1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

David Wong, SBN 234788 2930 Domingo Ave #149 Berkeley CA 94705 d@davidwonglaw.com 1 (415) 355 4798 Attorney for Petitioners Elena Sadur and Leslie Wolf UNITED STATES DISTRICT BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION Case No.: 11-25036 Docket Control Number: DW-011 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ELENA SADURS DEPOSITION Date: March 6, 2012 Time: 9:30 am Courtroom 35 Chief Judge Christopher M. Klein Objection: Attorney client privilege, relevance, harassment, burdensome and undue oppression. If the court overrules these objections, heres the argument and law for denying the motion: A Sadur deposition will not help determine the validity of Keith Cables proof of claim. Ms. Sadur was not present when Mr. Cable claims he rendered services to George Louie. Therefore, Ms. Sadur is not competent to testify to Mr. Cables hours. Cable should not be allowed to harass Sadur. See Kyle Engineering Co. v. Kleppe (9th Cir. 1979) 600 F2d 226, 231 232; Stagman v. Ryan (7th Cir. 1999) 176 F3d 986, 994995. In Kyle, the CEO could not be deposed because he did not have personal knowledge. In Stagman, a state employee could not depose the Attorney General because the Attorney General did not have personal knowledge. Sadur doesnt have personal knowledge that would be helpful. This Court has used its plenary authority without George Louie filing a motion for a protective order to prohibit his deposition from being taken in case 2011-02583. Without stating

In re: George S. Louie, Debtor,

-1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

facts, but after coming to a conclusion there was bad blood, this Court ruled George Louies deposition could not be taken. This Court should rule Elena Sadurs deposition cant be taken for the same reason. There is bad blood between Sadur and Cable. Sadur has been in litigation against George Louie and Keith Cable for quite some time. Keith Cable and George Louies latest theory: David Wong isnt representing Sadur and Wolf Keith Cable wants privileged information that is irrelevant. Keith Cable and George Louie are not legally entitled to Sadurs communications with her attorney. The attorney client agreement is attorney client privileged. Elena Sadurs conversations with her attorney David Wong are privileged and non-discoverable. The allegations are baseless (an unsigned declaration means nothing), and it shows Cable and Louies desperation. If we start alleging that George Louie doesnt know what Ensminger is doing, do we get to take George Louies deposition? We dont have standing to complain. If Ensminger is doing something unauthorized, those are claims that George Louie has against Ensminger. What if we start alleging that Keith Cable is not representing Cable Gallagher? Is the Court going to grant a deposition for the other attorney in Cable Gallagher to see if the firm authorized Keith Cable? Cable claimed he was prejudiced but did not show how he was prejudiced other than being prejudiced from not being able to harass Sadur.

GROUNDS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Fed R. Civ P. 26 allows the Court to issue a protective order. Here, Elena Sadur is justified in having one because Cable has failed to allege how she has personally knows facts that proves or disproves Keith Cables proof of claim. Sadur is at home with two small children.

-2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To ask her to come to Sacramento to assert attorney client privilege would be burdensome and a waste of everyones time.

CABLES DEPOSITION NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE In order for Keith Cable to even take Ms. Sadurs deposition, Mr. Cables needed to properly notice Sadurs deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P 30(b)(1) states: A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party. Italics added. Here, Cable failed to give notice to every other party (trustee, debtor, and other creditors). His proof of service (exhibit B) for the February 27 deposition states he notified only Wong. When Wong objected, Cable prematurely filed the motion to compel.

CABLE FAILED TO RESPOND TO MEET AND CONFER Cable has refused to answer three questions in David Wongs attempts to meet and confer. First, what is the purpose of Sadurs deposition? Second, is he willing to have the deposition take place somewhere other than his office? Cables office in Folsom is more than 100 miles from Sadur. Third, is Cable willing to coordinate with Louie to minimize the trips Sadur has to make to Sacrmento? A polite no response would have been sufficient. Instead, Cable filed motion to compel without a reply to any of these questions. Cable is trying to make it look like he meet and conferred, but sending Sadurs counsel a deposition notice without checking with Sadurs counsel before hand on the date is not a meet and confer, so the first deposition notice does not count. Cable then ignores questions regarding the deposition location. Silence for several days and then he notices another deposition. He then

-3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

claims he was never contacted, but thats not true. An e-mail was sent to him and several other people were copied. CABLES REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS SHOULD BE DENIED Attorney fees and costs unavailable because Keith Cable is an attorney representing himself. Attorneys representing themselves are not entitled to attorney fees. Keith Cable also didnt provide a declaration of how much time he spent preparing the motion to compel. WONGS CONDUCT IN YOLO COUNTY Objection: Relevance. If the objection is overruled, a former attorney must still keep a clients secrets confidential. Manzetti v. Sup. Ct 21 Cal App 4th 373, 381. Wong was not able to defend himself because his client terminated his services on November 10, 2011. Cable filed his a motion to compel on or about November 15, 2011. An opposition to the motion to compel was due December 27, 2011. Wongs clients failed to file an opposition to the motion to compel, and sanctions were awarded against Wong and his clients. Wongs clients subsequently waived attorney client privilege. Yolo County is considering whether to reverse itself based upon the new facts (motion will be heard March 23, 2012). Wong wasnt sanctioned $1921, but ordered to pay $1660.50, pro-rata along with his former client. See Young v. Rosenthal (1989), 212 Cal. App 3d, 96, 128. Respectfully submitted, /s/ David Wong ____________ DAVID WONG Attorney for Petitioners Leslie Wolf and Elena Sadur Direct Phone: 415 355 4798 E-mail: d@davidwonglaw.com

-4