Preview
1 VINCENT J. BARTOLOTTA, JR., ESQ. (SBN 055139)
KAREN R. FROSTROM, ESQ. (SBN 207044)
2 THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP
2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
3 San Diego, California 92103
Tel: (619) 236-9363 Fax: (619) 236-9653 2/16/2021
4
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Emilio Diaz,
5 Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, William Michael Fleming,
Edward Stancil, Jedrick Humphries, Jonathan Reid, Tina
6 Reid, and John Chambers
7 Alison Madden, In Pro Per
PO Box 620650
8 Woodside, CA 94062
650.270.0066; alisonmadden@yahoo.com
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No.: 17CIV05387
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT,
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH,
14 THUMPER SMITH, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
15 Plaintiffs,
16 v.
Date: February 23, 2020
17 REDWOOD CITY, Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept: 2
18 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Marie S. Weiner
19 ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM
MICHAEL FLEMING, EDWARD
20 STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES,
ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, JONATHAN REID,
21 TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS,
22 Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
23 v.
24 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
25 Defendant.
26
27 ///
28 ///
1
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 The following Joint Case Management Statement includes the positions of (1) Plaintiffs
2 represented the Thorsnes Bartolota McGuire LLP, (2) Pro Per Plaintiff Alison Madden, and
3 (3) Defendant City of Redwood City (“Defendant” or “City”). Where no “Pro Per” comment is
4 added within each line item, Pro Per agrees with the statement attributed to “Plaintiffs”.
5 A. Status of Discovery
6 Plaintiffs’ Position
7 The parties are finishing written discovery and taking depositions.
8 Defendant’s Position
9 There is still much discovery to be conducted. As to fact discovery, the represented Plaintiffs
10 have yet to sufficiently respond to all of the City’s written discovery demands or complete document
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11 production. The represented Plaintiffs’ responses to date have been insufficient with respect to the
12 following: (1) no verifications have been provided by Emilio Diaz, and John Chambers; and (2) the
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 responses that have been served do not appropriately respond to Special Interrogatory No. 2, a
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
14 contention interrogatory concerning Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for inverse condemnation.
15 There are also substantial issues with certain individual Plaintiff’s responses. John Chambers did not
16 provide any substantive responses to the City’s form interrogatories. Emilio Diaz, Jonathan Reid,
17 and Tina Reid’s document productions are deficient.1 The Reids, for example, have not produced
18 any documents at all. The City has met and conferred with the represented Plaintiffs’ counsel to seek
19 further responses, including without limitation by emails dated January 11, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2021,
20 as well as by letter on February 3 and through subsequent emails. The represented Plaintiffs have to
21 date have not met their discovery obligations, but have agreed to push out the deadline for the City
22 to request an informal discovery conference with the Court, most recently to February 18, 2021.
23 Once these discovery disputes are addressed, the City will notice Plaintiffs’ depositions and
24 may conduct additional discovery. The logistics of the depositions may need to be addressed at the
25 CMC, or an informal discovery conference as well. As it currently stands, the represented Plaintiffs
26 have not agreed to a plan to conduct their depositions remotely in a safe manner in light of the
27
28
1
The City received a supplemental document production from William Fleming on February 11 that it is reviewing.
2
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 pandemic. The City has offered them the chance to go to a private conference room with Wi-Fi
2 connectivity at the City’s Public Works Department to log into their deposition session, but Plaintiffs
3 have rejected this offer so far, without offering an alternative. The City needs to take these
4 depositions and is willing to work on creative solutions to do so safely but there has not been
5 adequate progress to date.
6 Alison Madden has indicated she would like to be deposed in and around the time when the
7 represented Plaintiffs are being deposed. The City has no issue with this, but has not been able to
8 schedule anything with the represented Plaintiffs so this too has stalled.
9 The Plaintiffs conducted a remote PMK deposition of City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz
10 on February 10, 2021, which Ms. Madden discusses below. The City disagrees with Ms. Madden’s
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11 characterizations of the deposition and is opposed to her proposals for further written depositions
12 questions or a second PMK deposition.
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
14 Re: my deposition: My response to City re: depo was for the convenience of all involved; I
15 am very flexible and can be deposed at any time. I can generally find safe locations with wifi and am
16 amenable to a video deposition at any time. I recognize it is challenging for the other defendants, not
17 all of whom are used to being out and about (as to me, currently by e-bike) and knowing the various
18 locations that offer solid wifi yet are also both safe and appropriate for a professional purpose (i.e.
19 not noisy, crowded etc.). With libraries and offices closed, with even most indoor locations still
20 closed, and with the need to find a secure indoor or outdoor location that is appropriate for a series of
21 persons to be scheduled to achieve depositions within a continuous time frame, it is more
22 challenging. Pro Per Madden is amenable to scheduling outside the parameters of the others, yet
23 recognizes these stated challenges to be a justifiable basis for extension of discovery deadlines.
24 Re: City’s “PMQ/PMK”: Ms. Frostrom and I both attended and questioned Ms. Diaz, City
25 Manager of Redwood City, on Wed. 2/10/2021. This was in response to Ms. Frostrom’s Notice of
26 Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable, which Mr. Siegel called Person Most Qualified.
27 While Ms. Diaz was professional and very congenial, from my perspective, she was evasive
28 and not fully prepared. It is also, based on Ms. Diaz’s responses, not altogether certain by any means
3
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 that Ms. Diaz is indeed the PMQ/PMK of City on all or most of the relevant lines of questioning that
2 occurred in the deposition, and that are relevant to the causes of action.
3 Examples are: (a) having stale and unclear memory of events and incidents relevant to the
4 causes of action, and (b) as to important and relevant documents in the possession of City, being
5 entirely unaware of same (i.e., without limitation, a letter from the State Lands Commission to the
6 prior Mayor that speaks directly to the causes of action and the policy statements that Ms. Diaz was
7 articulating, while having recollection of documents that pre-dated this more recent one).
8 Specifically, Ms. Diaz’s answers were lengthy and compound, even when a narrow question
9 was asked. Almost all answers were statements of high level policy conclusions, both germane (but
10 vague and general) and not germane, to fact questions. At the same time, the lengthy answers
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11 appeared artfully crafted to be vague and high level, to the extent myself and other counsel had to
12 frequently ask for a question to be answered, or a prior answer read by the reporter, with repetition
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 of the questions multiple times. Often, with a question still not answered, Ms. Diaz stated she would
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
14 not provide further response. The implication, it appeared from Mr. Siegel’s objections and Ms.
15 Diaz’s demeanor, was that she was being hassled. Yet questions remained unanswered.
16 I made an overture to Mr. Siegel regarding the possibility of an agreement that Ms. Diaz
17 would provide written responses to questions identified as asked and not answered, and Mr. Siegel
18 declined to even consider discussing any such framework. My objective is to avoid discovery
19 motions, yet have a usable transcript and record.
20 As a result, it may be necessary, on review of the certified copy of the reporter’s transcript, to
21 move for a further or other PMQ/PMK. A key element of CRAL is the public aspect and Ms. Diaz
22 appeared unable or unwilling to answer questions regarding public access and elements of the
23 development that involve a City land swap and elements and factors that benefit the public.
24 B. Status of Settlement or Mediation
25 Plaintiffs’ Position
26 We have discussed mediation but have not yet agreed.
27 Defendant’s Position
28 The City remains tentatively amenable to mediation under appropriate conditions, e.g., all
4
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 parties participate and share costs, and Plaintiffs commit to vacating Docktown. But the City first
2 needs all Plaintiffs to meet their discovery response obligations.
3 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position
4 Mediation should be without prior conditions and paid for by the City. There should be no
5 requirement that the entirety of the participants commit to vacate Docktown: some may desire to
6 leave, and the law allows some to remain. The City has expended upwards of over $20 million in
7 many contracts respecting buyouts, auctions, relocation experts and the like. The departed residents
8 who were paid over $15 million collectively did not pay for discussions and negotiations that
9 occurred prior to their buyouts. There is no reason that Redwood City tax-paying and voting citizens
10 should have to pay for mediation with a City that is evicting them unjustly.
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11 C. Anticipated motions and proposed briefing schedule
12 Plaintiffs’ Position
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 Plaintiffs do not plan to file any motions at this time.
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
14 Defendant’s Position
15 The City may file a motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication, which it will further
16 evaluate after Plaintiffs have sufficiently responded to discovery demands.
17 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position
18 Pro Per may file motions, including for summary judgment and/or adjudication, which it will
19 further evaluate after Defendant has sufficiently responded to discovery demands, including
20 producing an appropriate PMQ/PMK. Pro Per may file a motion requesting a stay until City has
21 undertaken the steps required in CRAL prior to noticing evictions.
22 D. Setting of next CMC date
23 Plaintiffs’ Position
24 Plaintiffs are open to whatever the Court believes is appropriate.
25 Defendant’s Position
26 The City generally believes periodic check-ins are helpful, and is open to whatever the Court
27 believes is appropriate.
28 ///
5
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position
2 Same as Plaintiffs.
3 E. Any other matters for which the parties seek Court ruling or scheduling
4 Plaintiffs’ Position
5 None.
6 Defendant’s Position
7 The City would like resolution of the outstanding discovery disputed with the represented
8 Plaintiffs, either at the CMC or by setting an informal discovery conference where the dispute, if not
9 yet resolved, can be addressed.
10 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11 None presently.
12 Dated: February 16, 2021 THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
By:
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
14 /s/ Karen R. Frostrom
VINCENT J. BARTOLOTTA, JR., ESQ.
15 KAREN R. FROSTROM, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors
16
17 Dated: February 16, 2021 ALISON M. MADDEN
By:
18
19 /s/ Alison M. Madden ______________________
Alison M. Madden, In Pro Per
20
21 Dated: February 16, 2021 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP
By:
22
23 /s/ Kevin D. Siegel
MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON, ESQ.
24 KEVIN D. SIEGEL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant
25 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
26
27
28
6
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
C.C.P. §1013(a), C.R.C. 2003(3), 2005(1)
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
3
I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of
4 eighteen (18) and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 2550 Fifth Avenue,
11th Floor, San Diego, California 92103.
5
On February 16, 2021, I served the JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
6 on all interested parties in this action by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope addressed to:
7
8 Michelle Marchetta Kenyon Mary Eleonor Ignacio
mkenyon@bwslaw.com City of Redwood City
9 Kevin Siegel 1017 Middlefield Road
ksiegel@bwslaw.com Redwood City, CA 94063
10 Albert Tong eignacio@redwoodcity.org
atong@bwslaw.com
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11
Maxwell Blum
12 mblum@bwslaw.com
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSON LLP
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Alison Madden
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
Oakland, CA 94612-3501 P.O. Box 620650
14 Woodside, CA 94062
San Mateo Superior Court alisonmadden@yahoo.com
15
Courtroom 2E
16 Hon. Marie Weiner
400 County Center
17 Redwood City, CA 94063
complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
18
19 BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U. S. Postal
20 Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California, in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
21 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit..
22
BY E-FILE: By submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC
23 through the user interface at www.onelegal.com
24 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I served the documents on the persons [ below or listed on an
attachment hereto], as follows:.
25
BY FAX: By use of facsimile machine telephone number (619) 233-6039, I served a copy
26 of the above-listed document(s) to the offices of the addressee on November 22, 2017 by
transmitting by facsimile machine. The facsimile machine I used complied with California
27 Rules of Court Rule 2.302, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to
California Rules of Court Rule 2.304(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record
28 of the transmission.
7
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: By depositing copies of the above document(s) in a box or
other facility regularly maintained by Fed-Ex in an envelope or package designed by Fed-
2 Ex with delivery fees paid or provided for and sent to the person(s) named on the attached
service list [C.C.P. § 1013, 2015.5].
3
X BY E-MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-
4 mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-
mail addresses as shown on the attached service list.
5
I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
6 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
7 BY CM/ECF SERVICE: Pursuant to controlling General Order(s) and Local Court
Rule(s) the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the
8 document. On November 22, 2017 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case
or adversary proceeding and determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic
9 Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email address indicated below:
10 [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP
11
[Federal] I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
12 at whose direction the service was made.
2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103
13 Executed on February 16, 2021 at San Diego, California.
FAX (619) 236-9653
(619) 236-9363
14
15 /s/ Audrey Kennedy
Audrey Kennedy
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Preview
1 VINCENT J. BARTOLOTTA, JR., ESQ. (SBN 055139) KAREN R. FROSTROM, ESQ. (SBN 207044) 2 THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor 3 San Diego, California 92103 Tel: (619) 236-9363 Fax: (619) 236-9653 2/16/2021 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Emilio Diaz, 5 Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, William Michael Fleming, Edward Stancil, Jedrick Humphries, Jonathan Reid, Tina 6 Reid, and John Chambers 7 Alison Madden, In Pro Per PO Box 620650 8 Woodside, CA 94062 650.270.0066; alisonmadden@yahoo.com 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No.: 17CIV05387 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, 14 THUMPER SMITH, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. Date: February 23, 2020 17 REDWOOD CITY, Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept: 2 18 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Marie S. Weiner 19 ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM MICHAEL FLEMING, EDWARD 20 STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, JONATHAN REID, 21 TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS, 22 Plaintiffs-Intervenors, 23 v. 24 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, 25 Defendant. 26 27 /// 28 /// 1 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 The following Joint Case Management Statement includes the positions of (1) Plaintiffs 2 represented the Thorsnes Bartolota McGuire LLP, (2) Pro Per Plaintiff Alison Madden, and 3 (3) Defendant City of Redwood City (“Defendant” or “City”). Where no “Pro Per” comment is 4 added within each line item, Pro Per agrees with the statement attributed to “Plaintiffs”. 5 A. Status of Discovery 6 Plaintiffs’ Position 7 The parties are finishing written discovery and taking depositions. 8 Defendant’s Position 9 There is still much discovery to be conducted. As to fact discovery, the represented Plaintiffs 10 have yet to sufficiently respond to all of the City’s written discovery demands or complete document THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 production. The represented Plaintiffs’ responses to date have been insufficient with respect to the 12 following: (1) no verifications have been provided by Emilio Diaz, and John Chambers; and (2) the 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 responses that have been served do not appropriately respond to Special Interrogatory No. 2, a FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 14 contention interrogatory concerning Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for inverse condemnation. 15 There are also substantial issues with certain individual Plaintiff’s responses. John Chambers did not 16 provide any substantive responses to the City’s form interrogatories. Emilio Diaz, Jonathan Reid, 17 and Tina Reid’s document productions are deficient.1 The Reids, for example, have not produced 18 any documents at all. The City has met and conferred with the represented Plaintiffs’ counsel to seek 19 further responses, including without limitation by emails dated January 11, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2021, 20 as well as by letter on February 3 and through subsequent emails. The represented Plaintiffs have to 21 date have not met their discovery obligations, but have agreed to push out the deadline for the City 22 to request an informal discovery conference with the Court, most recently to February 18, 2021. 23 Once these discovery disputes are addressed, the City will notice Plaintiffs’ depositions and 24 may conduct additional discovery. The logistics of the depositions may need to be addressed at the 25 CMC, or an informal discovery conference as well. As it currently stands, the represented Plaintiffs 26 have not agreed to a plan to conduct their depositions remotely in a safe manner in light of the 27 28 1 The City received a supplemental document production from William Fleming on February 11 that it is reviewing. 2 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 pandemic. The City has offered them the chance to go to a private conference room with Wi-Fi 2 connectivity at the City’s Public Works Department to log into their deposition session, but Plaintiffs 3 have rejected this offer so far, without offering an alternative. The City needs to take these 4 depositions and is willing to work on creative solutions to do so safely but there has not been 5 adequate progress to date. 6 Alison Madden has indicated she would like to be deposed in and around the time when the 7 represented Plaintiffs are being deposed. The City has no issue with this, but has not been able to 8 schedule anything with the represented Plaintiffs so this too has stalled. 9 The Plaintiffs conducted a remote PMK deposition of City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz 10 on February 10, 2021, which Ms. Madden discusses below. The City disagrees with Ms. Madden’s THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 characterizations of the deposition and is opposed to her proposals for further written depositions 12 questions or a second PMK deposition. 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 14 Re: my deposition: My response to City re: depo was for the convenience of all involved; I 15 am very flexible and can be deposed at any time. I can generally find safe locations with wifi and am 16 amenable to a video deposition at any time. I recognize it is challenging for the other defendants, not 17 all of whom are used to being out and about (as to me, currently by e-bike) and knowing the various 18 locations that offer solid wifi yet are also both safe and appropriate for a professional purpose (i.e. 19 not noisy, crowded etc.). With libraries and offices closed, with even most indoor locations still 20 closed, and with the need to find a secure indoor or outdoor location that is appropriate for a series of 21 persons to be scheduled to achieve depositions within a continuous time frame, it is more 22 challenging. Pro Per Madden is amenable to scheduling outside the parameters of the others, yet 23 recognizes these stated challenges to be a justifiable basis for extension of discovery deadlines. 24 Re: City’s “PMQ/PMK”: Ms. Frostrom and I both attended and questioned Ms. Diaz, City 25 Manager of Redwood City, on Wed. 2/10/2021. This was in response to Ms. Frostrom’s Notice of 26 Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable, which Mr. Siegel called Person Most Qualified. 27 While Ms. Diaz was professional and very congenial, from my perspective, she was evasive 28 and not fully prepared. It is also, based on Ms. Diaz’s responses, not altogether certain by any means 3 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 that Ms. Diaz is indeed the PMQ/PMK of City on all or most of the relevant lines of questioning that 2 occurred in the deposition, and that are relevant to the causes of action. 3 Examples are: (a) having stale and unclear memory of events and incidents relevant to the 4 causes of action, and (b) as to important and relevant documents in the possession of City, being 5 entirely unaware of same (i.e., without limitation, a letter from the State Lands Commission to the 6 prior Mayor that speaks directly to the causes of action and the policy statements that Ms. Diaz was 7 articulating, while having recollection of documents that pre-dated this more recent one). 8 Specifically, Ms. Diaz’s answers were lengthy and compound, even when a narrow question 9 was asked. Almost all answers were statements of high level policy conclusions, both germane (but 10 vague and general) and not germane, to fact questions. At the same time, the lengthy answers THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 appeared artfully crafted to be vague and high level, to the extent myself and other counsel had to 12 frequently ask for a question to be answered, or a prior answer read by the reporter, with repetition 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 of the questions multiple times. Often, with a question still not answered, Ms. Diaz stated she would FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 14 not provide further response. The implication, it appeared from Mr. Siegel’s objections and Ms. 15 Diaz’s demeanor, was that she was being hassled. Yet questions remained unanswered. 16 I made an overture to Mr. Siegel regarding the possibility of an agreement that Ms. Diaz 17 would provide written responses to questions identified as asked and not answered, and Mr. Siegel 18 declined to even consider discussing any such framework. My objective is to avoid discovery 19 motions, yet have a usable transcript and record. 20 As a result, it may be necessary, on review of the certified copy of the reporter’s transcript, to 21 move for a further or other PMQ/PMK. A key element of CRAL is the public aspect and Ms. Diaz 22 appeared unable or unwilling to answer questions regarding public access and elements of the 23 development that involve a City land swap and elements and factors that benefit the public. 24 B. Status of Settlement or Mediation 25 Plaintiffs’ Position 26 We have discussed mediation but have not yet agreed. 27 Defendant’s Position 28 The City remains tentatively amenable to mediation under appropriate conditions, e.g., all 4 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 parties participate and share costs, and Plaintiffs commit to vacating Docktown. But the City first 2 needs all Plaintiffs to meet their discovery response obligations. 3 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position 4 Mediation should be without prior conditions and paid for by the City. There should be no 5 requirement that the entirety of the participants commit to vacate Docktown: some may desire to 6 leave, and the law allows some to remain. The City has expended upwards of over $20 million in 7 many contracts respecting buyouts, auctions, relocation experts and the like. The departed residents 8 who were paid over $15 million collectively did not pay for discussions and negotiations that 9 occurred prior to their buyouts. There is no reason that Redwood City tax-paying and voting citizens 10 should have to pay for mediation with a City that is evicting them unjustly. THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 C. Anticipated motions and proposed briefing schedule 12 Plaintiffs’ Position 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 Plaintiffs do not plan to file any motions at this time. FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 14 Defendant’s Position 15 The City may file a motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication, which it will further 16 evaluate after Plaintiffs have sufficiently responded to discovery demands. 17 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position 18 Pro Per may file motions, including for summary judgment and/or adjudication, which it will 19 further evaluate after Defendant has sufficiently responded to discovery demands, including 20 producing an appropriate PMQ/PMK. Pro Per may file a motion requesting a stay until City has 21 undertaken the steps required in CRAL prior to noticing evictions. 22 D. Setting of next CMC date 23 Plaintiffs’ Position 24 Plaintiffs are open to whatever the Court believes is appropriate. 25 Defendant’s Position 26 The City generally believes periodic check-ins are helpful, and is open to whatever the Court 27 believes is appropriate. 28 /// 5 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position 2 Same as Plaintiffs. 3 E. Any other matters for which the parties seek Court ruling or scheduling 4 Plaintiffs’ Position 5 None. 6 Defendant’s Position 7 The City would like resolution of the outstanding discovery disputed with the represented 8 Plaintiffs, either at the CMC or by setting an informal discovery conference where the dispute, if not 9 yet resolved, can be addressed. 10 Pro Per Alison Madden’s Position THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 None presently. 12 Dated: February 16, 2021 THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR By: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 14 /s/ Karen R. Frostrom VINCENT J. BARTOLOTTA, JR., ESQ. 15 KAREN R. FROSTROM, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors 16 17 Dated: February 16, 2021 ALISON M. MADDEN By: 18 19 /s/ Alison M. Madden ______________________ Alison M. Madden, In Pro Per 20 21 Dated: February 16, 2021 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP By: 22 23 /s/ Kevin D. Siegel MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON, ESQ. 24 KEVIN D. SIEGEL, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant 25 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 26 27 28 6 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE C.C.P. §1013(a), C.R.C. 2003(3), 2005(1) 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 3 I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of 4 eighteen (18) and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor, San Diego, California 92103. 5 On February 16, 2021, I served the JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 6 on all interested parties in this action by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to: 7 8 Michelle Marchetta Kenyon Mary Eleonor Ignacio mkenyon@bwslaw.com City of Redwood City 9 Kevin Siegel 1017 Middlefield Road ksiegel@bwslaw.com Redwood City, CA 94063 10 Albert Tong eignacio@redwoodcity.org atong@bwslaw.com THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 Maxwell Blum 12 mblum@bwslaw.com 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSON LLP SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Alison Madden FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 Oakland, CA 94612-3501 P.O. Box 620650 14 Woodside, CA 94062 San Mateo Superior Court alisonmadden@yahoo.com 15 Courtroom 2E 16 Hon. Marie Weiner 400 County Center 17 Redwood City, CA 94063 complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org 18 19 BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U. S. Postal 20 Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Diego, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is 21 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.. 22 BY E-FILE: By submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC 23 through the user interface at www.onelegal.com 24 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I served the documents on the persons [ below or listed on an attachment hereto], as follows:. 25 BY FAX: By use of facsimile machine telephone number (619) 233-6039, I served a copy 26 of the above-listed document(s) to the offices of the addressee on November 22, 2017 by transmitting by facsimile machine. The facsimile machine I used complied with California 27 Rules of Court Rule 2.302, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 2.304(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record 28 of the transmission. 7 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: By depositing copies of the above document(s) in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Fed-Ex in an envelope or package designed by Fed- 2 Ex with delivery fees paid or provided for and sent to the person(s) named on the attached service list [C.C.P. § 1013, 2015.5]. 3 X BY E-MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e- 4 mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e- mail addresses as shown on the attached service list. 5 I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or 6 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 7 BY CM/ECF SERVICE: Pursuant to controlling General Order(s) and Local Court Rule(s) the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the 8 document. On November 22, 2017 I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic 9 Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email address indicated below: 10 [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE LLP 11 [Federal] I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court 12 at whose direction the service was made. 2550 FIFTH AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 13 Executed on February 16, 2021 at San Diego, California. FAX (619) 236-9653 (619) 236-9363 14 15 /s/ Audrey Kennedy Audrey Kennedy 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 1416923v1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT