Sanctions Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney

S. Christian Stouder (Bar No. 149821) cstouder@hbblaw. corn Elizabeth P. Trent (Bar No. 272258) etrentghbblaw. corn HAIGHT BROWN k BONESTEEL LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.542.8000 Facsimile: 213.542.8100 Attorneys for Defendants Nordstrom, Amber Santiago and Michael Bryan

Inc.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION - HALL OF JUSTICE

11 Case No. 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL

JOENATHAN WILLIAMS, an individual,

12

DEFENDANT NORD STROM, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR ISSUE AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR; DECLARATION OF

Plaintiff,

13 V.

14

NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington 15 Corporation; AGENT 1, an unknown named individual; and DOES 1 through 50, 16 inclusive,

17

ELIZABETH P. TRENT; EXHIBITS

Defendants.

18

Date: Time: Dept.:

19 20

August 26, 2015

8:45 a.m.

C-68

Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. Judith F. Hayes, Dept. C-68

21

Action Filed:

March 20. 2014

22

23 24

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 26, 2015, at 8:45 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department

25

26 27

C-68 of the above-entitled

Court,

located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, Defendant Nordstrom, Inc.

("Application" ) seeking

("Nordstrom") will file an ex parte application

an Order Setting a

28 1 11702497.1

DEFENDANT NORDSTROM, INC.'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15 2016 HEARING DATE ON TICE COURT:S CALENDAR

Date for Nordstrom's

Motion for Issue and/or Terminating

Sanctions Prior to the First

Available April 15, 2016, Hearing Date on the Court's Calendar.

This Application is made on the following grounds:

(1) Plaintiff Nordstrom's

has violated this Court's order dated August 7,

2015, regarding

Motions to Compel Plaintiff s further responses to Special Interrogatories

(Set One), Request for Production (Set One), and Request for Admission (Set One). The Order granted all

of Nordstrom's motions

and ordered plaintiff to provide further

discovery responses within 10 days, which was August 17, 2015.

(2) Plaintiff has not provided these further responses to Nordstrom to date, and the 10 August 17, 2015 deadline has passed.

(3) Plaintiff

s further responses to this discovery are essential for Nordstrom's

12 defense of this case, preparation

for trial, and in order for all defendants,

including Amber

13 Santiago and Michael Bryan, to file Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

prior to

14 Trial in this matter, which is set for July 29, 2016.

(4) While plaintiff has recently indicated by email that he intends to challenge this

15

16 court's ruling and order on Nordstrom's

motions to compel, plaintiff has (a) failed to serve

17 Nordstrom with any paperwork that was submitted to the California Court of Appeal, and 18 (b) failed to identify in what capacity plaintiff may challenge this court's ruling on the

19 motions-for example, only the sanctions.

20 21

(5) As such, there is no justification for plaintiff

s refusal to provide these essential,

further discovery responses pursuant to this court's order, and Nordstrom

22 Motion for Issue and/or Terminating

intends to file a

Sanctions pursuant to California Code

23 Procedure section 2023.030. Unfortunately,

of Civil

this court's calendar does not permit such a

24 motion to be heard until April 15, 2016.

25

(6) On August 24, 2015, the office of counsel for Nordstrom contacted the calendar

26 clerk for Department C-68 and was advised that the earliest hearing date on a motion for 27 terminating

sanctions was April 15, 2016. Nordstrom reserved this hearing date; however,

28 Nordstrom will be unduly prejudiced if it must wait until April 15, 2016, just over three 2

~

H702497 I

DEFENDANT NORD STROM. INC. ' PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15. 2016 HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR

months before trial, before seeking issue and/or terminating

sanctions, should plaintiff

continue to refuse to comply with this court's order and provide further discovery

3 responses that are essential for their defenses and motion for summary

4 judgment/adjudication.

(7) For these reasons, good cause exists for Nordstrom to bring this Application 6 seeking an Order Setting a Date for Nordstrom's

Motion for Issue and/or Terminating

7

Sanctions Prior to the First Available April 15, 2016 Hearing Date on the Court's

8

Calendar.

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the Court's granting

of this ex parte

9 application, as the Court may set the hearing on the motion such that the motion must be 10 filed with regular statutory notice at least sixteen (16) court days prior to the hearing. For 11 example, if the Motion is set for September 23, 2015, moving papers would need to be 12 filed and served by August 31, 2015.

13

This Application is based upon the attached Memorandum

of Points

14 Authorities, the attached declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent and corresponding

and

exhibits, all

15 records and pleadings on file with the Court, and upon such oral argument and evidence

16 the Court will allow at the time of the hearing on this application.

17 complied with the notice requirements

of California

Nordstrom has

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203(a)

18 regarding ex parte notice.

19 20 Dated: August 25, 2015

HAIGHT BROWN

k BONESTEEL LLP

21

22 23

24

S. Christian Stouder Elizabeth P. Trent

25

Attorneys for Defendants Nordstrom, Amber Santiago and Michael Bryan

26 27 3 DEFENDANT NORD STROM, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR

Inc.,

MEMORANDUM

1

A.

OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT THIS EXPARTE APPLICATION An application for ex parte relief must be accompanied by a declaration containing

an affirmative

knowledge

factual showing consisting

of irreparable

harm, immediate

of competent

testimony based on personal

danger or any other statutory basis for granting

relief ex parte. (Ca Rules of Court Rule 3.1202(c).)

Good cause exists for this ex parte application because plaintiff has violated this

Court's order dated August 7, 2015, granting Nordstrom's further responses to Special Interrogatories

Motions to Compel Plaintiff s

(Set One), Request for Production (Set One),

10 and Request for Admission (Set One), and ordering plaintiff to provide further responses within ten days, without any justification.

(Declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent, $2, Exhibit

12

13

On August 7,

2015, the court issued a Minute Order granting all of Nordstrom's

14 motions to compel and ordering plaintiff to provide further discovery responses within ten 15 (10) days, which was August 17, 2015. [Id.] However, Plaintiff has not provided these

16 further responses to Nordstrom to date, and the August 17, 2015, deadline has passed.

17 (Declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent, $3.)

18

While plaintiff has recently indicated by email that he intends to challenge this

19 court's ruling and order on Nordstrom's,motions

to compel, to date plaintiff has (a) failed

20 to serve Nordstrom with any paperwork that was submitted to the California Court of 21 Appeal, and (b) failed to identify in what capacity plaintiff may challenge this court's 22 ruling on the motions-for example, only the $ 14,419 in monetary sanctions awarded

23 against plaintiff and his counsel. (Declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent, $4, Exhibit

"B".)

24 Plaintiff has therefore provided no reason to date for the delay in providing these further 25

26

responses to Nordstrom's

discovery requests that were ordered by the Court.

As such, there is no justification for plaintiff s refusal to provide these essential

27 further discovery responses pursuant to this court's order. (Declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent, $5.) Nordstrom intends to file a Motion for Issue and/or Terminating 4

Sanctions

DEFENDANT NORD STROM, INC.' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL I 5, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR

1

pursuant to California Code

of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 as a result of plaintiff

s

2 refusal to comply with the court's August 7, 2015 Minute Order. (Id.) In this motion 3

Nordstrom will ask the court to issue an order dismissing all or part

of plaintiff

s action

4 with prejudice; or in the alternative prohibiting plaintiff from supporting its causes of 5

action for violations

of the Civil Code; or

6 exemplary damages and attorneys'ees; 7

in the alternative

striking plaintiff s claims for

or in the alternative ordering payment of

additional monetary sanctions by plaintiff and his counsel. (Code Civ. Proc. )2023.030(a)-

Unfortunately,

this court's calendar does not permit such a motion to be heard until

10 April 15, 2016. (Declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent, tt6.) On August 24, 2015, counsel for 11 Nordstrom contacted the calendar clerk for Department C-68 and was advised that the 12 earliest hearing date on a motion for terminating

sanctions was April 15, 2016. (Id.)

13 Nordstrom reserved this hearing date; however, all defendants will be unduly and 14 irreparably harmed if it must wait until April 15, 2016, just over three months before trial, 15 before seeking terminating

sanctions, should plaintiff continue to refuse to comply with

16 this court's order and provide further discovery responses that are essential for their 17 defenses and motions for summary judgment/adjudication.

(Id.)

For these reasons, good cause exists for Nordstrom to bring this ex parte 19 Application seeking an Order Setting a Date for Nordstrom's 20

Motion for Terminating

Sanctions Prior to the First Available April 15, 2016, Hearing Date on the Court's

21 Calendar.

(Declaration of Elizabeth P. Trent, tt7.) Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the

22 Court's granting of this ex parte application, as the Court may set the hearing on the 23

motion such that the motion must be filed and served with regular statutory notice sixteen

24

(16) court

25

23, 2015, moving papers would need to be filed and served by August 31, 2015. (Id.)

26

///

27

///

days prior to the hearing.

(Id.) For example, if the Motion is set for September

5 I i7O2497 I

DEFENDANT NORDSTROM, INC.'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT S CALENDAR

1

B.

PROPER EX I'ARTE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the

4 court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances 5

that justify a shorter time for notice. (Cal. Rules

of Court, Rule 3.1203(a).)

On August 25, 2015, prior to 10:00 a.m., counsel for Nordstrom

7 plaintiff, Scott McMillan and Michelle Volk, correspondence 8

stating with specificity the nature

sent counsel for

by email, and facsimile,

of the relief to be requested,

the date, time, and place for

9 the presentation of the application; and requesting whether plaintiff will appear to oppose 10 the application.

(Declaration

of Elizabeth P. Trent,

tt8, Exhibit

"C".)

11 C.

CONCLUSION

12

Based on the above facts and requisite showing of good cause, Defendant

13 Nordstrom, Inc. respectfully requests that the court grant its ex parte application for an 14 Order Setting a Date for Nordstrom's

Motion for Issue and/or Terminating

Sanctions Prior

15 to the First Available April 15, 2016 Hearing Date on the Court's Calendar.

16 17 Dated: August 25, 20] 5

HAIGHT BROWN k, BONESTEEL LLP

19

V.V~X~,, ~Q

20

l

~

21

S. Christian Stouder Elizabeth P. Trent

22

Attorneys for Defendants Nordstrom, Amber Santiago and Michael Bryan

23

24 25

26 27 28

6 I I 702497 I

DEFENDANT NORDSTROM, INC.'S EXPIATE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON TIRE COURT'S CALENDAR

Inc.,

DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH P. TRENT I, Elizabeth P. Trent, declare as follows:

I am an attorney at the law firm of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP counsel

1.

of record for

Defendants Nordstrom,

above-captioned

Inc., Amber Santiago and Michael Bryan in the

action. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar

have personal knowledge

of the facts set

forth in this Declaration and,

if called

as a

to such facts under oath. I submit this

witness, could and would testify competently

declaration in support

of California. I

of Defendant Nordstrom, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application For An Order

Setting A Date For Hearing On A Motion For Issue And/or Terminating

Sanctions Prior

10 To The First Available April 15, 2016 Hearing Date On The Court's Calendar.

2.

Good cause exists for this ex parte application because, in short, plaintiff has

12 violated this Court's order dated August 7, 2015, granting Nordstrom's

13 Plaintiff's further responses to Special Interrogatories

Motions to Compel

(Set One), Request for Production

14 (Set One), and Request for Admission (Set One), and ordering plaintiff to provide further 15 responses within ten days, without any justification.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true

16 and correct copy of this Court's Minute Order setting forth its ruling on (A) Nordstrom's 17 Motions to Compel Plaintiff's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

(Set One),

Request for Production (Set One), and Request for Admission (Set One); and (B)

19 Plaintiff

s Motions to Compel Nordstrom's

20 One), Special Interrogatories

Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

(Set

(Set One), Request for Production (Set One), and Request for

21 Admission (Set One). The Order granted all of Nordstrom's

motions to compel and

22

ordered plaintiff to provide further discovery responses within 10 days, which was August

23

17, 2015.

24

3.

25

To date, plaintiff has not provided the further responses ordered by the Court

to Nordstrom.

The August 17, 2015 deadline by which the Court ordered plaintiff to

26 provide these further responses has passed. These further responses to discovery by 27 plaintiff are essential for Nordstrom's 28

order for all defendants,

of this case,

defense

preparation

for trial, and in

including Amber Santiago and Michael Bryan, to file Motions for 1

I i 702497

I

DEFENDANT NORDSTROM, INC. S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT S CALENDAR

Summary Judgment/Adjudication

prior to Trial in this matter, which is set for July 29,

2016.

4.

Plaintiff recently sent an email indicating that he intends to challenge this

court's ruling and order on Nordstrom's this email is attached as Exhibit

Nordstrom

B.

motions to compel. A true and correct copy

of

However, to date plaintiff has (a) failed to serve

with any paperwork that was submitted to the California Court

of Appeal,

and

(b) failed to identify in what capacity plaintiff may challenge this court's ruling on the motions-for example, only the sanctions.

5.

As such, there is no justification at present for plaintiff's refusal to provide

10 these essential further discovery responses pursuant to this court's order. Nordstrom intends to file a Motion for Issue and/or Terminating

12 Code

of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 as a result of plaintiff 6.

13

543

Sanctions pursuant to California

Unfortunately,

s refusal to comply.

this court's calendar does not permit such a motion to be

14 heard until April 15, 2016. On August 24, 2015, I contacted the calendar clerk for 15 Department

C-68 and was advised that the earliest hearing date on a motion for

16 terminating

sanctions was April 15, 2016. I reserved this hearing date; however, all

17 defendants will be unduly and irreparably harmed if it must wait until April 15, 2016, just over three months before trial, before seeking issue and/or terminating

sanctions, should

19 plaintiff continue to refuse to comply with this court's order and provide further discovery 20 responses that are essential for their defenses and motion for summary 21 judgment/adjudication.

22

23 24 25

26 27 28

2 11702497 I

DEFENDANT NORD STROM, INC.' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL I 5 2016. HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR

7.

For these reasons, good cause exists for Nordstrom to bring this ex parte

2 Application seeking an Order Setting a Date for Nordstrom's 3

Sanctions Prior to the First Available April 15, 2016 Hearing Date on the Court's

4 Calendar.

5

Motion for Terminating

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the Court's granting of this ex parte

application, as the Court may set the hearing on the motion such that the motion must be

6 filed and served with regular statutory notice sixteen (16) court days prior to the hearing.

7 For example, if the Motion is set for September 23, 2015, moving papers would need to be 8

filed and served by August 31, 2015.

Ex Parte Notice 8.

10

On August 25, 2015, prior to 10:00 a.m., I sent counsel for plaintiff, Scott

11 McMillan and Michelle Volk, correspondence

by email, and facsimile stating with

12 specificity the nature of the relief to be requested, the date, time, and place for the

13 presentation

of the application;

14 application.

Attached hereto as Exhibit

15 facsimile confirmation,

whether plaintiff will appear to oppose the

and requesting

"C" are

true and correct copies

of the

letter with

and the email to plaintiff s counsel attaching the letter.

16

Executed on this 25th day of August, 2015, at Los Angeles, California.

17

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

18 foregoing is true and correct.

19 20 Elizabeth 1 . Trent

21 22

23 24 25

26 27

28 3 I i702497 I

DEFENDANT NORDSTROM, INC. S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR IWARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR

EXHIBIT A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER

DATE: 08/07/2015

DEPT: C-68

TIME: 12:33:00PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Judith F. Hayes CLERK: Richard Cersosimo REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 03/20/2014 CASE TITLE: Williams vs. Nordstrom Inc [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Civil Rights

APPEARANCES The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 07/24/2015 and having considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, rules as follows:

The Court rules on Defendant Nordstrom's

fully

now

Motions to Compel Further Discoverv Responses as follows.

On October 8, 2014, defendant's propounded discovery on plaintiff. On November 26, 2014 plaintiff served only objections to each and every discovery response requested by defendant. Plaintiff failed to respond substantively to a single discovery request propounded by defendant. Plaintiff made irrelevant, unmeritorious objections thus thwarting the discovery process. Plaintiff made no good faith attempt to resolve the discovery disputes and failed to make even the slightest attempt to provide basic information to support his claims against the defendant. Plaintiff never offered supplemental responses in the months since first objecting to the discovery propounded.

Through posing hyper-technical and often nonsensical objections plaintiff caused months of delay and a substantial waste of party and judicial resources in resolving this matter.

Defendant's

motions are granted

in

their entirety as noted below.

Plaintiff and his attorneys of record are ordered to pay defendant sanctions for failing to comply with the Discovery Act,

a total of $ 14,419

in

discovery

However, the Court will stay $ 13,419 in discovery sanctions until the close of discovery to ensure plaintiff properly complies with the Discovery Act in the future. Plaintiff and his attorneys of record are ordered to pay defendant $ 1,000 in sanctions within 20 days of the Court's ruling herein.

(1) Defendant's of $ 915.

Plaintiff

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories,

is ordered

DATE: 08/07/2015

DEPT: C-68

to provide

further

complete

responses,

without

MINUTE ORDER

objection,

and for Sanctions to defendant's

form

Page

1

Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Williams vs. Nordstrom

lnc [IMAGEDj

CASE NO: 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL

interrogatory request no. 17.1 and all corresponding requests for admissions, nos. 1 through further responses are to be provided no later than ten days after the Court's ruling herein.

79.

All

The Court overrules the objections made by plaintiff in response to the discovery requests and orders plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Scott A. McMillian and Michelle D. Volk, to pay defendant $ 915.00 in sanctions.

(2) Defendant's

Motion

Sanctions of $4,734.

to Compel

Further

Responses

to Special Interrogatories,

and

for

Special Interroaatorv Nos. 1-3 — Plaintiff is ordered to provide further complete responses, without objection, to defendant's special interrogatory nos. 1 and 3. The Court denies defendant's request for further responses to special interrogatory no. 2 on the grounds defendant failed to demonstrate plaintiffs Medicare Health Insurance Claim Number is subject to production. All further responses are to be provided no later than ten days after the Court's ruling herein.

Special Interroaatorv Nos. 4-153 —Plaintiff is ordered to provide further complete responses, without objection, to defendant's special interrogatory nos. 4-153. All further responses are to be provided no later than ten days after the Court's ruling herein.

The Court overrules the objections made by plaintiff in response to the discovery requests and orders plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Scott A. McMillian and Michelle D. Volk, to pay defendant $4,734.00 in

sanctions.

(3) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production and Production of Documents, and for sanctions of $4,810.

Reauest for Production Nos. 1-65 — Plaintiff is ordered to provide further complete responses, without objection, to defendant's request for production of documents, nos. 1-65. All further responses are to be provided no later than ten days after the Court's ruling herein.

The Court overrules the objections made by plaintiff in response to the discovery requests and orders plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Scott A. McMillian and Michelle D. Volk, to pay defendant $4,810.00 in sanctions.

(4) Defendant's Motion to Compel sanctions of $ 3,860.

Further

Responses

to Requests

for Admissions,

and for

Reauest for Admissions Nos. 1-55. 59-79 - Plaintiff is ordered to provide further complete responses, without objection, to defendant's request for admissions, nos. 1-55, 59-79. All further responses are to be provided no later than ten days after the Court's ruling herein.

The Court overrules the objections made by plaintiff in response to the discovery requests and orders plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Scott A. McMillian and Michelle D. Volk, to pay defendant $ 3,860.00 in

sanctions.

The Court rules on Plaintiff Williams'otions On June

12, 2014, plaintiff propounded

DATE: 08/07/2015

DEPT: C-68

to Comoel Further Discoverv Resoonses as follows

discovery on defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Defendant served responses on plaintiff

Page 2 Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Williams vs. Nordstrom Inc [IMAGED] on August 12, the parties.

2014. The evidence demonstrates

CASE NO: 37-2014-00007604-C U-C R-CTL

no good faith meet and confer was achieved between

The Court denies plaintiffs motion to compel further responses in most respects except where the motion was mooted by defendant's service of supplemental responses. The Court sustains most the objections asserted by defendant in response to the discovery. In light of this, and the failure to demonstrate good faith attempts to meet and confer, the Court is inclined to entertain defendant's reasonable request for the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff and his attorneys. The Court denies defendant's request for monetary sanctions.

(5) Plaintif's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories.

Form Interroaatorv interrogatory nos.

defendant.

Nos.

2.1. 2.5. 2.8 — Plaintiffs

2.1, 2.5, 2.8

motion

is denied. The Court finds

to compel further responses to form these requests are irrelevant to a corporate

Form Interroaatorv No. 3.7 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further response to form interrogatory no. 3.7 is denied. The Court finds plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause justifying a further response. Plaintiffs conclusory arguments are insufficient. Further, the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Form Interroaatorv No. is mooted by defendant's

15.1 —Plaintiffs submission

motion to compel further response to form interrogatory no. 15.1 of supplemental responses during the pendency of this motion.

Form Interroaatorv No. 17.1 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories Request for Admission nos. 1-2 is denied.

as to

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses 11-13 is denied.

to form interrogatories

as to Request for Admission

Plaintiff's

to form interrogatories

as to Request for Admission nos.

motion to compel further responses

26, 32 is denied.

Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories as to Request for Admissions by defendant's supplemental response during the pendency of these motions.

33 is mooted

The Court denies defendant's

nos.

no.

request for monetary sanctions.

(6) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories.

Special Interroaatorv Nos. 1-3 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory nos. 1-3 is denied. The Court finds the request is overbroad and the information sought is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The responses provided by defendant are adequate.

Special Interroaatorv No. 4 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory no. 4 is denied. The interrogatory is improperly drafted as it calls for a narrative, is vague, overbroad, and causes defendant to speculate as to what is responsive. Defendant's objections are therefore sustained.

Special Interroaatorv

DATE: 08/07/2015

DEPT: C-68

No. 5 —Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory

MINUTE ORDER

no. 5

Page 3 Calendar No.

CASE TiTLE: Williams vs. Nordstrom is denied.

Defendant's

Inc [IMAGED]

CASE NO: 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL

response is adequate.

Special Interroaatorv No. 6 - Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory no. 6 is denied. The request is overbroad and impermissibly compound. Plaintiff fails to establish good cause for compelling further responses.

Special Interroaatorv No. 7 — Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory no. 7 The request is overbroad. Plaintiff fails to establish good cause for compelling further responses. is denied.

Special Interroaatorv Nos. 9. 11-15. 19-20 — Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory nos. 9, 11-15, 19-20 is denied. The requests are overbroad, vague and impermissibly compound. The information requested may be subject to attorney/client privilege. Plaintiff fails to establish good cause for compelling further responses.

Special Interroaatorv Nos. 21-25 — Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory nos. 21-25 is denied. The requests are overbroad, vague and impermissibly compound. The information requested may be subject to attorney/client privilege and constitutes sensitive information impacting employee and customer safety and arguably trade secrets. Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for compelling further responses, or that the information requested is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Interroaatorv Nos. 26. 28-31 - Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory nos. 26, 28-31 is denied. The requests are overbroad, vague and insufficiently specific to the claims asserted by plaintiff. The information requested may be subject to attorney/client privilege and constitutes potential violation of third-party privacy rights. The responses defendant provided are adequate. Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for compelling further responses, or that the information requested is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Special

The Court denies defendant's

request for monetary sanctions.

(7) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions Request for Admissions No. 4 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to request for admission no. 4 is denied. The Court finds request no 4 is not the proper subject of a request for admission and is otherwise irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information requested is argumentative. (CACI 1300) Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for compelling further response.

Request for Admissions admission nos. 27-30 is compound. The requests truth of specified matters establish good cause for

Nos. 27-30 - Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to request for denied. The requests are overbroad, vague, argumentative and impermissibly as drafted violate CCP section 2033.010 which requires a request to seek "the of fact, opinion related to fact or application of law to fact." Plaintiff failed to compelling

The Court denies defendant's

further responses.

request for monetary sanctions.

(8) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

DATE: 08/07/2015

DEPT: C-68

MINUTE ORDER

Page 4 Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Williams vs. Nordstrom lnc [IMAGED]

CASE NO: 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL

Request for Production Nos. 1-2. 4-5. 7-8. 14-16. 23 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to request for production nos. 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 14-16, 23 is denied. The requests are mooted by defendant's production of the materials requested pursuant to the parties execution of a stipulated protective order in October, 2014.

Request for Production Nos. 13. 17. 18-22. 21[sic]-23[sic], — Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to request for production nos. 13, 17, 18-22, 21[sic]-23[sic], is denied. The requests are vague, overbroad, and may invade the attorney/client and/or attorney work product privilege, among other things. Plaintiff failed to establish the information requested was likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and failed to show good cause for compelling further responses.

Request for Production No. 24 —Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to request for production no. 24 is denied. The requests are vague, overbroad and defendant is left to speculate as to documents that may be responsive. Plaintiff failed to establish the information requested was likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and failed to show good cause for compelling further responses.

The request is otherwise mooted by defendant's submission of supplemental stipulated protective order executed by the parties in October, 2014.

responses pursuant

to a

Request for Production Nos. 26-30. 38. 39. 41 —Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to request for production nos. 26-30, 38, 39, 41 are mooted by defendant's submission of supplement responses.

Plaintiff failed to establish the information requested was likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and failed to show good cause for compelling further responses.

The information requested concerning the incident report and writings by Mr, Bryan and Ms. Santiago are protected work product, subject to the litigation privilege and are therefore, not subject to discovery.

Request for Production Nos. 31-36 — Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to request for production nos. 31-36 are denied since they relate to the corresponding special interrogatories wherein no documents were identified therefore, there are no documents to produce.

The Court denies defendant's

request for monetary sanctions.

Judge Judith F. Hayes

DATE: 08/07/2015

DEPT: C-68

MINUTE ORDER

Page 5 Calendar No.

EXHIBIT B

Trent, Elizabeth From:

Scott

A McMillan <scott@mcmillanlaw.us> Monday, August 24, 2015 10:37 AM Trent, Elizabeth Michelle Volk; Tom Wiseman; Stouder, Chris Re: Williams v. Nordstrom â&#x20AC;&#x201D; notice of exparte application

Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

That would be the plan.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at

10:36 AM, Trent, Elizabeth <etrent@hbblaw.corn> wrote:

Mr. McMillan,

Will your office provide our office with a copy

From: Scott

A McMillan

of the ex parte moving papers prior to Wednesday?

[mailto:scott@mcmillanlaw.us]

Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:32 AM To: Trent, Elizabeth; Stouder, Chris Cc:

Michelle Volk; Tom Wiseman Williams v. Nordstrom

Subject:

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

notice of exparte application

Counsel,

Be advised that Plaintiffs'ounsel

will be appearing exparte for on Wednesday, August 26, 2015, for an order extending the response dates and/or staying the effectiveness of the discovery order pending appellate

proceedings.

That appearance will take place at Department 69, at 8:45 a.m., in the Hall Diego, CA 92101.

Scott McMillan

of Justice, 330 West Broadway, San

Scott

A. McMillan The McMillan Law Firm, APC 4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91941-5230 Direct (619) 393 —1751 // Main

5095

(619)464 —1500

x 14 //

Cel (619)274 —0884 //

Fax (206)600—

e-mail: scottImcmillanlaw.us www.mcmi.llanlaw.us CONFIDENTIALITY The information

NOTICE:

in this electronic mail (including attachments) is private, confidential, likely privileged. It is i.ntended only for the use of the named addressee(s). If you received this electronic mail in error, please immediately contact me, and thereafter destroy this e-mail.

and have

Elizabeth Trent

~

Profile

Attorney

D:

213.542.8062

etrenthbblaw.corn

Haight Brown 8 Bonesteel LLP

555 South Flower Street Forty-Fifth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

0: 213-542-8000 F: 213-542-8100 www.hbblaw.corn

The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alerl the sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.C 2510-2522).

EXHIBIT C

Haig.at Elizabeth P. Trent direrrr (213) 542-8062 etrent@hbblaw.corn

Haight Brown a Bonesteel re'55

South Rower Street Forty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 21 3.542. SON 21 3.542.5 100 fax

www.hbblaw.tom

August 25, 2015

VIA EMAIL, FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Scott A. McMillan, Esq. Michelle Volka Esq. THE McMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC 4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91941-5230

Re:

Joenathan Williams v. Nordstrom,

"'"'"'"'EX PARTE NOTICE"'"*

Inc.

'ear

Mr. McMillan: Please allow this correspondence to serve appear ex parte on August 26, 2015, at 8:45 a.m.

Court located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, Defendant's Motion for Issue and/or Terminating 2016 Hearing Date On the Court's Calendar.

as notice that Defendant, Nordstrom, Inc. will in Department C68 of the San Diego Superior CA 92101, to seek an Order Setting a Date for Sanctions Prior to the First Available April 15,

A courtesy copy of the ex parte papers will follow via electronic mail. Please advise you intend to appear to oppose the requested ex parte relief. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ck4~J,~O>

GA.~

Elizabeth P. Trent Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

N020-0000014 11702495.1

if

HMght HAIGHT BROWN

Ez

BONESTEEL LLP

555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor Los A.ngeles, California 90071 Facsimile No.: 213.542.8100 Telephone No.: 213.542.8000

FAX TRANSMISSION August 25, 2015

TQ:

Facsimile No.:

Phone No.:

Scott A. McMillan THE McMILLAN LAW FIRM

(206) 600-5095

(619) 464-1500

From:

Re:

Elizabeth P. Trent

Joenathan Williams v. Nordstrom,

Number

of pages:

Client/Matter:

Inc.

(including this coversheet) N 020-0000014

Message:

If you do not receive

all

of the pages, please call

us

back at 213.542.8000 as soon as possible.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ALSO CONTAIN PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION OR WORK PRODUCT, THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.

NO20-0000014 11528575.1

Nash, Curtis From:

12066005095 < "12066005095"@faxmaker.corn>

Sent: To: Subject:

Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:24 AM Nash, Curtis

Success: NO20-14 JOENATHAN WILUAMS (Fax sent to 912066005095) [::resend =s82c3088c)

*****xx*********xx**xx*x**x****xxx*xx***x****x*x*x*xxx*** SENT FAX REPORT *xx**xx**xx******x******x****x*x x x***x******x**x********x

Subject: Success: NO20-14 JOENATHAN WILLIAMS (Fax sent to 912066005095) Sender: Curtis Nash Sender email: cnashhbblaw.corn Status: Sent Date/Time: S/25/2015 9:23:39AM Speed: 9600 bps Connection time: 02:06 Pages: 3 Total pages: 3 Resolution: Fine Remote ID: SpanDSP Fax Ident Line number: 0 Retries: 0 Description: Fax sent successfully: Success

*xx*x**x********xxx*x*xxxx**x*xx*x*xxx**x*x*xxx**xxxxxx*x

Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: NO20-14 JOENATHAN WILLIAMS

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Curtis Nash Mailroom Supervisor

D: 213.542.S049

cnashhbblaw.corn Haight Brown 4, Bonesteel LLP 555 South Flower

Street Forty-Fifth Floor

Trent, Elizabeth From:

Trent, Elizabeth

Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:23 AM Scott A McMillan (scott@mcmillanlaw.us);

Attachments:

Michelle Volk (mvolk4670@gmail.corn) Stouder, Chris Williams v. Nordstrom--EX PARTE NOTICE by Nordstrom, Inc. for August 26, 2015 Ex Parte Notice for August 26, 2015-.pdf

Mr. McMillan,

Attached please find a copy of correspondence from Nordstrom, Inc. providing notice that Defendant, Nordstrom, Inc. will appear ex parte tomorrow on August 26, 2015, at 8:45 a.m. in Department C68 of the San Diego Superior Court located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, to seek an Order Setting a Date for Defendant's Motion for Issue and/or Terminating Sanctions Prior to the First Available April 15, 2016 Hearing Date On the Court's Calendar. This letter has also been to your office sent by facsimile.

courtesy copy of the ex parte papers will follow via electronic mail. Please advise if you intend to appear to oppose the requested ex parte relief. Thank you.

A

Haight Elizabeth P. Trent direct: (213) 542-8062 etrent@hbblaw.corn

Haight Brown a Bonesteel trp

555 South Rower Street Fort) -Ftfth Roor Los ~eles, California 90071

213.542.8000 213.542 8100 fax

August 25, 2015

VIA EMAIL, FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Scott A. McMillan, Esq. Michelle Volk, Esq. THE McMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC 4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91941-5230

Re:

Joenathan Williams v. Nordstrom,

****EXPARTE NOTICE****

Inc.

Dear Mr. McMillan: Please allow this correspondence to serve appear ex parte on August 26, 2015, at 8:45 a.m.

Court located at 330 West Broadv ay, San Diego, Defendant's Motion for Issue and/or Terminating 2016 Hearing Date On the Court's Calendar.

as notice that Defendant, Nordstrom, Inc. will in Department C68 of the San Diego Superior CA 92101, to seek an Order Setting a Date for

Sanctions Prior to the First Available April 15,

A courtesy copy of the ex parte papers will follow via electronic mail. Please advise intend to appear to oppose the requested ex parte relief Thank you. you

Sincerely,

Qftaxee Elizabeth P. Trent Haight Brown k, Bonesteel LLP

NO20-0000014 11702495.1

if

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Joenathan

Wlliams

v,

Nordstrom,

Inc.

Case No. 37-2014-00007604-CU-CR-CTL At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

On August 25, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT NORDSTROM, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING ON A MOTION FOR ISSUE AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THE FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15, 2016, HEARING DATE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR on the

interested parties in this action as follows:

Scott A. McMillan, Esq. THE MCMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC 4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91941-5230

10

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Tel: Fax:

13

(619) 456-1500 (2063 600-5095

14

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in 15 the Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.corn.

16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 17 foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 25, 2015, at Los Angeles, California

18

19 20 Julie

21

t. Mentesana

22

23 24 25

26 27 28 4 11702497

I

DFFFNDANT NORDSTROM, INC.'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING A DA'I'E FOR I-IEARING ON A MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS PRIOR TO THF, FIRST AVAILABLE APRIL 15 2016 HFARING DATE ON Tl IE COURT'S CALENDAR