Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Church Defendants Opposition to Motion to Compel With Exhibits

Church Defendants Opposition to Motion to Compel With Exhibits

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,147|Likes:
Published by Sean Pitman, MD
LSU-3 Lawsuit with transcript of self-recorded conversation.
LSU-3 Lawsuit with transcript of self-recorded conversation.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Sean Pitman, MD on Jul 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SMTHUP
A.TTORNEIS AT
LAW
1
LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&
SMITH
LLP
MICHAEL W. CONNALLY, SB# 100588
2
E-Mail: connally@lbbslaw.com650 Town Center Drive, Suite 14003 Costa Mesa, California 92626Telephone: 714.545.92004 Facsimile: 714.850.1030
!FD[L~[Q)
SUPERIOR
COURT OF
CAUFORNIA
OOUNTY
OF
RIVERSIDE
JUN
10
2013~
5
Attorneys for Defendants,
LA
SIERRA UNIVERSITY, PACIFIC
illtHON_
.-
•.
_CONFERENCE
OF
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
AND
O_.;;.;R~T~~~;;;.~.::::.::.:,:~--
6
DIVISION CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST7
8
9SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE10 JEFFRY M. KAATZ, JAMES W. BEACH,and GARY
L.
BRADLEY,
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,vs.RICARDO GRAHAM;14 PACIFIC UNION CONFERENCE OFSEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, a not-for-15 profit corporation;DANIEL R. JACKSON;16 LARRY BLACKMER;NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION17 CORPORATION
OF
SEVENTH-DAYADVENTISTS, a not-for-profit corporation;
18
andLA SIERRA UNIVERSITY, a not-for-profit19 corporation; and20
21
22
232425262728DOES 1-100,Defendants.CASE NO. RIC 1112557
THECHURCH
DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION
TO
PLAINTIFFS'
MOTIONTOCOMPELTHE
DEPOSITIONTESTIMONY
OF
DEFENDANT
RICARDO
GRAHAM
AND
REQUEST
FOR
$2,000
IN MONETARYSANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFSAND/OR
PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL
FOR
HAVING
FILED
THEIR
MOTION
WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL
JUSTIFICATION
AND
WITHOUTHAVING
MET
AND
CONFERRED
BEFORE
BRINGING
THE
MOTION;DECLARATIONS
OF
KARNIKDOUKMETZIAN, RICARDO
GRAHAM,DANIEL
JACKSON, LARRYBLACKMER,KENT
HANSEN
AND
MICHAEL
W. CONNALLY[CODE CIV.
PROC.
§§
2016.040, 2023.020AND 2025.480(B))CASE MANAGEMENT: JUDGE CRAIG G.RIEMER
LAW
AND
MOTION JUDGE: HON
MATTHEW
C.
PERANTONIDATE: JUNE
21,2013
TIME: 9:00 A.M.DEPT.: 2ACTION FILED: JULY 28, 2011TRIAL DATE:
NONE
SET
------===--:-=====-==~=--o~==-=-:-::-=-==cc=~~=-=------··--·1
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ,THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT, RICARDO GRAHAM
 
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SMlHUP
ATTOilNE'f.i
AT
lAW
1
TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants La Sierra University ("La Sierra"), Pacific
3
Union Conference
of
Seventh-day Adventists, and North American Division Corporation
of
4
Seventh-day Adventists (collectively "Church Defendants") hereby opposes Plaintiffs' motion to
5
compel the deposition testimony
of
Defendant Ricardo Graham and request for sanctions. This
6
opposition is based upon the memorandum
of
points and authorities, the declarations
of
Karnik7 Doukmetzian, Ricardo Graham, Daniel Jackson, Larry Blackmer, Kent Hansen and Michael W.
8
Connally, which are being filed concurrently with this opposition, and upon such other evidence
9
and argument as the court deems
just
and proper.
10
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Church Defendants hereby seek monetary
11
sanctions against each
of
the Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys, Richard D. McCune and
12
McCune Wright LLP, in the amount of$2,000.00, pursuant to Code
of
Civil Procedure sections
13
2016.040,2023.020 and 2025.480(b). The Church Defendants move for an order for such
14
monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys
on
the grounds that the pending motion
15
to compel further testimony is without substantial justification and/or
on
the independent grounds
16
that Plaintiffs and their counsel filed this motion without meeting and conferring,
as
Code
of
Civil
17
Procedure section 2016.040 requires. The basis for the amount
of
sanctions is set forth in the
18
Declaration
of
Michael
W.
Connally submitted concurrently herewith.
19
20
DATED: June 10,2013
21
22
23
242526
27
28
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
&
SMITH
LLP
~
klw.~
y: .Attorneys for Defendants, LA SIERRAUNIVERSITY, PACIFIC UNIONCONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAYADVENTISTS AND NORTH AMERICANDIVISION CORPORATION OF SEVENTHDAY ADVENTISTS
2
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPELTHE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT, RICARDO GRAHAM
 
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SMIHllP
ATIORNE'15AI
lAW
12345
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
1819
20
21
2223
24
25
26
27
28
I.
II.
III.
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................
1
SUMMARY OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 2A. The Structures and Beliefs
of
the Seventh-day Adventists Church .......................... 2B. The Facts Regarding the Parties in the6/09/2011 Conference ................................. 4
C.
Plaintiffs' Speculation About What Was Said During the 6/9/11 ConferenceIs
Not
Supported by Evidence and Ignores the Evidence that Graham AskedPlaintiffs to Resign Because Plaintiffs' Statements in the DarnellRecording Made it Clear They Were Inappropriate Leaders for a ChurchUniversity ..................................................................................................................
5
D.
Plaintiffs Failed to Meet and Confer Before Filing This Meritless Motion ..............
8
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................
8
A.
Granting Plaintiffs' Motion Requires Violating the First Amendment.. ...................
8
B.
Notwithstanding the Fundamental
Beliefthat
the Church is One Body, theSubject Conversation is Protected Under California Law ......................................
11
C. There is No Need to Invade Privileged Communication ........................................
14
D.
Plaintiffs Failed to Meet and Confer Before Filing this Motion .............................
14
E. Plaintiffs' Request for Sanctions is Defective .........................................................
14
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................
15
4841-9183-7460.1
i
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION
TO
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THEDEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RICARDO GRAHAM

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->