11111111111111111111111111111

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Oct-29-2014 1:47pm

Case Number: CGC-13-528312

Filing Date: Oct-29-20 14 1:4 7
Filed by: SHAWNA VANTREE
Juke Box: 001

Image: 04672139

ORDER

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CO VS. MARINA

COAST WATER DISTRICT et al

001C04672139

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

'
I. 1"".

D
''

. r
Francisco Counv Suoonor ,_.ourt
""'4..

OCT 2 9 2014

CLERK,OF T)1E-~_9J.)f~T
BY: --

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

i::tu~:uiri / a;it~ty Clerk

8
9

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO.,

10
11

12
13

Case No. CGC- 13-528312

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MARINA COAST'S
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

vs.
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, ET
AL.,
Defendants.

14

AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS

15
16
17
18
19

I heard argument today on Marina's motion for a protective order. The motion is
granted.
Cal-Am seeks the deposition of two lawyers directly involved in the litigation of this
case. Regardless of the specific test used to determine this motion, compare Care house

20
Convalescent Hasp. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1558, 1562 (2006) ("Depositions of
21

22

opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require "extremely" good

23

cause-a high standard"), allowing such depositions is fraught with risk of both harassment of

24

counsel and straying into areas protected by the work product doctrine and attorney-client

25

privilege.

26

The reasons provided by Cal-Am are not persuasive. With respect to Fogelman and

27
Collins, the argument is that conversations between the two might go to Marina's knowledge of

-I -

Collins' 1090 violations which in tum might show in effect unclean hands on Marina's part
which in tum might undermine the ability of Marina to contend that Monterey had unclean

hands. (Cal-Am and Monterey also contend that unclean hands has no place in this litigation.)
4
5

This is too attenuated. The other contexts (e.g., PUC meetings) were attended by a host of others,

and there is wide variety of other sources to secure the context of Collins's remarks. The

important facts about Collins-what he did to 'make' the contracts at issue, by whom he was

paid and/or working for, and so on, are all not in serious dispute, and to the extent that they are,

no evidence from the attorneys in this case is needed. Legal opinions from Fogelman, for

10

example, offered to Collins about what he could and could not bill for, will not affect the

11

determinations of the court as to whether there was or as not a 1090 violation in a given context.
12
13

With respect to Markman, the fact that he authored a report is immaterial in this context-

14

the people Markman spoke with are patent on the face of the report, so that Cal-Am and

15

Monterey can if they wish interview all percipient witnesses. At argument Cal-Am suggested

16

that there was an ethical problem generated by the facts that Markman created a report with one

17

conclusion and allegedly is pressing for a contrary position in this case. I do not know if there is

18
an ethical problem, but in any event I was not presented with any authority suggesting it would
19
20
21

22
23

support the need to take his deposition in this case.

In short, the benefit of these depositions is marginal at best, and does not outweigh the
high risks inherent in taking the depositions of opposing counsel.
The motion for a protective order is granted.

24
25

26

Dated: October 29, 2014

Curtis E.A. Kamow
Judge of The Superior Court

27

-2-