dates for the following "priority" witnesses:
McN1cHOLAS. McN1cHoLAS LLP

April 24, 2018
Page 3
- Commander Rick Webb (Ret.);

- Author of the Complaint Review Rep011 (original notice served January 25, 2017);
- The Person Most Knowledgeable Re the Investigator assigned to CCU who reviewed the
lawsuit brought by Plaintiff ( original notice served January 25, 2017); and
- The Person Most Knowledgeable Regarding the LAPD Policy, Protocol and Procedure
regarding the Physical Transfer of a Murder Investigation File (original notice served January 25,
2017).
ns
2. Pitchess Documents
The court ordered you to produce Pit chess documents as well
io
c)Sa statement regarding the
search and existence of the Pitchess documents.
at
On April 3, 2018, I advised you that there were several documents missing from the most
recent Pitchess production. (See, Attachment 6, Correspondence dated April 3, 2018.) You have
not responded to my request for the missing docmhents, again, jn violation of the court's order.
ul
ib
Demand for Production of Documents
1. Detective Mike Beretta

Tr
The Notice of Deposition of Det. Mike Beretta included a Demand for Production of
Documents. The City did not serve an objection to any of the requests. However, no documents
were produced, including those reviewed by the detective to prepare for his deposition.
&
(See, Attachment 7, Deposition Transcript of Mike Beretta, 9:13-10:2.)
2. Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese

ls
The Notice of Deposition ofDep. Chief KirkAlbanese (Ret.) ~n~luded a Dern~nd for
Prodµcfi~n of Dqcu111entsthat were revieW~d· in preparation for deposition. Chief AJbflncse
testified
ia
he
th&t reviewed the ·••Detective Operatii:ms Manual "thptf .~(gnedin 2015 '' and the ~APq Homicide
ManuEil "iaprepwe 1' fQrthe deposition. ··
Tr
The rev,ewed documents were not produced.
3. Detective Dan Jaramiilo
The Notice of Deposition of Det. Dan Jaran1illo included a Demand for Production of
Documents. In response, the City served its standard. boilerplate non-specific objections, including
those based on privilege. (See, Attachment 8.)
~-.
MCNICHOLAS' MCNICHOLAS LLP

April 24, 2018
Page 4
On April 13, 2018. I requested that you comply with Code of Civil Procedure
§ 2031.240(c)(1) [If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information
sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other ,1
parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log."] (See,
Attachment 3.) ·
You have not responded to the April 13, 2018 request.
ns
The ongoing, unjustified, co.ntinuousmisuse of discovery continues to be the pattern,
custom and habit of the City Attorney in this case and is meant to cause delay and expense to the
Plaintiff.
io
In addition to the evidence already submitted, the foregoing will be used to support t4e
at
custom, habit and practice of the City Attorney to misuse and abuse the discovery system.
Thank you.
ul
ib
Tr
C. McNicholas
CCM/js
Attachments
&

ls
ia
Tr
~--
-
MCNICHOLAS
TRIAL
§ MCNICHOLAS,
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGELES, CALIF'OANIA 900Z4
PHONE 13101 474-ISBZ/F'AX 13101 47S-7871
www.MCNICH0LASLAW.C0M
April 27, 2018
Via Email:john.antl1ony@Jacity.org& Mail

200 N. Main Street, 71h Floor
s
n
io
Compl~intFiled: October 30, 2013
at
Fiv_eYear Statute: October 30, 2018
ul
Johrr
On March 6, 2018, Judge Fujie ordered you to provide deposition dates and the names of
ib
each City witness that you do not represent. (See, AttachedNotice of Rulings and Orders Made at
Informal Discovery Conference, page 2 lines 8-10.)
Tr
On March 14, 2018, you sent the followingemail:
"Greetings All:
&
The following deposition dates have been cleared with the

witnesses and Defense'counsel:
ls
3122: Lt. Jiro Oka

412: Det. Greg Stearns
ia
415: Det. Cliff Sheppard

4/11: Det. Dan Jaramillo
Tr
I 11nderstandJudge Fuiie instructed the City to provide dates for

City-controlled/representedwitnessesby today (3114). However,
due partially to the fact we got available dates from Plaintiff a
day late, these are the only dates that can be confirmed at this
time.
I will endeavor to have the rest of the dates on this list provided
tomorrow (3115).·
MCNICHOLAS -§ MCNICHOLAS LLP
April 27, 2018

Page 2
In the abundance of caution, I am planning to appear ex parte

this Friday 3/16 before Judge Fujie to apprise her of the status of
deposition scheduling, as she indicated was appropriate if there
was an issue in deposition scheduling.
At tltis time, I am not aware of any retired employees wlto /,ave

ref used representation by my Office. However, I /,ave not been
ns
able to contact Retired Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese. I am
endeavoring to do so and will try to confirm one way or tl,e
other by Friday. ·
io
Please confirm whetheryou will be able to appear on Friday
morning at 8:30 in Department56 ex parte.
at
John"
ul
[Emphasis added.]
List of Retired City EmployeesNot Representedby City Attorney

ib
You have never identified any witness that your office does not represent. However,
yesterday I was forced to have the judge order you again to provide dates for Commander Webb's
Tr
deposition (which, by your own admission, you were supposed to have done by March 14, 2018).
(See, Reporter's Transcript 35: 19-36:7.)_ ·
Ms. McNicholas: We haven't gotten a date and I would like, Judge, if you would issue an order
&
to Mr. Anthony to provide a datefor Retired Commander Rick Webb. He

was on the priority list. He was identified, and we have not received a date
for.him.
ls
The Court: Okay. We/1J 'm sure he 'IIbe able to do that, right Mr. Anthony.
Mr. Anthony: Of course.
ia
Mr. Anthony: He 's retired.

The Court: Oh, he's retired.
Tr
Ms. McNicholas: He is. He retired in 20L6.

Mr. Anthony: I'll reach out tp him. I don't have the ability to compel, but it's usuallypretty
easy.
You should have contacted or "endeavored" to contact Commander Webb long ago.
Yesterday you told the court that you would "reach out to[Webb]".
['..) You have never identified Commander Webb as.a witness that you do not represent. did
0
not.
MCNICHOLAS -8 MCNICHOLAS LLP
April 27, 2018

Page 3
At your request, I provided you with a complete list of City witnesses on March 16, 2018.
(Copy attached for ease of reference). Plaintiff demands that you comply with Judge Fujie's March
· 6, 2018 order and 1) identify each witness that your office does not represent; and 2) provide dates
for all priority witnesses as ordered on March 6, 2018.
Deposition Dates
s
Judge Fujie instructed you to get dates to complete depositions in progress. (See, Reporter's
Transcript 60: 8-11)
n
io
The Court: What I would ask is that you start talking about continued deposition dates
for those depositions that weren't completed
Mr. Anthony: Absolutely
at
Please absolutely provide all dates for the following incomplete depositions:
1.
2.
Det. Greg Stearns;
Det. Cliff Shepard;
ul
ib
3. Det. Dan Jaramillo;
4. Dep. Chief Albanese; and
5. Det. Mike Beretta.
Tr
Please also absolutely provide dates as ordered by the court on March 6, 2018 for the
following previously identified priority witne·sses:
&
1. Custodian if Records for Request for Production of D<;>cuments,

Set 2;
2. Author of the Complaint Review Report; and
. 3. The Person Most KnowledgeableRegarding the LAPD Policy, Protocol and
ls
Procedure regarding he Physical Transfer of a Murder Investigation File.

ia
In addition to the foregoing, please absolutelyprovide dates for the following witnesses
whose depositions were scheduled and taken off-calendardue to conflicts:
Tr
1. Jeffrey Thompson; and

2. Det. Vivian Flores.
f-•.)
~-.
John T. Anthony
-
rrr,Esq.
April 27, 2018

Page 4
Finally, please review the list provided to you on March 16, 2018 and absolutely provide
dates for those witnesses. So you are clear about the witnesses, I am attaching the letter and the list
(third time) so you can ende~vor to obtain dates immediately.
Very trnly yours,
~4.J1u/;icdt~
s
Courtney CiJif cNicholas
n
io
CCM/js
Attachments
at
cc: John C. Ta'ylor, Taylor & Ring - Via Email Only
ul
ib
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
- - --------- -------------------
McN1cHOLAS
TRIAL
& McN1cHOLAS,
LAWYERS
• LLP
10B66 WILSHIRE BLVD,, SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024
PHONE C.3101 474-1582/FAX C310J 475-7B71
www.McNICHOLASLAW,COM
May 4, 2018
ViaEmail:john.anthony@Jacity.org& Mail

ns
200 N. Main Street, ih Floor
io
at
Trial:. October 1, 2018
John:
ul
ib
In order to expedite the court-ordered depositions of City-Controlledwitnesses, I obtained
dates that Justice Cooper (Ret.) is available. You were copied on the email from Justice Cooper,
however to assist in obtaining dates as quickly as possible, the dates are reiterated herein:
Tr
May: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 31

June: 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
July: 13, 23, 27, 30, 31
&
August: 1, 2;3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 31

September: 10, 1"1
ls
On March 15, 2018 and again on April 27, 2018, I requested that you comply with Judge
Fujie's March 6, 2018 order and identity each City witness that you do not represent. You have not
responded to that request. (See Attachment "A", Correspondencedated March 15, 2018 and
ia
Attachment "B", dated April 27, 2018.). Based on your representations to the court on April 26,
2018 that Commander RfokWebb is retired and you "do not have the ability to compel" 1 am
Tr
reiterating Plaintif'fs demand that you comply with the court's order to identify each City witness
that your office does not represent.
Court's March 6, 2018 Order to Provide Deposition Dates
On March 6, Judge Fujie ordered you to provide dates for all Priority Witnesses. The list of
Priority Witnesses and requests for those dates have been transmitted to you at least six (6) times,
.. including February 15, 2018 (Attachment "C"); February 20, 2018 (Attachment "D"); March 8,
2018 (Attachment ''E"); March 13, 2018 (Attachment"F"); March 16, 2018 (Attachment"G"); and
April 27, 2018 (Attachment "B").
MCNICHOLAS - s MCNICHOLAS LLP.
May 4, 2018
Page2
Despite Judge Fujie's order and the nwnerous requests from Plaintiff, you still have not
provided dates for the following Priority Witnesses:
1. Commander Rick Webb;

2. Custodiari if Records for Request for Production of Documents, Set 2;
3. Author of the Complaint Review Report; and
4. The Person Most Knowledgeable Regarding the LAPD Policy, Protocol and
s
Procedure regarding he Physical Transfer of a Murder Investigation File.
n
Court's April 26, 2018 Instruction to Provide Dates to Complete Depositions
io
On April 27, 2018, I requested that you provide dates for the following depositions in
progress pursuant to Judge Fujie's order. You have not replied to the request.
at
Judge Fujie instructed you to get dates to complete depositions in progress. (See, Reporter's
Transcript 55: 11-14; Attachment "H11)
ul
·
The Court: What I would ask is that you start talking about continued deposition dates
ib
for those depositions that weren't completed
Mr. Anthony: Absolutely ·
Tr
Plaintiff reiterates the request for dates for the following incomplete depositions:
1. Det. Greg Stearns;

, 2. Det. Cliff Shepard;
&
3. Det. Dan Jaramillo;

4. Dep. Chief Albanese; and
5. Det. Mike Beretta.
ls
Additional Deposition Dates Needed

ia
In addition to the foregoing, please provide dates for the following witnesses whose
depositions were scheduled and taken off-calendar due to conflicts:
Tr
1. Jeffrey Thompson; and

2. Det. Vivian Flores.
Pleas review the extensive list provided to you on March 16, 2018, and provide dates for
those witnesses. To avoid any confusion, misunderstanding or other delay, the letter and the list
(third time) so you can endeavor to obtain dates immediately. (See, Attachment "G").
MCNICHOLAS - s McNrCHOLAS LLP
May 4, 2018
Page 3
Plaintifrs Request for CF# 17- 00412
What is the City's response to the court's inquiry regarding the Internal Affairs investigation
of Jennifer Francis' reports that non-sworn LAPD employee Harry Klann made false and
misleading statements under penalty of perjury (CF # 17-00412)? (See Reporters Transcript 46:21-
47: 12.)
ns
Ruling by Justice Cooper that Plaintiff is Precluded from·Seeking Documents that were
Requested in RFP, Set No. 2:
io
You made several representations to Judge Fujie.that Justice Cooper ruled Plaintiff could
not seek documents already requested in RFP 2.
at
'
At the deposition of Dr. Nels Rasmussen (May 1, 2018), Justice Cooper also requested that
the deposition transcript that allegedly contains these "rulings" on the request for documents be
ul
forwarded to her. Please identify the deponent, date of deposition, and the page/line within the
Reporter's Transcript that you cited to the court:
ib
Mr. Anthony: One of the principal objections with these deposition notices was with the
RFPs that were attached to the depo notices, where they were many, if not most, were duplicative of
RFP Set 2 which were served objections were served, there was no motion to compel. So the ability
Tr
to move to compel has passed, and now they 're trying to get a second bite at the apple. Justice
Cooper has already ruled in deposition that, if they are duplicative, that they should not be the
subiect of deposition notices again.
&
The Court: Do we have the Reporter's Transcript of that?
Mr. Anthony: Yes, Your Honor

ls
The Court: Is what you've been referring to, Mr. Anthony, as having-what you stated to
me is that Justice Cooper said that, ifit was in the prior request and then was requested again in
ia
the deposition notice did not have to be produced. Is that a statement in the transcript that Ms.
McNicholas is referring to, or is that a separate transcript?
Tr
-Ms. McNicholas: ... the City's taken the position that since [a document] was asked.for it
once, you can't ask for it in any other type of discovery.
The Court: Actually, I.Just want to see - with regard to that, I want to see the transcript of
anything Justice Cooper said. ...And I would want to see what her reasoning was for that ...
The Court: So if you could actually file, you know, the transcripts of statements of
Justice Cooper -
Mr. Anthony: I don't know which ones she's ta,lking about.
The Court: That you were talking about.
~--
-- McN 1cHOLAs - 8 · McN 1cHOLAS LLP

May 4, 2018
Page 4
. .
(Reporter's Transcript, 14:19-15:9 28:9-15; 48:1-8; 48:12-16) [Emphasis added}.)
Thank you for your immediate attention to these discovery matters .
ns
.,4 Cc,',f
ney C. Md~icholas
io
CCM/js
Attachments
at
ul
ib
Tr
/
&
ls
ia
Tr
MCNICHOLAS
TRIAL
8 MCNICHOLAS,
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 WILSHIRE BLVO, SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGELES, CALIF'ORNIA 90024
PHONE 13101 474-1582/f'AX 13101 475·7871
www.McN1CHOLASLAW.COM
May 25, 2018
Via Email:john.anthony@lacity.org
dennis.kong@Jacity.org& Mail·
John Anthony III
s
Dennis Kong
n
io
Re: Francisv. City of Los Angeles,et al.
at
Trial: October 1, 2018
ul
ib
John and Dennis:
Tr
On May 22, 2018, John Anthony and I appeared for an IDC in this matter with Judge Holly
Fujie. She reiterated her concern regarding the mandatory five-year statute governing the trial in
this case (October 30, 2018). She inquired about a stipulation to waive the five-year statute. Mr.
Anthony indicated he was inclined to agree to a later trial date. The next available trial date is
&
January 22, 2019.
After conferring with the client and co-counsel, we have concluded that we cannot and will
not stipulate to a later trial date. If and when the City is in compliance with all court orders
ls
regarding discovery and deposition dates (including the court ·orders dated April 26, 2018), we will
reconsider a later trial date.
ia
Please allo~ this to serve as a formal meet and confer to obtain court ordered discovery.
Tr
Attached is the Notice of Ruling that reflects Judge Fuji e's April 26, 2018 orders (filed and
served May A, 2018) for reference.
CITY'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS ISSUED APRIL 26, 2018:
1. CITY'S POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE: PROHIBITION ON DOCUMENTS

REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SET TWO
t·•-.J
0 The Court ordered the City to file and (electronically) serve Points and Authorities
I-'
c,:, supporting its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining documents requested in Request
-
May 25, 2018

Page 2
for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or different discovery method because the City objected to
Request for Production No. 2. The Court ordered this to be completed on or before May 11, 2018.
The City has failed to comply with the Court's order.

(See, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, April 26, 2018: pp. 15:20- 16:14)
2. FAILURETO COMPLYWITH ORDERTO FILE TRANSCRIPTOF
ns
STATEMENTSMADE BY DISCOVERYREFEREEJUSTICECANDACE
COOPER(RET.)
io
In conjunction with the Points and Authorities re: Request for Production No. 2, the Court
ordered you to file the transcript(s) that include statements the City claims Justice Cooper made
prohibiting discovery requests that were included in RFP No. 2. The City was ordered to file and
at
serve those transcripts on or before May 11,-2018. The City has failed to comply with the Court's
order
ul
Mr. AntJ,ony: One of the principal objections with these deposition notices was with the
ib
RFPs that were attached to the depo notices, where they were many, if not most, were duplicative of
RFP Set 2 which were serve objections were served, there was no motion to compel. So, the ability
Tr
to move to compel has passed, and now they're trying to get a second bile at the apple. Justice
subject of deposition notices again.
&
Tl,e Court: Do we have the Reporter's Tr.anscriptof that?

Ms. McNicholas: No.
ls
Mr. Ant!,ony: Your honor, that wasn't what we_were here to talk about.
The Court: I know. I know. But is there one?
ia
Mr. Anthony: Yes,your honor.

Tr
Tl,e Court: Actually, I Just want to see-- with regard to that, I want to see the transcript
of anything that Justice Cooper said. Because, again it's not really an order, and I would want to
see what her reasoning wasfor that because I would -- you know, whatever my order is - is de
novo.
All right?
Ms. McNicholas: Okay.
TJ,eCourt: So if you [Mr. AnthonyJ could actuallyfile you know, transcripts of statements
of Justice Cooper --
- McN ICHOLAS • 8 McN ICHOLAS LLP
May 25, 2018

Page 3
Mr. A11tlto11y:I don't know which one she's [At/s. McNicholas) is talking about
The Court: That you [Mr. Anthony} were talking about.
Ms. McNicholas: That you [Mr. Antho_nyj were talking about.
(See, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, April 26, 2018: pp.14:2i-15:l l; 47:23-48:17)
ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATTERS
ns
On March 6, 2018, Judge Fujie ordered you to provide dates for all priority witnesses. You
have provided dates for most, but not all of the witnesses. Please provide all dates that the Priority
io
Witnesses are available.
I appreciate receiving dates for Commander Rick Webb. After cross-checking with Justice
at
Cooper's calendar, I will send a Notice of Deposition.
ul
ib
misleading statements under penalty of perjury (CF# 17-00412)? (See Reporter's Transcript of
Proceedings, April 26, 2018: pp. 46:21-47:12.)
Tr
Thank you for your immediate attention to these discovery matters.

&
ls
CCM/js
ia
Attachments
Tr
~--
-
MCNICHOLAS 0
TRIAL
MCNICHOLAS,
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 W1LSH1RE SLVO. SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900Z4
PHONE 1310) 474•1S82/FAX 13101 47S·7871
www.McN1CHOLASLAW,COM
June 1, 2018
Via Email:jolm.anthony@Jacity.org
de~nis.kong@lacity.org& Mail .
I
John Anthony III
ns
oJnnis Kong
Ci~ Attorney's Office .
290 N. Main Street, th Floor
io
L s Angeles, CA 90012-4131
at
LASC Case No. 'BC 526258
Trial: October l, 2018
Five Year Statute: October JO, 2018 ·
ul
ib
Jo and Dennis:
On Saturday, May 28, 2018, John Anthony sent the following email:
Tr
Courtney,·
Please accept this email as response to your letter dated May 25, 2018.
&
We did appear before the Honorable Holly Fujie on May 22, 2018for an informal discovery
conference (JDC). At that JDC, the Court did reiterate her concern regarding the jive-year
ls
statute governing the trial in this matter. ·The Court did inquire about the parties potentially
entering into a stipulation to waive or extend the jive-year rule. Your May 25 letter
ia
indicates that I "indicated J was inclined to agree to a later trial date." It is my recollection ,,
that while I indicated I was inclined to consider such a stipulation and discuss with my
Office, J don't believe J necessarily indicated I was inclined to agree.
Tr
J believe J inquired about what you were inclined to do and you indicated you had to confer
with your client and co-counsel but you did not believe that an agreed-upon stipulation was
likely based on your client's current sentiment. I appreciate you going back and conferring
with Mr. Taylor and Ms. Francis and J understand your letter to confirm that Plaintiff is not
inclined to stipulate to an extension of the jive-year rule. ·
As you know, I am currently engaged in trial with your office in another matter, but J have
coordinated backup counsel for the City in Mr. Kong. J, along with Mr. Kong, will
coordinate the depositions and written discovery outlined in your May 25th letter to assure
there is no delay in Plaintiffs trial preparation. We will email regarding deposition
scheduling and the other discovery matters listed in your email under separate cover.
- McN1cHOLAS -8 McN1cHOLAS LLP
June 1, 2018
PJge 2
I apologize for having to email you on a holiday, however, I wanted to return

co.mmunicati~n on these matters as soon as practicable:
Ifyou have any questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.
John
ns
RESPONSETO MR. ANTHONY'sMAY 282 2018 EMAIL
I
1. • THE Greg G. v City of Los Angeles TRIALEXCUSE
io
The fact that you and I are botlt engaged in the trial of Greg G. v City of Los Angeles does
no1t negate Judge Fujie's orders in this case. The trial notwithstanding, both parties must comply
at
w~th their respective obligations in Francis. The trial does not excuse your ongoing, willful failure
to !comply with Judge Fujie's orders issued on April 26, 2018, or the orders issued in February and
I .
March.
:
l
I
ul ·
As articulated herein and in past correspondence, Plaintiff has timely met and complied with
ib
each
. I
order issued
.
by the court.
i
You have not provided any valid reason for disobeying the court's orders.
Tr
2. CITY'S ASSERTIONTHAT IT WILL COORDINATETHE DEPOSITIONSAND

WRITTENDISCOVERYOUTLINEDIN THE MAY 25, 2018 LETTER
&
Unfortunately, there is no basis in fact or history to accept this representation.
Your comments to the court in the Greg G. matter regarding discovery strategy, the City's
ls
"artful responses" to discovery, and the intentional withholding of relevant documents requested in
discovery have made me acutely aware that the City does not intend to and will not comply with the
ia
rules of discovery.
Based on what has occurred in Greg G., Plaintiff cannot rely on this statement. As you
Tr
stated to the court in the Greg G. matter, "the obligation is on the Plaintiff to bring a motion if the
discovery responses are inadequate, incomplete or further responses are desired."
Additionally, your representation to the court that certain responses to discovery by the City
were "artfully drafted" has removed any doubt that this is a pattern and practice of the City. It
would be foolish and irrational of me to rely on your statements of compliance.
~--
I'-.)
,:::, I decline to accept that the City will honor its obligations absent additional court
intervention.
- MCNICHOLAS -8 MCNICHOLAS LLP
Junel,2018
Page 3
3. CITY CAUSING DELAY TO PLAINTIFF'sTRIAL PREPARATION
The City has continuously and repeatedly delayed Plaintiffs trial preparation and caused
irreparable damage. (Take, for example, the deposition of Dr. Dorothy Tucker.)
Please see Paragraph 2 above as the same analysis and response applies to your statement,
"I, along with Mr. Kong, will coordinate the depositions and written discovery outlined in your May
ns
25th letter to assure there is no delay in Plaintiffs trial preparation."
Since the IDC was held on April 26, 2018, Plaintiff has requested that the City comply with
io
the discovery and/or court orders several times. (See Correspondence dated April 27; May 4; May
8 and May 25 attached for ease of reference.)
at
.I Regrettably, the City's history, statements made to the court in this case (and others), along
w~th its extensive record of disobeying court orders forces me to reject your representation.
ul
Pl~intiff will proceed accordingly,
I
CITY'S CONTINUED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS ISSUED APRIL

ib
26, 2018:
1. CITY'S POINTS & AUTHORITIES RE: PROHIBITION ON DOCUMENTS

Tr
'REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SET TWO
The Court ordered the City to file and (electronically) serve Points and Authorities
&
supporting its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining documents requested in Request
. for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or different discovery method because the City objected to
Request for Production No. 2. · The Court ordered this to be completed on or before May 11, 2018.
ls
You have now been in violation of that order for three full weeks.
(See, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, April 26, 2018: pp. 15:20 - 16:14)
ia
2. FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH ORDER TO FILE TRANSCRIPT OF

Tr
STATEMENTS MADE BY DISCOVERY REFEREE JUSTICE CANDACE

COOPER (RET.)
c,:, serve those transcripts on or before May 11, 2018. The City did not comply with the part of the
order until May 29, 2018.
~--
MCNICHOLAS§ - MCNICHOLAS LLP
June 1, 2018
Page 4
3. FAILURETO COMPLYWITH ORDERREGARDINGDOCUMENTS

REQUESTEDBY PLAINTIFFIN DISCOVERY
On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff complied with Judge Fujie's order to serve the City (you) with a
"DOCUMENTCHART"that listed: I.) Each document (or category of documents) Plaintiff
. requested from the City that has not been produced; 2.) Each date Plaintiff requested the document
(or category of documents); and 3.) The source/vehicle(s) by which the document (or category of
s
documents) was requested from the City. ·
n
I The Court ordered the City to serve a response to the court-ordered "DOCUMENT
io
CJIART"on or before May 25, 20 I 8. The City was to provide Plaintiff with the following
additional information for each document (or category of documents) requested from the City in
di~covery that has not been produced: I.) Will be produced; 2) Whether the document exists; 3.)
at
I
\\'jhether the document does not exist; 4.) Why the document does not exist; 5.) What privilege is
being asserted (if any); 6.) All information required when a privilege is asserted; and 4.) Objections.
ul
I .
(*(J'hecourt specifically advised Deputy City Attorney to be very sparing about objections and to
uriderstand how broad discovery is and that the court does not expect objections other than
I. ·tege.)
p~1vr
ib
!
The City has now been in violation of this order for a week without justification.
Tr
(See,Notice of Ruling and Orders Made at IDC, filed and served May 4, 2018)
i
'
4. FAILURE TO COMPLYWITH ORDERTO PRODUCEDOCUMENTS
&
In addition to the "DOCUMENTCHART"that includes the City's responses, objections

and privileges, the City was ordered to personally serve Plaintiff with all documents that exist as
identified by Defendant on the chart other than those to which a privilege or objection is asserted.
The court ordered the City to produce documents on or before May 25, 2018. You have not
ls
I
produced any documents. · •
ia
(Sr, The City has now been in violation of this court order for a week without justification.
Notice of Ruling and Orders Made at IDC, filed and served May 4, 2018)
Tr
ADDITIONALDISCOVERYMATTERS
I appreciate receiving dates for Commander Rick Webb. A Notice of Deposition has been
prepared and served.
!
i On March 6, 2018, Judge Fujie ordered you to provide dates for all priority witnesses. You
ha:ve provided dates for most, but not all of the witnesses. Please provide· all dates that the Priority
Whnesses are available.
I
I
JohnT. Anthony III, Esq.
- McN tCHOLAS -8 McN tCHOLAS LLP
Juhe I, 2018
Page 5

I .
What is the.City's response to the court's inquiry regarding the Internal Affairs investigation
I
ofµennifer Francis' reports that non-sworn LAPD employee Harry Klann made false and
mi~leading statements und.erpenalty of perjury (CF# 17-00412)? (SeeReporter's Transcript of
Pr9ceedings, April 26, 2018: pp. 46:21-47:13.) ·
ns
io
at
CCM/js
I
Attachments
ul
ib
cc:j John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring - Via Email Only
'
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
•
McNtCHOLAS 8 McNrcHOLAS.
• LLP
TRIAL LAWYE:RS
10666 WILSHIRE: BLVO, SUITE: 1400 • LOS ANOE:LE:S, CALIFORNIA 90024
PHONE: 1310) 474-1582/FAX C310) 475-7671
www.McN1CHOLASLAW.COM
June 12, 2018
Via Email:john.anthony@J.acity.org
dennis.kong@Jacity.org& Mail
· John Anthony III ·
ns
Dennis Kong
200 N. Main Street, ?1hFloor
io
at
ul
ib
John and Dennis:
Tr
I have not heard from either of you in response to my extensive meet and confer letter(s),
including the most recent dated June 1, 2018. Likewise, the City still has not complied with Judge
Fujie's orders as outlined in the June 1, 2018 correspondence.
&
In light of Judge Beaudet's granting the City's request for a "brief recess" in the Greg G. v
City of Los Angeles, there is no excuse for your continued, willful and unjustified disregard of the
orders in the Francis matter.
ls
As I previously advised, and history supports, Plaintiff has timely met and complied with
each order is·sued by the court.
ia
However, the City's ongoing disregard and disobedience of court orders has now made it
Tr
impossible for Plaintiff to meet her obligations. Specifically, you were ordered to prepare and serve
a Joint Statement of Remaining Discovery on or before June 8, 2018. You failed to comply with
that order. As a result, Plaintiff is unable to provide responses and contributions to the Joint
Statement of Discovery.
Y om· unjustified and willful disregard of court orders is causing· significant delays in
discovery. Plaintiff views this as an intentional attempt to interfere with trial preparation and is
~--
another of the City's "artful responses". and tactics as noted by Judge Beaudet in the Greg G. trial.
~--
- MCNICHOLAS •& MCNICHOLAS LLP

June 12, 2018
Page 2
I. CITY'S FALSE ASSERTIONTHAT IT WILL COORDINATETHE DEPOSITIONS

AND WRITTEN DISCOVERYOUTLINEDIN THE MAY 25, 2018 LETTER
As anticipated, you have done absolutely nothing to honor your statement that you will
coordinate depositiop.sand the written discovery since my letter dated May 25, 2018.
It is clear that you do not intend to and will not comply with the rules of discovery and the
s
court's orders. This prejudices Plaintiff and our ability to complete discovery ordered by the court
n
over a year ago.
io
II. CITY'S CONTINUEDTACTICSINTENDEDTO DELAY PLAINTIFF'STRIAL
PREPARATION
at
Since the IDC was held on April 26, 2018, Plaintiff has requested that the City comply with
the discovery and/or court orders several times. (See Correspondencedated April 27; May 4; May
8; May 25; and June 1.)
ul
We view these intentional discovery abuses as part of the City's calculated strategy and
ib
tactics as it relates to litigation. This is con~istentwith the tactics employed in the Montoya,
DeBellis and Greg G. matters. Thus, it constitutes a pattern and practice sanctionable by statute.
Tr
III. CITY'S DISREGARD OF COURT ORDERSISSUED APRIL 26, 2018:
A. CITY'S POINTS & AUTHORITIESRE: PROHIBITIONON DOCUMENTS

REQUESTEDIN PLAINTIFF'SREQUESTFOR PRODUCTION OF
&
DOCUMENTS,SET TWO
The Court ordered the City to file and (electronically)serve Points and Authorities
ls
supporting its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining documents requested in Request
for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or different discovery method because the City objected to
Request for Production No. 2. The Court ordered this to be completed on or before May 11, 2018.
ia
You have now been in violation of that order for three full weeks.
Tr
(See,Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, April 26, 2018: pp. 15:20 - 16:14)
B. FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH ORDER TO FILE TRANSCRIPT

OF STATEMENTSMADE BY DISCOVERYREFEREE JUSTICE
CANDACE COOPER (RET.)
serve those transcripts on or before May 11, 2018. The City did not comply with the part of the
order until May 29, 2018.
- MCNICHOLAS§ • MCNICHOLAS LLP

Junel2,2018
Page 3
C. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENTS

REQUESTED BY PLAINTIFF IN DISCOVERY
On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff complied with Judge Fujie's order to serve the City (you) with a
"DOCUMENT CHART" that listed: 1.) Each document (or category of documents) Plaintiff
requested from the City that has not been produced; 2.) Each date Plaintiff requested the document
(or category of documents); and 3.) The source/vehicle(s) by which the document (or category of
s
documents) was requested from the City.
n
The Court ordered the City to serve a response to the court-ordered "DOCUMENT
io
CHART" on or before May 25, 2018. The City was to provide Plaintiff with the following
additional information for each document (or category of documents) requested from the City in
at
discovery that has not been produced: 1.) Will be produced; 2) Whether the document exists; 3.)
Whether the document does not exist; 4.) Why the document does not exist; 5.) What privilege is
being asserted (if any); 6.) All information required when a privilege is asserted; and 7.) Objections.
ul
(*The court specifically advised Deputy City Attorney to be very sparing about objections and to
understand how broad discovery is and that the court does not expect objections other than
privilege.)
ib
The City has now been in violation of this order for a week without justification.
Tr
(See, Notice of Ruling and Orders Made at IDC, filed and served May 4, 2018)
D. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

&
In addition to the "DOCUMENT CHART" that includes the City's responses, objections
and privileges, the City was ordered to personally serve Plaintiff with all documents that exist as
identified by Defendant on the chart other than those to which a privilege or objection is asserted.
The court ordered the City to produce documents on or before May 25, 2018. You have not
ls
produced any documents.

ia
The City has now been in violation of this court order for over two weeks without
justification. (See, Notice of Ruling and Orders Made at IDC, filed and served May 4, 2018)
Tr
E. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER TO PREPARE JOINT

STATEMENT
As discussed above, the City has not served the Joint Statement of Discovery.
IV. CITY'S DISREGARD OF COURT'S MARCH 6, 2018 ORDER TO PROVIDE

DEPOSITION DATES
..
have provided dates for most, but not all of the witnesses. I have written to you on numerous
- MCNICHOLAS
-8 MCNICHOLAS LLP

June 12, 2018
Page4
occasions requesting dates. I have provided the list of witnesses on more than three occasions.
Still, you have not provided da,tesfor all witnesses. Several of the depositions were court-ordered
in March 2017 (that is fifteen months ago). Please provide all dates that th~ Priority Witnesses are
available.
n s
Courtne C. McNicholas
io
CCM/js
Attachments
at
cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring - Vi~ EmailDnly
\
ul
ib
Tr
&
ls
ia
I.
Tr
•
MCNICHOLAS
TRIAL
0 MCNICHOLAS;
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 WILSHIRE: BLVO .. SUITE: 1400 • LOS ANGE:LE:S, CALIFORNIA 90024
PHONE: 13101 474-ISS2/F'AX 13101 47S-7871
WWW.MCNICHOLAS LAW.COM
July 18, 2018
Via Email: jol111.ant/10ny@lacity.org

dennis,ko11g@lacity.org & U.S. Mail
John Anthony III
s
Dennis Kong
n
th
200 N. Main Street, 7 Floor
io
Los Angeles, CA 90012-413 1
at
ul
ib
John and Dennis:
Tr
I have not heard from either of you in response to my extensive meet and confer letter(s),
including the most recent dated Ju~e 12, 2018. Likewise, the City still has not complied with-Judge
Fujie's orders as outlined in the June 1, 2018 correspondence.
COURT'S MARCH 6, 2018 ORDER TO PROVIDE DEPOSITION DATES

&
have provided dates for most, but not all of the witnesses. 1 have written to you on numerous
ls
occasions requesting dates. I have provided the list of witnesses on more than three occasions.
Still, you have not provided dates for all witnesses. Several of the depositions were court.,.ordered
ia
in March 2017 (that is fifteen months ago).
Please provide all dates that the Priority Witnesses are available.
Tr
Very truly yours, l~

1 .
. (Yl,cft&di
CCM/js
cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring - Via 1EmailOnly

-
McN1cHOLAS
TRIAL
S McN1cHOLAS,
LAWYERS
- LLP
10866 WILS>-!IRE 8LVO., SUITE: 1400 • LOS ANGELES, CALIF"ORNIA 90024
PHONE: 13101 4?4-IS82/FAX 13101 475-?871
www.MCNICH0LASLAW.C0M
August 10, 2018
Via Email:john.anthony@lacity.org
dennis.kong@)acity.org& U.S. Mail
John Anthony III
ns
Dennis Kong
200 N. Main Street, 7111Floor
io
· Los Angeles, CA 90012-4131
Re: Francis v. City of Los Angeles, el al.
at
LASC Case No. BC 526258 ·
Trial: · October 1, 2018
ul
ib
John and Dennis:
This is in response to Mr. Anthony's email(s) transmitted at 11:54 a.m. on August 10, 2018,
Tr
which reads as follows:
"Hello Courtney,
&
Willyou agree to the City's request to have the Court's order amended to
provide contact informationby close of businessMonday 8/13 rather than today?
John"
ls
Unfortunately, I do not have the authority to override the Court's order or change what
ia
Judge Fujie specifically ordered you to do by 5:00p.m. today, Friday, August 10, 2018. You will
Tr
recall that Judge Fujie ordered you to pr~vide all current and retired employee contact information
becaµse you refused to accept subpoenas on behalf of any City employee:
THE COURT: THIS IS A COURT ORDER THAT WE ARE ISSUING THAT SAYS THAT
. .
ALL CONTACT INFORMATION REGARDING THOSE SWORN OFFICERS AND RETIRED
OFFICERS, CORRECT?
t-..)
G_"l
August I 0, 2018
Page ,2
THE COURT: SO LET'S DO THIS. LET'S DO THIS, OKAY? WHAT WE'LL SAY IS FOR
CURRENT SERVING PERSONNEL, THAT NUMBER ONE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO
ACCEPT SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS ON THEIR BEHALF, ALL RIGHT? AND NUMBER
TWO, THAT SHOULD THEY RETIRE PRIOR TO THEIR TESTIMONY, THEN YOU WILL
IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, ALL RIGHT?
ns
..
MR. ANTHONY: I THINK IT MIGHT BE EASIER -- BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN
io
SAY YES, I'M GOING TO ACCEPT A SUBPOENA ON SOMEONE'S BEHALF.
at
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO EVERYBODY'S GOING TO NEED TO BE SUBPOENAED.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED THEIR CURRENT INFORMATION.
MR. ANTHONY: YES. ul

ib
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AGAIN, BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS FRIDAY ON
Tr
THAT LIST.
MR. ANTHONY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

&
(See, Transcript of Proceedings, 26:26-27:14)
I must insist that you full)' comply with Judge Fujie's order in a timely fashion.
ls
ia
Tr
CCM/js

Justice Cooper - Via Email Only
-
McN1cHOLAS &
TRIAi.
McN1cHOLAS.
LAWYERS
- LLP
10066 WILSHIRE: BLVD., SUITE: 1400 • LOS ANGE:LE:S, CALIFORNIA 90024
PHONE: (310) 474-IS02/P'AX (310) 475-7071
, www.McN1CHOLASLAW.COM
August 13, 2018
Via Email:john.anthony@Jacity.org
dennis.kong@Jacity.org& U.S. Mail
s
John Anthony III
Dennis Kong
n
io
at
ul
ib
CONFIRMATIONOF EX PARTENOTICEFOR ORDERSHORTENINGTIME AND/OR
TO SPECIALLYSET PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONS;REQUESTFOR AN ORDERSETTING
Tr
AN OSC RE: CONTEMPT
Dear Mr. Anthony:

&
On Thursday, August 9, 2018, I provided exparte notice regarding the following:

Date: Thursday August 16, 2018
Time: 8:30 a.m.
ls
Dept.: 56
Relief Sought:
ia
1. An Order ShorteningTime and/or to Specially set Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions

for Discovery Abuse;
2. An Order ShorteningTime and/or to Specially set Plaintiffs Motions for Sanctions
Tr
for Willful Failure to Produce Pitchess Documents in Violation of Three (3) Prior
Court Orders;
3. An Order Shortening Time and/or to Specially set Plaintiffs Pitchess Motion Re:
CF# 17-00412
4. An Order Setting an OSC Re: City's.Failureto Comply with Court Orders and for
.Willful and Intentional Misrepresentationsto the Court Re: Prior Discovery Orders
MCNICHOLAS -& MCNICHOLAS LLP
August 13, 2018

Page 2
Pitchess Documents CF# 09-004314
On March 6, 2017 (over 17 months ago), the Court (Judge Johnson) granted Plaintiffs
Pi/chess motion regarding Internal Affairs Investigation CF# 09-004314 (the "Cover-Up
Investigation"). You appeared at and opposed the motion.
ns
The Court ordered the City to produce for in-camerainspection all of the requested
documents described in the moving papers, as follows:
io
1. Any and all writingsrelating to the LAPD InternalAffairs complaint investigation
that pertains to the LAPD 's investigationinto the allegationsof CF No. 09-004314. Such
at
writings may include but are not limited to: the ComplaintForm (01.28),·the Complaint
AdjudicationForm; ComplaintReview Report,·the Letter of Transmittal;the Complaint
ul
Investigation;any and all materials used and/or considered during the investigation,
including but not limited to addenda items, witness interviews and/or statements
(including audio, video,and/or digital recordings and transcripts thereof), photos,
ib
correspondence, witness lists, rough notes, the investigator's log; and any and all
materials related to the disposition of investigation, including but not limited to any
disciplinary actions recommended or taken; any response by the accused, and any other
Tr
f of/ow-up or action. [Emphasis added.]
2. Any and all writings relating to the LAPD Special OperationsDivision, Ethics
EnforcementSection investigation,inquiry,review, assessment,analysis, evaluation,
&
consideration,inspection,probe, discussion,and/ or study of the allegationsof CF No. 09-

004314. Such writings may include but are not limited to: the ComplaintForm (01.28);the
ComplaintAdjudicationForm; ComplaintReview Report; the Letter of Transmittal;the
ls
ComplaintInvestigation;any and all materialsused and/or consideredduring the

investigation,'includingbut not limited to addenda items, witness interviewsand/or
ia
statements (includingaudio, video, and/or digital recordings and transcriptsthereof),

photos, correspondence,witness lists, rough notes, the investigator's log; and any and all
materials related to the dispositionof investigation,includingbut not limited to any
Tr
disciplinaryactions recommendedor taken; any response by the accused, and any other
follow-up or action."
On May 5, 2012, the Court (Judge Alan Rosenfeld) conducted the in camera review and
ordered the City to produce all documents on or before May 12, 2012. (The City failed to comply .
with the Court order. It was not until you were threatened with (another) motion to compel with
court order that some unidentified, miscellaneous documents were provided -- without a Notice of
""'··
Compliance and/or proof of service.)
MCNICHOLAS •8 MCNICHOLAS LLP
August 13, 2018

Page 3
After several more futile attemptsto obtain compliancewith the court for the Pitchess
documents without court intervention,Plaintiffwas forced to bring the non-complianceto the
attention of Judge Fujie. On March 6, 2018, the Court ordered vou to execute and file a Notice of
Compliancethat includedthe followinginformationregardingthe Pi/chess documents1:
City to serve Notice of Compliancewith the responsivePitchess materials

related to the Court's March 6, 2017 and May 5, 2017 Pitchess orders. The
ns
Notice of Complianceis to include.thefollowing:
1. The items orderedfor in camera review never existed; or
io
2. The items existed but were destroyed;or
3. Some, but not all, of the items wereproduced (and why the other
documentswere not produced); or
at
4. All of the responsiveitems wereproduced
ul
To date, you have failed to comply with Judge Fujie's Order:
1. There is no statementregardingwhether the followingitems ordered for in-camera

ib
review ever existed:
Any and all writingsrelating to the LAPD Special OperationsDivision,.Ethics

Tr
EnforcementSection investigation,inquiry, review, assessment,analysis, evaluation,
consideration,inspection,probe, discussion,and/ or study of the a/legationsof CF No. 09-
004314. Such writings may includebut are not limited to: the ComplaintForm (01.28);the
&
ComplaintInvestigation;any and all materials used and/or consideredduring the

investigation,includingbut not limited to addenda items, witness interviewsand/or
statements (includingaudio, video, and/or digital recordingsand transcriptsthereof},
ls
photos, correspondence,witness lists, rough notes, the investigator'slog; and any and all
materialsrelated to the dispositionof investigation,includingbut 'notlimited to any
ia
follow-up or action.
Tr
2. There is no statementregardingwhetherthe followingitems ordered for in-camera

review existed, but have been destroyed:
Any and all writings relating to the LAPD Special OperationsDivision, Ethics
EnforcementSection investigation,inquiry, review, assessment,analysis, evaluation,
004314. Such writings may include but are not limited to: the ComplaintForm (01.28);the
I',..)
CZ,
I-'"
0 1
~ See, AttachmentI: March 16, 2018, "Noticeof Rulingand OrdersMade at lnfonnal Discovery Conference"at page
'2:11-21
• MCNICHOLAS •s MCNICHOLAS LLP
August 13, 2018

Page 4
ComplaintInvestigation;any and all materials used and/or consideredduring the

statements (includingaudio, video, and/or digital recordingsand transcriptsthereof),
materials related to the dispositionof investigation,includingbut not limited to any ·
n s
3. There is no statement that some, but not all, of the following items were produced
(and.why the other documents were not produced):
io
Any and all writings relating to .theLAPD Special OperationsDivision, Ethics
EnforcementSection investigation,inquiry,review, assessment,analysis, evaluation,
at
004314. Such writings may include but are not limited to: the ComplaintForm (0I.28); the
ul
ComplaintInvestigation;any and all materialsused and/or consideredduring the
ib
statements (includingaudio, video, and/or digital recordingsand transcriptsthereof),
materialsrelated to the dispositionof investigation,includingbut not limited to any
Tr
disciplinaryactionsrecommendedor taken; any response by the accused, and any other
I made several written requests for missing documents that were specifically referred to and
&
relied upon in the investigation and adjudication of the Cover-Up investigation, but you did not
respond to my inquiries/requests2 •
ls
At the JDC on April 26, 2018, the City's failure to produce Pitchess documents was
discussed with Judge Fujie3 • Judge Fujie again ordered you to comply.
ia
Finally, on Thursday, August 9, 2018, the Internal Affairs investigator assigned to CF# 09-
004314 (Sgt. II Barbara Hodgin) testified that she created an "Investigator's Package" that
Tr
contained items from her investigation. She reviewed the City's Pitchess Production (City BL 139-
. 171) and testified that the Investigator's Package was not amongst the Pitchess production. Sgt.
Hodgin specifically referred to the "Investigator's Package" in her Complaint Investigation.4
,:'.;:)
():,
··--
t,..)
2 .
Please refer to correspondence in your files dated 4/9/17; 5/16/17; 5/19/17; 5/20/17; 6/29/17; 6/30/17; 2/20/18;
2/22/18; 3/14/18; 3/19/18; 4/3/18; 4/9/18.
3
See, Attachment 2: April 26, 2018 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 21 :9-27: 15.
4
See, Attachment 3: City's Pitchess production BL 1'52 [Footnote 3)
-
John T. Anthony III, Esq. ·
McN ICHOLAS •
8 McN ICHOLAS LLP
August 13, 2018

Page 5
Plaintiff is seeking terminating, issue and evidentiary sanctions as well as monetary

sanctionsjointly and seyerally against the City and you, the attorney of record in this matter.
'I regret having to seek court-intervention(again) to obtain discovery ordered by the court over 17
months ago. Unfortunately,the City's continued pattern and practice of discovery abuse makes
court-interventionnecessary.
'
ns
. Cc"-,
io
ourtney C. McN1cho~s
CCM/js
at
cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring - ViaEmail Only
Justice Cooper - ViaEmail Only
ul
ib
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
\
sn
tio
la
u
ib
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
t,-..)
(;:J
EXHIBIT 12
- -
/
McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP

Matthew S. McNicholas. State Bar No. 190249 CONFORMED gg~Y
2 I •
ORIGINAL FU,JU'.>
Courtney M. McNicholas, State Bar No. l 30358 5 uperlor court of California
County of Log AnoalAII
Los Angeles, California 90024 MAR
16 2018
4 Tel: (310)474-1582
Fax: (310)475-7871
5
TAYLOR & RJNG, LLP
6 John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
1230,Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 360
7 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
ns
8 Tel: (310) 209-4100
Fax: (310) 208-5052
9
io
10 JENNIFER FRANCIS
at
ll SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR!~IA
12
ul
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
13
ib
14 JENNIFER FRANCIS, CASE NO. BC 526258
[Assignedfor all purposes to the Honorable
15 Plaintiff, Holly Fujie, Dept. 56]
Tr
16 VS. NOTICE OF RULING AND ORDERS

17 MADE AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a government CONFERENCE
&
18 entity; and DOES 1 through 100,.Inclusive,
19 Defendants. Date: March 06, 2018

Time: 10:30 a.m.
ls
20 Dept.: 56
ia
21
22 Trial Date: May 14, 2018

Tr

23 Five-Year Statute: October 30, 2018
24
r_) TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORJ'\!EYSOF RECORD:
G:)
C;:,
--
t--.)
26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 6, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., the parties participated in
,:::,
27 an lnfonnal Discovery Conference with The Honorable Holly Fujie in Department 56 of the above-
t~-?
C::?
1-:" 28 entitled court.
O::>
·rv NOTICE OF RULING AND ORDERS MADE AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

~;
Courtney C. McNicholas, McNicholas & McNicholas LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiff,
2 Jennifer Francis. John Thomas Anthony III and Karen Majovski appeared on behalf of Defendant
3 City of Los Angeles Police Department.
4 The Court made the following orders:
5 March 07, 2018: Plaintiff to provide Defendant the list of dates from JAMS with the witness
6 priority lists previously transmitted to Defendant;
7 March 13, 2018: City to serve l.istof witnesses' availability for all JAMS dates provided;
s
8 March 13, 2018: City to identify all City employee (retired, sworn, non-sworn current and/or
n
9 on leave/JOO) that the Office of the City Attorney is NOT representing (and
io
10 who will not be contacted to schedule deposition dates);
at
11 March 13, 2018: City to serve Notice of Compliance with the responsive Pitches.~·materials
12 related to the Court's March 6, 2017 and May 5, 2017 Pitchess orders. The
13
ul
Notice of Compliance is to include the following:
ib
14 1. The items ordered for in camera review never existed; or
15 2. The items existed but were destroyed; or
Tr
16 3. Some, but not all, of the items were produced (and why the other
17 documents were not produced); or
&
18 4. All of the responsive items were produced

19 March 20, 2018: City to determine if the 2-page Termination Letter to Lazarus that the court
ls
20 ordered to be produced was served on Plaintiff (per May 5, 2017 Pitchess

ia
21 orde,)
22 March 20, 2018: Plaintiffs Additional Briefing on the following discovery issues:
Tr
23 1. Pitchess - what should have been produced and was not, including
24 the 2-page Termination Letter to Stephanie Lazarus.
r_) 2. RFP #2
(,i:)
,:;,~ 26
·f-. 3. Depositions in General (issues not resolved by the dates City
~;..)
-~-27
<D
I',.)
provides March 13, 2018)
..,.... 28
<P
q,:i
2
NOTICE OF RULING AND ORDERS MADE AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
- 4.
-
"Dorothy Tucker Issue", including the appropriate sanctions
2 to be articulated by Plaintiff
3 April 02, 2018: Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Additional Briefing

4 April 09, 2018; Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's Opposition
5 April17,2018: Hearing on Discovery Issues that are the subject of the Additional Briefing
6
7 Plaintiff to give notice.
ns
8 Respectfully submitted,
9
io
IO Dated: March 14, 2018 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
at
11
12
13
14
ib By: a/II~
ul
Mathewl,.
i\j~i-cholas
Courtne{v.McNicholas
15 JENNIFER FRANCIS
Tr
16
17
&
I8
19
ls
·20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
0
op 26
1""";
1-...._)
l
,;~
27
h.l>
I
qi
28
c,p
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
PROOF OF SERVICE
-
2 )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
3
I am a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party
4 to the within entitled action; my business address is 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400, Los
Angeles, CA 90024.
5
On March 14, 2018, I served the within NOTICE OF RULING AND ORDERS MADE
6 AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCEon the interested parties in said action by
placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as stated below:
7
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
ns
8
X (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in
9 the United States mail in Los Angeles, CA to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached
io
service list. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
10 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA in the ordinary
at
1l course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one clay after date of deposit for mailing
12 in affidavit.
13 •
ul
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand via NOW
MESSENGER to the offices of the addressee.
ib
14
D (BY FACSIMILE) The above-described document (s) were sent by facsimile transmission
15 to the t~1csimilenumber(s) of the law office(s) stated above. The transmission was reported as
Tr
complete andy,rithout error. A copy of the transmission report is made a part of this proof of
16 service pursuant to CRC §2008.
17 X (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) The above-described document(s) were sent by electronic
&
transmission to the law office(s) stated in the attached Service List. The transmission was reported
18 as complete and without error.
19 • (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I placed the Overnite Express package for overnight
ls
delivery in a box or location regularly maintained by Overnite Express at my office or I delivered

20 · the package to an authorized courier or driver authorized by Overnite Express to receive
documents. The package was placed in a sealed envelope or package designated by Ovemite
ia
21 Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be
served at the address( es) shown above, at the office address(es) as last given by that person on any
22 document filed in the.cause and served on the party making service; otherwise at that party's place
Tr
of residence.
23
X (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.
25 . Executed on March 14, 20 I 8, at Los Angeles, California.

,:;;:;,
0"1
26
1-...)
0.
27 ·\
· u~~J0l11JJ\GDOI
Judy \Sarenana
r-.~
!~
28
c,1
4
SERVICE LIST
-
Francis v. City of Los Angeles
2 LA_SCCase No. BC 526258
.,
.)
Attorneys for Defendants Citv of Los Angeles, ct al.

4 John Anthony III, Esq.
City Attorney's Office I
200 N. Main Street . :

5 /
700 City Hall East, 7th Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90012-413 I
Tel: (213) 978-8286
7 Fax: (213)978-8216
ns
8
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
9 John C. Taylor, Esq.
io
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
at
11 Tel: (310) 209-4100
Fax: (310) 208-5052
12
13
ul
ib
14
15
Tr
:16
·17
&
18 _,
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
r_:,
0
()::,
....
' 26
!'-1)
I
"i
27
1-..,i
28
C•r
5
Tr
ia
-
ls
&
EXHIBIT 3
Tr
ib
ul
at
io
n s
-
McNICHOLAS& McNICHOLAS,LLP
.e
2
4 Tel: (310) 474-1582
MAY
0'4 LUIO
Fax: (310)475-7871
5 By:MarlonGomez,Depuly
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
6 John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 360
ns
8 Tel: (310) 209-4100
Fax: (310) 208-5052
9
io
10 JENNIFER FRANCIS
at
11 SUPERIORCOURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ul
COUNTYOF LOS ANGELES
ib
[Assignedfor all purposes to the Honorable
Tr
16 vs. NOTICE OF RULINGS AND ORDERS

17 MADE AT INFORMALDISCOVERY
&
18 entity; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive,
19 Defendants. Da~: April26,2018

ls
Time: 1:30 p.m.

20 Dept.: 56
ia
21
22 Trial Date: October 1, 2018
Tr

24
25 TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 26, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., the parties appeared in Dept.
,,
27 56, The Honorable Holly Fujie, judge presiding.
.)
.Z>
r
b~ 28 Courtney C. McNicholas, McNicholas& McNicholas LLP, and John C. Taylor, Taylor &
<;,::,
'-0';) .I
-
McNICHOLAS& McNICHOLAS,LLP
-
2
3 . 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
4 Tel: (310) 474-1582
Fax: (310) 475-7871
5
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
6 John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389 ·
Tel: (310) 209-4100
ns
8
Fax: (310) 208~5052
9
io
10 JENNIFER FRANCIS
11
at
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
13
ul
ib
[Assigned/or all purposes to the Honorable
Tr
16 vs. NOTICE OF RULINGS AND ORDERS

17 MADE AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY
&
18 entity; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive,
19 Defendants. Date: April 26, 2018

Time: 1:30 p.m.
ls
20 Dept.: 56
ia
21
22 Trial Date: October 1, 2018
Tr

24
25 TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYSOF RECORD:
0
C,c:;i
~-- 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 26, 2018, at 1:30 p.m;, the parties appeared in Dept.
I'-.)
c;p'
..... 27 56, The Honorable Holly Fujie,judge presiding.
1-...)
a)
t---'" 28 Courtney C. McNicholas,McNicholas& McNicholas LLP, and John C. Taylor, Taylor &
co
I
• -
Ring LLP, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, Jennifer Francis. Deputy City Attorney John Thomas
2 Anthony III appeared on behalf of Defendant City of Los Angeles Police Department.
3 The Court made the following rulings and orders:
4
DATE OBLIGATED PARTY RULING/ORDER
5
May 3, 2018 Defendant City of Los Defendant to have "reached out" to
6 Angeles Commander Rick Webb (Ret.) to obtain
dates for his court-ordered deoosition.
7 May 3, 2018 Defendant City of Los Defendant to provide Plaintiff with all dates
Angeles that Comm. Rick Webb (Ret.) is available
ns
8 for deoosition.
9 May 3, 2018 Defendant City of Los If Defendant has not provided dates for
Angeles Comm. Webb's deposition, Deputy City
io
10 Attorney John Thomas Anthony III is to file
and serve a declaration stating why no dates
at
11 .have been obtained, dates that he attempted
to contact Com. Webb and the results of
12 those attempted contact, as well as when
13
ul
dates for Comm. Webb's deposition will be
provided to Plaintiff.
ib
14 May 11, 2018 Defendant City of Los Deputy City Attorney John Thomas
Angeles Anthony III to provide Plaintiff and the
15 court with the statement prepared in March,
Tr
2016 by Dorothy Tucker's treating
16 physician regarding the condition of
17 Tucker's health that prohibited her form
appearing for and/or providing depo'sition
&
18 testimony. The statement of Dorothy

Tucker's physician is to be accompanied by
19 a document titled, "Ordered bv Court"
ls
May 11, 2018 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis After receiving the statement from Dorothy
20 tucker's physician from the City, Plaintiff is
to submit a brief to the court (not to exceed
ia
21
5 pages) regarding Dorothy
22 Tucker/sanctions
Tr
May 11, 2018 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Plaintiff to-prepare and transmit a chart
23 ("DOCUMENT CHART") that lists: 1.)
Each document (or category of documents)
24
Plaintiff requested from the City that has
25 not been produced; 2.) Each date Plaintiff
<D requested the document (or category of
c,:i
~--i 26 documents); and 3.) The source/vehicle(s)
r,.,._)i
by which the document ( or category of
.. 27
(.µ'
documents) was requested from the City.
l,,.J
(.;) The "DOCUMENT CHART" should
t-'" 28
c,;;i·
2
- -
include the following: 1.) Request for
Production (Set No. 2); 2.) Pitchess related
2 documents; 3.) Documents related to
Internal Affairs CF # 2017-000412
·3 [Accused is non-sworn employee Harry
Klann]; 4.) Documents reviewed by
4
witnesses to prepare for deposition; and 5.)
.
5 Document demands included with
Deoosition Notices.
6 May 11, 2018 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Plaintiff to serve Defondant with the
"DOCUMENT CHART" by 5:00 pm via
7 ,·
electronic mail.
May 11, 2018 Defendant City of Los
ns
Defendant to file and serve (via electronic
8
Angeles mail) its Points and Authorities supporting
9 its position that Plaintiff is prohibited from ,
io
obtaining documents requested in Request
10 for Production No. 2 in a subsequent or
different discovery method because the City
at
11 obiected to Request for Production No. 2.
May 11, 2018 Defendant City of Los In conjunction with the Points and
12
Angeles
ul
Authorities supporting its position that
13 Plaintiff is prohibited from obtaining
documents requested in Request for
ib
14 Production No. 2 in a subsequent or
different discovery method because the City
15 objected to Request for Production No. 2,
Tr
Defendant is to file the transcript of
16
statements Reporter's Transcript that City
17 cited at the April 26, 2018 hearinl!.
May 25, 2018 Defendant City of Los City to email to Plaintiff the
&
18 Angeles "DOCUMENT CHART" (transmitted by

Plaintiff on May 11, 2018) with the
19 following additional information for each
ls
20 document (or category of documents)

requested from the City in discovery that
ia
21 has not been produced: I.) Will be

produced; 2) Whether the document exists;
22 3) Whether the document does not exist; 4.)
Tr
Why the document does not exist; 5.) What

23 privilege is being asserted (if any); 6.) All
24 information required when a privilege is
asserted; and 4.) Objections.
25 *The court specifically advised Deputy City
.o Allorney to be very sparing about objections
0~ 26 and to understand how broad discovery is
and that the court does not expect
i,,-
c,::r
I
:: obiections other than privile~e.
3
· May 25, 2018 •
Defendant City of Los
Angeles
-
In addition to the "DOCUMENT
CHART"that includes the City's
2 responses, objections and privileges, the
City is to serve Plaintiff with all documents
·3 that exist as identified by Defendant the
chart other than those to which a privilege
4 or objection is asserted.
May 25, 2018 Defendant City of Los Defendant is to personally serve Plaintiff
5
Angeles with the documents identified in the
6 "DOCUMENTCHART"that are not
privileged and/or objected to.
7 May 25, 2018 Defendant City of Los Defendant to file and serve the Transcript(s)
Angeles
ns
that includes Justice Cooper's Order that
8
docum·entspreviously·requested in
9 discovery should not be the subject of
io
deposition notices
10 June 8, 2018 ·Defendant City of Los City to file and serve (via electronic mail)
Angeles its Opposition to Plaintiffs Brief Re:
at
11 Dorothy Tucker that was filed on May 11,
2018.
12
ul
June 8, 2018 Defendant City of Los City to submit first draft of Joint Discovery
13 Angeles Statement to Plaintiff
June 13, 2018 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Plaintiff to transmit response and
ib
14 "contributions" to the Joint Discovery
Statement (First Draft)
15 June 18, 2018 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Plaintiff to file and serve Reply to City's
Tr
16 Opposition to Plaintiffs Brief Re: Dorothy

Tucker (via electronic
17 June 22, 2018 Defendant City of Los City to file and serve finalized Joint
Angeles Discovery Statement (five court days before
&
18 June 29, 2018 hearings and IDC)

June 22, 2018 Defendant City of Los Parties to file Reporter's Transcripts that
19 Angeles; Plaintiff Jennifer include statements of Justice Cooper
ls
20 Francis regarding discovery rulings/

recommendations/orders
ia
21 June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los IDC Re:

Angeles; 1) City's boilerplate objections to Request
22 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis for Production accompanying Notice of
Tr
Deposition and assertion of privileges

23
without a privilege log/identification of
24 documents;
2) City's assertion that the Discovery
25 Referee cannot rule on objections to
.(:,:) Request for Production accompanying
r.:,".a
.. 26 Notice of Depositions because City includes
!',-.)
c:) Pitchess objections; 3) City's Failure to
27
"'·-
1,.j
Comply with CCP § 2031.240(b) [Privilege
.
C0
28 Logl;
c,~
4
NOTICE OF RULiNG AND ORDERS MADE AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
June 29, 2018
•
Angeles;
-
Rulings on Defendant's Objections and
Privileges included in "DISCOVERY
2 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis CHART";
June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
3 Angeles; City to Produce Documents (RFP Set 2) to
Plaintiff Jennifer Francis the thirteen categories of documents as
4 represented to the court on October 20,
2017
5
June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion.to Compel
6 Angeles; Further Responses to Court Ordered
Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Documents (Pi/chess Documents)
7 June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions
Angeles; for the Actions Regarding Dorothy Tucker's
s
8 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Deposition
n
9 June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery
of Peace Officer Personnel Records
io
Angeles;
10 Plaintiff Jennifer Francis (Pitchess Motion) Re: CF# 17-00412
June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
at
11 Angeles; . Responses to Request for Production of
Plaintiff Jennifer Francis Documents to Det. Cliff Shepard, Det. Dan
12
ul
Jaramillo, Det. Greg Steams and Deputy
13 Chief Kirk Albanese and to Compel
Production of Documents Reviewed to
ib
14 Prepare for Deposition
June 29, 2018 Defendant City of Los Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw·
15 Angeles; Stipulation Re Discovery Referee
Tr
Plaintiff Jennifer Francis
16
17 II I
&
18 Ill
19 II I
ls
20 I II
ia
21 Ill
22
Tr
I II
23 II I
24 II I
25 II I
r,Z)
o::i
-..
~._).
26 II I
-.. 27
I'~)
..)
II I
a;;,
j,,--"', 28 II I
r.:):::i
5
-
Plaintiff to give notice.
2 Respectfully submitted,
3
4 Dated: May 3, 2018 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS
. , LLP
5
s
8 Courtney C cNicholas
n
9 JENNIFER FRANCIS
io
10
at
11
12
13
ul
ib
14
15
Tr
16
17
&
18
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
G)
co
·-~ 26
t,..J I
,z:.I 27
... .
,,,.)
a)
~· 28
co i
6
1 Ji
PROOFOF SERVICE
-
2 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I
)
)
3 I
i! I_a~ a re~ident o~ the county.aforesaid; I a~ over the ~ge of eighteen years and not a party
4 to the w1thm ent_1tledaction; my business address 1s 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400, Los
Angeles, CA 90024.
5
On May 4, 2018, I served the within NOTICE OF RULING AND ORDERS MADE AT
6 INFORMAL DISCOVE~Y CONFERENCEon the interested parties in said action by placing a
true copy thereof enclosed m a seale~ envelope, addressed as stated below: .
7
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
ns
8
X (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in
9 the United States mail in Los Angeles, CA to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached
io
service list. I am '·readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
IO correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA in the ordinary
at
11 course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
1 postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing
12 in affidavit.
13 •
ul
(BY PERSONALSERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand via NOW
MESSENGER to the offices of the addressee.
ib
14
15
•
(BY FACSIMILE)The above-described document (s) were sent by facsimile transmission
to the facsimile number(s) of the law office(s) stated above. The transmission was reported as
Tr
I complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report is made a part of this proof of
16 service pursuant to CRC §2008.
17 X (BY ELECTRONICMAIL) The above-described document(s) were sent by electronic
&
transmission to the law oftice(s) stated in the attached Service List. The transmission was reported
18 as complete and without error.
19 • (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I placed the Overnite Express package for overnight
ls
delivery in a box or location regularly maintained by Ovemite Express at my office or I delivered

20 the package to an i}uthorizedcourier or driver authorized by Ovemite Express to receive
documents. The package was placed in a sealed envelope or package designated by Overnite
ia
21 Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be
served at the address(es) shown above, at the office address(es) as last given by that person on any
--,
??
document filed in the cause and served on the party making service; otherwise at that party's place
Tr
of residence.
231
I X (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
241 foregoing is true and correct. · •
25 Executed on May 4, 2018, at Los Angeles, California.
,::::-,.
~.;.~.
""··.
26
I',..)
I
a) .
..., 27
l':.J
,:;;::,
c,;,
28 I
7
NOTICE OF RULlNG AND ORDERS MADE AT INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
- SERVICE LIST
-
Francisv. City of Los Angeles
2
3 Attorneys for DefendantsCity of Los Angeles, et al.

4 City Attorney's Office
200 N. Main Street
5 700 City Hall East, 7th Floor
6 Tel: (213) 978-8286
Fax: (213) 978;.8216
7
s
8 Co-Counselfor Plaintiff
n
John C. Taylor, Esq.
9 TAYLOR & RING, LLP
io
Tel: (310) 209-4100
at
11
Fax: (310) 208-5052
12 (Via Email Only)
13
ul
ib
14
15
Tr
16
17
&
18
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
8
..
26
t-,..)
.... 27
,z:,
·
I
~::~, 28
r-"
c,:,
8
0
o::i
Tr
ia
ls
&
Tr
ib
ul
EXHIBIT 4
at
io
n s
- DECLARATIONOF RICHARDMcANDREWS
-
2 I, RICHARD McANDREWS,declare:
3 I am a licensed private investigatorand am employed with Kurtz, Richards, Wilson & Co.,
4 Inc. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, and I reasonably believe that if called
5 upon to testify those matters, I would and could competently testify thereto. This Declaration is
6 submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for an Order:
7 COMPELLING the depositionsof percipient witnesses;
ns
8 IMPOSING monetary sanctions as a result of such discovery abuse; and
9 REQUIRING Defendant to reimburse Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs
io
10 1. I was·re.tainedby McNicholas& McNicholas to locate and serve deposition
at
11 subpoenas on several witnesses that had been identified by the Office of the City Attorney as
12 retired/deceased employees of the City of Los Angeles Police Department. The LAPD witnesses
13 to be located and served were:
ul
ib
14 a. Robbery Homicide Division,Cold Case Unit, Detective Cliff Shepard (Retired);
15 b. Scientific InvestigationDivision, Chief Forensic Chemist/Lab Director Gregory
Tr
16 Matheson (Retired);
17 c. Scientific Investigation Division,CommandingOfficer, Yvette Bu'mey (Retired);
&
18 and
19 d. Behavioral Sciences Division, Staff Psychologist, Dorothey Tucker, Ph. D.
ls
20 (Deceased)
21
ia
2. . I was advised that in 2015 defense counsel told Plaintiff that Dr. Tucker was
22 deceased and could not be deposed. I was asked to determine if, in fact, Dr. Tucker had passed
Tr
23 away, and if so, to provide evidence of her death.

24 3. I initiated a search of public records and other identifying information available for
25 Dr. Dorothy Tucker.
1.Z) 26 4. In the course of my investigation,I made several inquiries and conducted research
co
1-· 27
'-~'
and was unable·to locate any evidence of Dr. Tucker's death. I did uncover information that led to
......
t-,..)
,8
28 the current location and whereabouts of Dr. Dorothy Tucker - who is not dead.
t-'"
co . I
DECLARATION OF RICHARD McANDREWS
;
'-0".
5. After confirming that Dr. Tucker was not dead, I provided Plainitfr s attorneys with
2 a status report on Dr. Tucker, including confirmationthat she was alive.
3 6. I was then retained to serve Dr. Tucker with a subpoena to appear and testify at her
4 deposition scheduled for March I, 2017.
5 7. On Sunday, February 12, 2017, I went to Dr. Tucker's home. I spoke with a
6 gentleman who identified himself as Dorothy Tucker's husband. I explained in general terms that
7 we (the Plaintiffs attorneys) were trying to set up his wife's deposition in this case. He said he
s
8 recalled the case. He told me that Dr. Tucker was out shopping for the day but would be at home
n
9 an available on Monday, February 13,2017 between 10:00 am and 11:00 a.m. He wanted her to
io
10 accept service of the subpoena; I deferred to his wishes.
at
11 8. I returned to Dr. Tucker's home on Monday, February 13, 2017 in the morning.
12 The door was opened by a different adult male who confirmed that Dr. Tucker was home but she
13
ul
was "ill". I then heard a female voice from inside the home call ot1t,"tell him I talked to Tim Lye
ib
14 at Legal Affairs and he said he would have the subpoena 'pulled back' and I don't have to take it."
15 9. I asked the adult male who answered the door if he would accept the subpoena on
Tr
16 behalf of Dr. Dorothy Tucker. He declined to accept the subpoena, and I left the home.
17
&
18
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
C)
c,::- 26
r~
~-.)
1:!E) 27
J.,._
t0
CD 28
I-<-"
,_;;::,
2
DECLARATION OF RICHARD McANDREWS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
3052017262191 CERTIFlCATE
OF DEATH 3201719058272
iU UDI N'Clo(J i ~~~~-r,Q1111tTta,ll)JI($
V-,l~Ol\t.J
...,.
h.WIQIU.U:Oi1r.J-AST ,v..s.,-.,,_,,
'"'°""
I
DOROTHY M TUCKER
i 4 o.uca &rmt ll'IWO.l-tclY MJt..,.,..
I
0812211938 79 F
r
1 U~Tll fl.lJ[,"JOA[~
SC
CQX1Jrr ll.l\tll~u•~FOAC£s,
0"• IB),o •"~ !1WllllM.S\IJ\NSIICP'jllt'l,-•i=---.
MARRIED
104."IorDCAT~~
12/28/2017
11-0Uft "'~
0700
i
11(CM:,1,n:)1-t,.,_~~
• '"•
141) ~A,SO[Clt)OIJHSP,VCW,IG',,~t",,___~:,,bdl 11 OCClXNl~RAC[-UplO:Jr.aeetNJb9~ ... ~.,~
ns
DOCTORATE [R]"" AFRICAN AMERICAN
!; lt.t<:HOOfBUSNSSOA~TR'Yt-lJ,f'OC"Yl'Ol'I ".-:lt'0"-411\CIO'\~-,,,.cy.eicJ 1; '(t~N~lQN
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST LAW ENFORCEMENT 17

2'0 DECfDEm'IAESIJl:HCE~-.J,v,l>af.f'.ltD\<'11
1!''""'
3627 AUREOLA BLVD
io
neootm'~E ?l ZlPCOOf P4 V[AR31H00UnY H &rAJLfOA(IQfl(X)UJIJA't
li! VIEW PARK LOS ANGELES 90008 49 CA
u BENJAMIN P BLAKLEY, HUSBAND
ii
?t.MOOl.f 30 U..,TIWfflll-W..c)
at
BENJAMIN PAYNE TUCKER
u "·""' OIROt!lAT'E
JAMES TUCKER SC
,."""" :,,. LAST~ t-wMl
I· ..i CLEO
""'"'"'"'""""'
~!01/05/2018
i~
,......,,
CHRISTINE
... ......a"'"""'"""""""FOUNTAIN CEMETERY
702 VAN BUREN ST. FOSTORIA, OH 44830
ul FANT SC
ib
i~
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
,.. .. mu CENSUSTRACl
11mm1Dm1111illlillllDEllillmllD
'OICX:0100372745'
This is to certify that this document is a true copy of the official

record filed with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.
~c. t-.<T'--
I II
DEAN C. LOGAN
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
llIll IllII 111111111111111111111
1000002207833
•
MCNICHOLAS 0
TRIAL
MCNICHOLAS,
LAWYERS
• LLP
10866 WILSHIRE: BLVO,, SUITE: 1400 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024
PHONE (3101 474-1562/FAX (3101 475-7871
www.McNICHOLASLAW.COM
May 8, 2018
Via Email:john.anthony@Jacity.org& Mail

City Attorney's Office ·
ns
200 N. Main Street, ih Floor ·
Los Angeles, CA 90012-41_ 31
io
Complaint Filed: October' 30, 2013
at
John:
ul
ib
This is in response to your email transmitted on Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:32 p.m.which
reads as follows: .
Tr
,,,)
"On April 26th, Judge Fugie [sic) ordered the City to contact retired Commander Rick
Webb and either obtain dates for his deposition or provide a declaration that the City could
not make contact with Commander Webb by May 3rd. ·
&
The City has telephoned Commander Webb multiple times and have not been able to make
contact with him.
,
ls
I am working on a declaration to that ~!feet to be filed and served tomorrow 5/8.

ia
This, however, is late compliance with Judge Fugie's 'order.
Please accept this email as ex parte notice that I plan to appear b~fore Judge Fugie at 8:30
Tr
in Department 56 of the Los Angeles Superior Court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012.
At this ex parte hearing, I plan to notify the Court of the City's inadvertent late compliance
with her order and request relief under CCP Section 473. This request for relief will be
based in at least part on the fact that I have been preparing for an expected four-week, four-
.. plaintiff trial with the McNicholas.firm beginning May 9th which supports relief/or
excusable neglect under Section 473.
~--
Please confirm whether you will appear and or oppose the City's application[}"
McN 1cHOLAs
• § McN ICHOLAS LLP
May 8, 2018
Page 2
Defective Ex Parte Notice by Email
Your email fails to state the date of the ex parte. Additionally, email is not an appropriate means
for notice (particularly since you have advise~ the court several times that "the City has not made
any agreement/or email notice or service".
Defective Ex Parte Notice by Voice Mail
ns
I was advised midday that you had left a voicemail message attempting to give ex parte notice for
Wednesday, May 9, 2018.
A voicemail message is not proper notice of an ex parte as evidenced by your outgoing voicemail
io
greeting.
at
Judge Fujie's March 6 and April 26 Orders to Provide Dates for Comm. Webb's Deposition·
Your email is factually incorrect and does not accurately represent Judge Fujie's order(s) to
the City.
ul
ib
On March 6, 2018. Judge Fujie ordered you to provide dates for all Priority Witnesses.
Comm. Webb was identified as a Priority Witness. I repeatedly requested dates for Webb which
you ignored.
Tr
(See, Attachments: "A" Minute Order; "B" Correspondence dated March 8, 2018: "C"
Correspondence dated March 13, 2018; "D" Correspondence c;latedMarch 15, 2018; "E"
Correspondence dated March 16, 2018; "F" Correspondence dated dated April 9, 2018; "G"
&
Correspondence dated April 13, 2018;)
On April 26, 2018, I brought your failure to provide dates to the attention of Judge Fujie and
she issued a specific order to you to provide a date. (See, Attachment "H" Tn;nscript of
ls
Proceedings 32:22-33:27).
ia
Judge Fujie ordered you to either provide dates or file and serve a declaration stating why no
dates have been obtained, dates of the attempted contact and when dates will be provided for
Tr
Webb's deposition. (See, Notice of Ruling and Orders Made at JDC)
I reiterated my request for Webb's date as well as other Court ordered depositions. You
ignored them. (See, Attachment "I" Correspondence dated April 27, 2018; "J" Correspondence
dated May 4, 2018 and "K" Email dated May 4, 2018) ·
On May 4, 2018 I notified you that the City was in violation ofJudge Fujie's March 6 and
April 26 orders to provide dates for Webb's deposition or a declaration. Your excuse for not
complying was trial preparation. (See, Attachment ''K")
--~
- McN,cHOLAs f McN,cHoLAS LLP
May 8, 2018
Page 3
Attempts to Contact Comm. Webb
As of Friday, May 4, 2018, you had not made any attempt to contact Comm. Webb. You requested
additional time to comply. You now claim that the City made several calls and could not make
contact with Webb. The foregoing is a blatant attempt to mislead the court and conceal your failure
to comply with court orders.
There is No Excusable Neglect
ns
What exactly is the "excusable neglect" for not complying with court orders? Your emails do not
identify anything that constitutes excusable neglect. On the contrary, this is a continuation of the
io
ongofog pattern, custom and practice that you have employed throughout this case:
at
You had approximately two months (fifty-eight days to be precise) to comply with the March 6,
2018 order to provide a date for Webb's deposition. You ignored that order and all subsequent
requests for dates.
ul
Numerous letters were sent to you requesting that you provide dates for Webb. You ignored them
ib
On April 26, 2018, you were ordered to contact Webb and provide dates or a declaration no later
than May 3,2018. You ignoreq that order.
Tr
Your behavior does not qualify or meet the definition of "excusable neglect."
Additional Discovery Issues Ignored by the City

&
As you know, Plaintiff has made repeated requests that you comply with Judge Fujie's March 6,
2018 order for deposition dates. Although you provided some witnesses dates, at least five (5)
writtenreques~s paye been made for the remaining Priority Wifness(;)s (whiqµjµclucf¢~ Cmnrn ..
ls
W~bb)'.°
.You
'
have
'
ignored thoserequests. .. . . . ·: · · . - . - . .·: . · · ;--.·:
... ·· '
ia
Plaintiff's Request for CF# 17- 00412

Tr
misleading statements under penalty of pe1jury (CF # 17-00412)? (SeeReporters Transcript 46 :21
47: 12.)
Ruling by Justice Cooper that Plaintiff is Precluded from Seeking Documents that were
Requested in !IBP, Set No. 2:
You made several representations to Judge Fujie that Justice Cooper ruled Plaintiff could
..
· not seek documents already requested in RFP 2.
MCNICHOLAS -8 MCNICHOLAS LLP
May 8, 2018
Page 4
At the deposition of Dr. Nels Rasmussen (May 1, 2018), Justice Cooper also requested that
the deposition transcript that allegedly contains these "rulings" on the request for documents be
forwarded to her. Please identify the deponent, date of deposition, and the page/line within the
Reporter's Transcript that you cited to the court:
Mr. Anthony.: One of the principal o~jections with these deposition notices was with the
RFPs that were attached to the depo notices, where they were many, ff'not most, were duplicative of
R.F'PSet 2 which were served o~jections were served,, there was no motion to compel. So the ability
ns
to move to compel has passed, and now they're trying to get a second bite at the apple. Justice
subiect of deposition notices again. ·
io
The Court: Do we have the Reporter's Transcript of that?
at
fvfr. Anthony: Yes, Your Honor
ul
The Court: Is what you've been referring to, Mr. Anthony, as having-what you stated to
. me is that Justice Cooper said that, i[it was in the prior request an'dthen was requested again in
ib
the deposition notice did not have to be produced. ls that a statement in the transcript that Ms.
McNiclwlas is referring to, or is that a separate transcript? ·
Tr
Ms. McNicholas: ... the City's taken the position that since [a document] was asked for it
once, you can 't askfor it in any o(her type of discovery.
The Court: Actually, I just want to see - with regard to that, I want to see the transcript of
anything Justice Cooper said. ...And I would want to see what her reasoning was for that ...
&
The Court: So if you could actually file, you know, the transcripts of statements of
Just'ice Cooper --
Mr. Anthony: I don 't know which ones she 's talking about.
The Court: _Tluityou were talking about.
ls
ia
(Reporter's Transcript, 14:19-15:9 28:9-15; 48:1-8; 48:12-16) [Emphasis added].)

Tr
Very b:uly yours,
./hc~ch~
CCM~js
Attachments

"'t • .,
Tr
ia
ls
&
Tr
ib
ula
tio
n s
EXHIBIT 5
1 SUPERIORCOURTOF THE
•
STATEOF CALIFORNlA
DETECTIVE JAMES NUTTALL, VOLUME lI
1
-
APPEARANCES:
November 13, 2017
2 FORTHECOUNTYOF LOSANGELES 2
3 For the Plaintiff:
4 3
JENNIFERFRANCIS, ) McNICHOLAS& McNICHOLAS,LLP
5 ) BY: COURTNEYMcNICHOLAS,ESQ.
PLAINTIFF, ) 10866WilshireBoulevard,Suite 1400 ·
6 ) 5 Los Angeles,California90024
VS. ) Case No. BC 526258 310.474.1582
.) 6 Ccm@mcnicholaslaw.com
CITY OF LOSANGELES,A ) 7 TAYLOR& RING,LLP
8 GOVERNMENTENTITY;ANDDOES I ) BY: JOHN C. TAYLOR,ESQ.
THROUGH100,INCLUSIVE, ) 8 1230RosecransAvenue,Suite 360
9 ) ManhattanBeach,California90266
DEFENDANTS. ) ,9 310.209.4100
10 ) 10 For the Defendants:
11
11 CITY ATTORNEY'SOFFICE
BY: JOHN ANTHONY,ESQ.
s
12
13 VIDEOTAPEDDEPOSITIONOF DETECTIVEJAMESNUTTALL
12 200 North Main Street, 7th Floor
Los Angeles,California90012
n
14 VOLUME11- PAGES156• 404
13 213.978.8286
15 MONDAY,NOVEMBER13,2017, 10:33A.M.
John.Anthony@lacity.org
16 LOSANGELES,CALIFORNIA 14
io
17
15 Also present:
18 16 Joseph Fernandez,Videographer
19 17 DetectiveTim Lai
20 18 Jennifer Francis• Plaintiff
at
21 19 CandaceCooper• Referee_
Reportedby DesireeCooks,CSR No. 14075 20
22 CLS Job No. 76738 21
23 22
ul
CENTEXTLEGAL.COM
· 855.CENTEXT 23
24 24
25 25
ib
156 158
1 SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA 1 INDEX

Tr
2 FOR THE COUNTYOF LOS ANGELES 2
3
' 3 WITNESS:DETECTIVEJAMES NUTTALL,VOLUMEII
4
JENNIFERFRANCIS, ) 4
5 ) 5 EXAMINATION PAGE
PLAINTIFF, ) 6 BY MR. TAYLOR 162
&
6 )
7
VS. ) Case No. BC 526258
7 )
8
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,A ) 9
8 GOVERNMENTENTITY;AND DOES I ) 10 -INFORMATIONREQUESTED
ls
THROUGH100, INCLUSIVE, ) 11 PAGE LINE

9 )
12 (NONE)
DEFENDANTS. )
10 ) 13
ia
11 14 DOCUMENTSREQUESTED
12 15 PAGE LINE
13
16 (NONE)
Tr
14
15 17
16 18 WITNESSINSTRUCTEDNOT TO ANSWER
17 19 PAGE LINE
18 20 (NONE)
19
20
21
21 VIDEOTAPEDDEPOSITIONOF DETECTIVEJAMES NUTTALL, 22
22 taken at I0866 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 1400,Los 23
(D 23 Angeles,California,on Monday,November 13,2017, at
(>~ 24
--
f'..J
24
25
10:33a.m., before Desiree Cooks, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, in and for the State of California.
25
0
--- 157 159
1 (P,fges 156 to 159)
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
888.803.3443
02:58:47 1
• DETECTIVE JAMES NUTTALL, VOLUME II
ifhe was instructed not to appear. And you've already 03:00:53 1

- November 13, 2017
time, there was subpoenasthat -- that our offices had

02:58:50 2 made a record, and I'll pull up the transcript that said, 03:00:58 2 generatedto compelyou to give·your deposition. And did
02:58:53 3 "That's not true. No one from our office said that." So 03:01:02 3 you receive a copy of that at some time?
02:58:57 4 you shouldn't be worried, should you. 03:01:05 4 A Yes, sir.
02:58:59 5 MR. ANTHONY: I honestly don't know what you're 03:01:05 5 Q Okay. And did somebodyoutside of the City
02:59:01 6 talking about. 03:01:09 6 Attorney'sOffice tell you not to obey the subpoena?
02:59:02 7 MS. McNICHOLAS: Okay. Let me get you the 03:01:16 7 A I -- I have to -- the attorney--
02:59:03 8 transcript. 03:01:18 8 MR. ANTHONY: Yeah, I'll --
02:59:04 9 THE COURT: We don't -- we don't need that. We 03:01:20 9 THE WITNESS: Attorney/clientprivilege.
02:59:04 10 don't need that. 03:01:22 10 MR. ANTHONY: I'll instructyou not to answer
02:59:04 11 MS. McNICHOLAS: Okay. You told the court you 03:01:23 11 that question.
02:59:06 12 did not. 03:01:23 12 MR. TAYLOR: And that's on the basis of an
02:59:06 13 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Excuse me. We 03:01:23 13 attorney/client--
02:59:07 14 03:01:23 14
s
don't -- we don't need that. The -- if the -- MR. ANTHONY: Attorney/clientprivilege,yes.
02:59:10 15 You -- you understand that there's something 03:01:26 15 MR TAYLOR: Okay. Which is it's an attorney
n
02:59:12 16 called attorney/client privilege; correct? 03:01:27 16 communicationbetweenthe lawyer -- I want to make sure
02:59:14 17 \ THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 03:01:29 17 that you and I have the same understandingofw~at the
io
02:59:14 18 THE COURT: So it's not appropriate to ask 03:01:30 18 law is. You're assertingthat, meaningthat you are --
02:59:16 19 questions that ask about the content of your conversation 03:01:34 19 I'm sorry -- these are communicationsbetweenyour office
02:59:19 20 with an attorney for -- you're personally here for the 03:01:37 20 and this -- the -- the witness as he sits here.
at
02:59:25 21 department. So if the answer calls for that information, 03:01:40 21 MR. ANTHONY: I'm saying any communicationshe
02:59:28 22 you can take the privilege. That can be -- okay? But 03:01:42 22 had with my office or legal affairs divisionrespective
02:59:32 23 the question that was asked did not -- did not 03:01:45 23 to this case are privilegedcommunications.So I'm
ul
02:59:33 24 necessarily call for privileged information. 03:01:47 24 instructinghim not to answer.
02:59:37 25 MR. ANTHONY: Okay. And just to be clear, from 03:01:49 25 MR. TAYLOR: So -- well -- so I want to make
ib
304 306
02:59:39 1 time to time, it's our embedded officers that work in 03:01:49 1 sure, because there's been representations and things in
Tr
02:59:43 2 legal affairs division that work with us that are part of 03:01:52 2 court, and people weren't under oath, as to how things
02:59:46 3 our office. So a lot of times it's those individuals who 03:01:52 3 were conducted by your office. So I just want to make
02:59:50 4 communicate on our behalf. So the privilege would also 03:01:55 4 sure, when we go back in front of the judge, your
02:59:51 5 be invoked by -- by those communications, just like if I 03:01:57 ·5 position is clear. My und(,rstanding-- so that when I
02:59:54 6 had an expert or if I had a paralegal or anyone like 03:02:02 6 say he was instructed, meaning the witness was instructed
&
02:59:58 7 that. They would fall within the privilege. So I'm 03:02:06 7 not to appear, I'm assuming -- or I don't make any
02:59:59 8 instructing him on that basis as well. 03:02:08 8 assumptions. But when you are instructing him not to
03:00:00 9 But my issue is this. The question presupposes 03:02:12 9 answer, you're saying that the privilege applies to
03:00:05 10 that if-- ifhe says a yes or no and he -- and he talked 03:02:15 10 communicationor an action by you with the
ls
03:00:09 11 to us, then it presupposes that he talked to us. So I 03:02:18 11 witness; correct?
03:00:09 12 don't think it's just a yes-or-no question. I think that 03:02:20 12 MR. ANTHONY: I don't understand your question.
03:00:13 13 it should be posed, did he talk to someone outside of our 03:02:21 13 And I'm not under -- and I'm not under oath and I'm not
ia
03:00:15 14 office. He can answer that yes or no. But if they just 03:02:23 14 being deposed. So to the extent you want to make a
03:00:18 15 say, "In general, did someone tell you when and where to 03:02:27 15 statement for the record, then you should do so, but I'm
03:00:21 16 appear for purposes of deposition," for example, if valid 03:02:30 16 not under oath or anything·else. So I'm not going to be
Tr
03:00:24 17 objections or motions to quash were -- were filed, then 03:02:31 17 questioned. Okay?
03:00:27 18 those communications would be privileged. 03:02:31 18 THE COURT: Well, I think -- as I'm
03:00:33 19 THE COURT: I think the question should be 03:02:33 19 understanding it, he is directing the detective not to
03:00:36 20 phrased to say anyone other than attorney, other than 03:02:38 20 respond to the question on the basis of the assertion of
03:00:40 21 counsel. That can be answered. 03:02:40 21 attorney/client privilege, which he is claiming not only
03:00:42 22 BY MR. TAYLOR: 03:02:44 22 for himself, but for any -- what I will call agents in
03:00:44 23 Q Well, you -- you did -- and we're aware that 03:02:50 23 the legal affairs division as well.
03:ooa} 24 you -- you did receive a subpoena to appear prior to 03:02:53 24 MR. ANTHONY: Yes.
03:00:50 25 these two sessions of your deposition. At an ear\ier 03:02:53 25 THE COURT:, That's -- that's what I believe has
r,..)
r.::D
~-- 305 307
-~
38 (f._~ges304 to 307)
.co
CENTEXT LEGAL SERVICES
888.803.3443
sn
tio
la
u
ib
Tr
/
&
ls
ia
Tr
t-,,.)
a:;,
EXHIBIT 6
- -
Ex. 6. Chronological Log Ex Parte August 16, 2018
DATE ACTION/PROCEEDING RESULT/ COMPLIANCE

RULING/COURT
ORDER
1. 2/16/17 Plaintiffs Motion to Granted. No
Compel City Controlled
Witness Depositions
2. 3/6/17 Plaintiffs Pitchess Motion Granted No
ns
Re: CF #.09-004314
3. 5/16/17 In Camera Review Re: CF City ordered to produce No
#09-004314 all documents by May 12,
io
'
r 2017
..
4. 11/20/17 Plaintiffs Ex Parte Granted. Court continued NIA
Application [Re: Plaintiffs trial date so that the
at
Motion to Hold Defendant motions could be heard.·
City of Los Angeles and its
Attorney, John T. Anthony
III, Jointly and Severally,
in Contempt of the Court's ul
ib
Order(s) Regarding
Depositions; Plaintiffs
Tr
Motion for Issue,
Evidentiary and/or
. Terminating Sanctions for
Violations(s) of Court
&
Order in Discovery; and

Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel Documents
Related to RFP Set No.
ls
Two and the· Internal

Affairs Investigation of
ia
False Statements by Harry

Klann [CF# 17 - 000412];
and to compel the 2010
Tr
Investigation by Robbery
Homicide Division;
Plaintiffs Request for
Monetary Sanctions,
Attorneys Fees and Costs
Associated with
··~ Defendant City of Los
Angeles and its Attorney of
.. Record, John T. Anthony
1
- •
III, Unjustified Violations
of Court Order(s) Pursuant
Code of Civil Procedure §
2023.010 et seq.l
5. 2/27/18 Mtn to Compel Moot. City provided NIA
Verifications to Written verification on date
Discovery (served Opposition due
February 2017)
6. 2/27/18 Motion to Hold Defendant Denied. Court Ordered NIA
City of Los Angeles and its IDC on March 6, 2018
Attorney, John T. Anthony
ns
III, Jointly and Severally,
in Contempt of the Court's
Order( s) Regarding
io
Depositions
7. 2/27/18 Plaintiffs Motion for Denied. Court Ordered NIA
IDC on March 6, 2018
at
Issue, Evidentiary and/or
Terminating Sanctions for
Violations(s) of Court
8. 2/27/18
Order in Discovery
Plaintiffs Request for
Monetary Sanctions, ul
Denied. Court Ordered
.IDC on March 6, 2018
NIA
ib
Attorneys Fees and Costs
Associated with
Tr
Angeles and its Attorney of
Record, John T. Anthony
III, Unjustified Violations
&
of Court Order(s)
9. 3/6/18 Court Ordered JDC #1 Numerous orders issued No.
(see ensuing entries 10-
11)
ls
10. 3/13/18 City to serve list of all No

identified witnesses'
ia
availability for the <lat.es

Discovery Referee
Tr
provided on her calendar

11. 3/13/18 City to serve Notice of No.
Compliance with the
' responsive Pitchess
materials related to the
Court's March 6, 2017
and May 5, 2017 Pitchess
orders. The Notice of
~-. Compliance is to include
the following:
2
•
1. The items ordered for
. .
m camera review never
existed; or
2. The items existed but
were destroyed; or
3. Some, but not all, of
the items were produced
(and why the other
documents were not
produced); or
4. All of the responsive
s
items were produced
n
12. 4/26/18 Court Ordered IDC #2 Numerous orders issued
io
(see ensuing entries No.
13-) -
13. May 11, Plaintiff to prepare and Yes.
at
2018 transmit a chart
("DOCUMENT
ul
CHART") that lists: 1.)
Each document (or
category of documents)
\
ib
., Plaintiff requested from
the City that has not been
Tr
produced; 2.) Each date
Plaintiff requested the
document (or category of
documents); and 3.) The
&
source/vehicle( s) by
which the document (or
was requested from the
ls
' City. The

''DOCUMENT /
ia
CHART" should include

the following: 1.) Request
for Production (Set No.
Tr
2); 2.) Pitchess related

documents; 3.)
Documents related to
Internal Affairs CF#
2017-000412 [Accused is
non-sworn employee
Harry Klann]; 4.)
Documents reviewed by
witnesses to prepare for
3
-
deposition; and 5.)
Document demands ,
included with Deposition
Notices.
14. May 11, Plaintiff to serve Yes
2018 Defendant with the
''DOCUMENT
l
CHART" by 5:00 pm via
electronic mail.
15. May 11, Defendant City of Los Defendant to file and No
2018 Angeles serve ( via electronic mail)
s
its Points and Authorities
n
supporting its position
that Plaintiff is prohibited
io
from obtaining
documents requested in
at
Request for Production
No. 2 in a subsequent or
different discovery
ul
method because the City
objected to Request for
ib
Production No. 2.
16. May 11, In conjunction with the No
2018 Points and Authorities
Tr
supporting its position
that Plaintiff is_prohibited '
from obtaining
documents requested in
&
Request for Production

No. 2 in a subsequent or
different discovery
method 'because the City
ls
objected to Request for

Production No. 2,
ia
Defendant is to file the

transcript of statements
Tr
Reporter's Transcript that

City cited at the April 26,
2018 hearing.
17. May 25, City to email to Plaintiff No
2018 the ''DOCUMENT
CHART" (transmitted by
Plaintiff on May 11,
2018) with the following
additional information for
each document ( or
4
-
requested from the City in
discovery that has not
been produced: 1.) Will
be produced; 2) Whether
the document exists; 3.)
Whether the document
does not exist; 4.) Why
the document does not
exist; 5.) What privilege
is being asserted (if any);
ns
6.) All information
required when a privilege
is asserted; and 4.)
io
Objections.
*The court specifically
advised Deputy City
at
Attorney to be very
sparing about objections
ul
and to understand how
broad discovery is and
that the court does not
ib
expect objections other
than privilege.
Tr
18. May 25, In addition to the No
2018 "DOCUMENT
CHART'' that includes
the City's responses,
&
objections and privileges,

. the City is to serve
Plaintiff with all
documents that exist as
ls
identified by Defendant
the chart other than those
ia
to which a privilege or
objection is asserted.
19.
Tr
May 25,. Defendant is to personally No

2018 serve Plaintiff with the
documents identified in
the ''DOCUMENT
CHART" that are not
privileged and/or objected
to .
20. June 8, .City to submit first draft No
2018 of Joint Discovery
Statement to Plaintiff
5
.e
21. June 13, Plaintiff to transmit Yes
2018 response and
"contributions" to the
Joint Discovery
Statement (First Draft)
22. June 22, City to file and serve No
2018 finalized Joint Discovery
Statement (five court days
before IDC)
23. August Plaintiffs Motion to Granted. [Deposition
6,2018 Compel Further Responses Jaramillo ordered to scheduled for
s
and Production of produce documents and 8/21/2018]
n
Documents Re: Notice of appear for deposition on
Deposition of Det. Dan or before August 21,
io
Jaramillo 2018.
Sanctions of $3500 to be
paid on or before
at
September 5, 2018
24. August
6, 2018
Plaintiffs·Motion to
Compel Fu~her Responses
and Production of
Granted.
ul
Stearns ordered to
produce documents and
[Deposition
scheduled for
8/20/2018]
ib
Documents Re: Notice of appear for deposition on
Deposition of Det. Gregory or before August 21,
Tr
Stearns· 2018.
Sanctions of $3500 to be
paid on or before
September 5, 2018
&
25. August . Plaintiffs Motion to Granted. Yes.

6,2018 Compel Further Responses Documents to be
ls
and Production of produced by close of

Documents Re: Notice of business on 8/10/2018
ia
Deposition of Cliff Sanctions of $500 to be

Shepard paid on or before
Tr
September 5, 2018
26. August Plaintiffs Motion to Granted. Yes.

6,2018 Compel Production of City to produce
Documents Reviewed by documents by 5 pm
Dep. Chief Albanese (Ret.) 8/10/2018
in Preparation for
Deposition
·--. 27. August Court Ordered IDC #3 Numerous orders issued
6,2018 (see ensuing entries)
6
-
28. August Plaintiff to provide City Yes
7,2018 with list of current and
retired City witnesses for
whom personal contact
information is sought
29. August City to fil,e and serve Yes [City
10,2018 Plaintiff with the personal inadvertently
contact information for provided a P.O.
each City-related witness Box for Lt. Rick
identified by Plaintiff. Smith II. City
The list should include Attorney has
ns
current and retired stated the correct
employees of the City of information will
Los Angeles. be forwarded
io
immediately.]
at
ul
ib
Tr
&
ls
ia
Tr
7
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
2 )
3
I am a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to
4 the within entitled action; my business address is 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400, Los Angeles,
CA 90024.
5
On August 16, 2018, I served the within PLAINTIFF JENNIFER FRANCIS' NOTICE OF
6 MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY, MONETARY AND/OR TERMINATIN
7 SANCTIONS FOR WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL DUSODEDIENCE OF COUT ORDERS IN
DISCOVERY ABUSE OF DISCOVERY AND DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS;
ns
8 MEMORAN~UM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; FOR AN OSC RE: CONTEMPT OF CITY
ATTORNEY'S CONTINUOUS, WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT
9 ORDERS RE: DISCOVERY [CCP §§ 1209, 1211, LASC LOCAL RULE 3.11]; AND
io
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY C. MCNICHOLAS (PER COURT ORDER) on the interested
10 parties in said action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as stated
below:
at
11
12 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
13
D
ul
(BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the
United States mail in Los Angeles, CA to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service
list. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
ib
14 mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, CA in the ordinary course of business. I am aware
15 that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
Tr
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16
X (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand via NOW
17 MESSENGER to the offices of the addressee.
&
18 D (BY FACSIMILE) The above-described document (s) were sent by facsimile transmission
to the facsimile number(s) of the law office(s) stated above. The transmission was reported as
19 complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report is made a part of this proof of service
ls
pursuant to CRC §2008.

20
X (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) The above-described document(s) were sent by electronic
ia
21 transmission to _the law office(s) stated in the attached Service List. The transmission was reported
as complete and without error.
22
Tr
X (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I placed the Overnite Express package for overnight
23 delivery in a box or location regularly maintained by Overnite Express at my office or I delivered
the package to an authorized courier or driver authorized by Overnite Express to receive documents.
24 The package was placed in a sealed envelope or package designated by Overnite Express with
delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served at the
25 address(es) shown above, at the office address(es) as last given by that person on any document filed
<D
r::;.-:, 26
in the cause and served on the party making service; otherwise at that party's place of residence.
.,.,
t-,,.) X (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
a~ 27
.. foregoing is true and correct.
r-..;
,:;;-; 28
1--'"
c;c;:, 4
OF DISCOVERY AND DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS .
1
- •
Executed on August 16, 2018, at Los Angeles, Califomij' '
ns
8
io
10
at
11
12
13
ul
ib
14
15
Tr
16
17
&
18
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
24
25
a:,
c,::i 26
~--
I',-.)
(:!:) 27
~-.
·~ 28
I',-.)
• f-""
o~ 5
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY,MONETARYAND/OR TERMINATINGSANCTIONSFOR ABUSE
OF DISCOVERYAND DISOBJ;:DIENCE
OF COUKf4QRDERS
.,-.....
1
SERVICE LIST •
Francis v. City of Los Angeles
2
3 Attorneys for Defendants City of Los Angeles, et al.

John Anthony, Esq.
4 City Attorney'.s Office
200 N. Main Street
5 700 City Hall East, 7th Floor
6 Tel: (213) 978-8286
Fax: (213) 978-8216
7 (Via Electronic Mail & Personal Service)
s
8 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
n
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
9 John C. Taylor, Esq.
io
10
Tel: (310) 209-4100
at
11
Fax: (310) 208-5052
12 (Via Electronic Mail & Personal Service)
13
Discovery Referee:
Hon. Candace Cooper (Ret.)
JAMS ul
ib
14
555 W. 5th Street, 32nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
15
Tel: (213) 253-9776
Tr
16
(Courtesy Copy Via Electronic Mail)·
17
&
18
19
ls
20
ia
21
22
Tr
23
,-
24
25
<:D
():i 26
··--
~-..l
0 27
..
t',..l
c,:;
,.......
28
co 6
. OF DISCOVERY AND DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS
1
- •
2
ns
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
io
10
at
[Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Holly J.
12 Plaintiff, Fujie Dept. 56}
13
. 14
vs.
ul
[rn:f>POSEDJ ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S EX.
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO
SPECIALLY SET/SHORTEN TIME ON
ib
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a government PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS: 1) MOTION FOR
15 entity~ and DOES 1 through 100, · ISSUE, EVIDENTIARY AND/OR TERMINATIN
Tr
Inclusive, SANCTIONS FOR WILLFUL AND
16 INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT
Defendants. ORDERS IN DISCOVERY [CURRENTLY SET
17
FOR NOVEMBER 2, 2018; RESERVATION ID:
180814340105]; 2) MOTION FOR ISSUE,
&
18
EVIDENTIARY AND/OR TERMINATING
19 SANCTIONS FOR WILLFUL AND
INTENTIONAL WITHHOLDING OF COURT
ls
20 ORDERED DISCOVERY AND VIOLA 'JION OF

COURT ORDERS RE PITCHESS DOCUMENTS
21 [CURRENTLY SET FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2018;
ia
RESERVATION ID: 180814340120]; 3) MOTION

22 TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCU_MENTS
Tr
RELATED TO LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS CF

23
#17-000412 [CURRENTLY SET FOR OCTOBER
24 15, 2018; RESERVATION ID 180806337613]; 4)
FOR AN OSC RE: CONTEMPT OF CITY
25 ATTORNEY'S CONTINUOUS, WILLFUL AND
INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT
,;p 26 ORDERS R~: DISCOVERY [CCP §§ 1209, 1211,
r.~p
":'-~ LASCLOCAL RULE 3.11]; AND DECLARATIO
t,,.) 27 OF COURTNEY C. MCNICHOLAS
0
-.
I'-,,.) 28 ."2
(::::)
~,..>
Co
[Proposed] Order on Plaintiff Jennifer Francis' Ex Parte Application August -16,2018
- •
Date: August 16, 2018
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 56
2
3 Five Year Statute: October 30,.2018
4 · Trial Date: October I, 2018

Complaint Filed:. October 30, 2013
5
6
Having read and considered Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application and having found good cause
7
therefor,
s
8.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
n
9
1.
io
10
2.
11
at
12
ul
ib
Tr
&
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
ls
20
Dated: f~(~-(~
21
ia
22
JUDGEHOLLYJ. FUJIE
Tr
23
24
25
c:D 26
0:,
-..
t-,..) 27
\Z'J
~--
f'-..) 28
c:D
I-"'
0:,
2
(Proposed] Order on Plaintiff Jennifer Francis' Ex Parte Application August 16, 20 I 8
THIS IS YOUR CRS RECEIPT
• INSTRUCTIONS
•
Please print this receipt and attach it to the corresponding motion/document as the last page. Indicate
the Reservation ID on the motion/document face page {see example). The dqcument will not be
accepted without this receipt page and the Reservation ID.
LIFOl!.N'IA.COUNTY OF I.OS ANOELIJS
n s
RESERVATION INFORMATION
io
Reservation ID: 180814340105
Transaction Date: August14,2018
at
Case Number: BC526258
Case Title: JENNIFER FRANCIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Party: FRANCIS JENNIFER (Plaintiff/Petitioner)
ul
Courthouse: Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Department: 56
Reservation Type: Other motion {not otherwise listed)
Reservation Type Description: Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse
ib
I.
Date: 11/2/2018 .
i
Time: 08:30 am
Tr
FEE INFORMATION (Fees are non-refundable)
First Paper Fee: Party asserts first paper was previously paid.·
&
Description Fee
Other motion {not otherwise listed) $60.00
Total Fees: Receipt Number: 1180814K0991
ls
$60.00
ia
PAYMENT INFORMATION
Tr
Name on Credit Card: John McNicholas

Credit Card Number: XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-0285
1~?
co A COPY OF THIS RECEIPT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CORRESPONDING
M0JION/DOCUMENT AS THE LAST PAGE AND THE RESERVATION ID INDICATED ON THE
i:a.-:i MOTION/DOCUMENT FACE .PAGE.

Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) 18 08-17 Francis Motion For Sanctions.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) 18 08-17 Francis Motion For Sanctions.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

1

5 TAYLOR & RING, LLP

18 AND INTENTIONAL DUSODEDIENCE OF

20 AUTHORITIES; FOR AN OSC RE: CONTEMPT

WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL

23 RULE 3.11]; AND DECLARATION OF

5 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF

19 The Notice of Compliance is to include the following:

20 1. The items ordered for in camera review never existed; or

2. The items existed but were destroyed; or

2 method because the City objected to Request for Production No. 2.

12 6.) All information required when a privilege is asserted; and

20 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 to Request for Production No. 2.

2 DISCOVERY ABUSE AND DISOBEY COURT ORDERS

3 A. Instructing Witnesses to Ignore and Disregard Subpoenas

21 attorney-client privilege and instructed Det. Nuttall not to answer. (Ex. 5)

22 IV. TERMINATil'l'G/ISSUE/EVIDENCE SANCTIONS SHOULD BE AW ARD ED

A. Evidence and Issue Sanctions Should be Awarded

court orders to provide responses to court-ordered discovery, continues to ~ithhold relevant

18 produced in response to discovery requests as sanctio~ which evidence Defendant concealed).

19 B. Terminating Sanctions Are Warranted

23 during defendant's deposition." The court concluded that

4 formal and informal attempts to get the discovery).

5 Dated: August 16, 2018 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP

7 submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery

9 1. In 2015, defendant falsely represented that a critical percipient witness, Dorothy

16 that only she possesses with her. (Ex. 4)

22 client privilege and instructed Det. Nuttall not to answer. (Ex. 5)

23 B. Willful Disobedience of Court Orders

2 documents were pot produced); or

3 4. All of the responsive items were produced

12 produced: 1.) Will be produced;

17 5.) What privilege is being asserted (if any);

18 6.) All information required when a privilege is asserted; and

10866 WILSHIRE: BLVD .. SUITE 1400 • LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA ~90024

PHONE: (310) 474•1582/,AX 1310) 475•7·871

ViaEmail: jol111.ant/10ny@lacity.org& il1ail

John Anthony III, Esq.

Very truly yours,·

[Dictated but not read to avoid delay]

cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring - Via Email Only

10866 VltLSHIRE: BLV·O .. SUl"':"E l•lOO •. LOS ..:.NGE.LCS, CAL1F"O~NIA 90024

PHONE: (310) •17•l·1582/F':- .. x 1310) •\75-7871

February 15, 2018

John Anthony Ill, Esq.

Priority 'Witness List j#l !

4. Dr. D9rothy Tucker

Prioritv \Vitncss"List 1#2!

February 15, 2018

The following represents the Third Priority List of witt'1esse·s:

Priority Witness List 1#31

2. The Person Most Knowlcd!.!eable

) // '] .. ' . .1/.J--

cc: John C. Taylor, Taylor & Ring

Hon. .Candace Cooper (Ret.) - Via Email Only

10866 W1L!:,t--t1r~e BLVD .. SUITE 1400 • LOS ANCl::.LES. CALlf-~OANII\ ~•OOf.!-\

PI-IONE (.3101 474-1582/F'AX 13101 -\7S-7071

February 20, 2018

John Anthony III, Esq.

Dear Mr. Anthony:

Five Year Statute (CCP §583.310) ul

Unverified Pitcltess Production For CF# 09-004318

My preference is that you simply provide a proper verification or Notice of Compliance

February 20, 2018

I will explain. A Pitchess motion is a discovery vehicle to compel production of otherwise