...

PROCEEDINGS - Vol. 1 ENFORCERS OF PROPOSITION 65 November 9, 2015

by user

on
Category: Documents
2

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

PROCEEDINGS - Vol. 1 ENFORCERS OF PROPOSITION 65 November 9, 2015
In the Matter of the Investigation of: PRIVATE PARTY
ENFORCERS OF PROPOSITION 65
___________________________________________________
PROCEEDINGS - Vol. 1
November 9, 2015
___________________________________________________
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the
)
)
Investigation of:
)
)
PRIVATE PARTY ENFORCERS OF
)
)
PROPOSITION 65
)
________________________________________)
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Oakland, California
November 9, 2015
Pages 1 - 21
Reported by:
Natalie Y. Botelho, CSR No. 9897
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 2
1
I N D E X
2
3
COMMENTS BY:
PAGE
4
Matthew C. Maclear...................................7
5
James Wheaton.......................................10
6
Ryan Hoffman........................................16
7
8
---oOo---
9
10
ATTACHMENT
11
12
Attendance sign-in sheet
13
14
---oOo---
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 3
1
APPEARANCES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: HARRISON M. POLLAK,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
and
SUSAN FIERING,
SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-0500
(510)622-2183
[email protected]
9
10
ALSO PRESENT:
11
(See attendance sign-in sheet attached.)
12
13
---oOo---
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 4
1
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
2
NOVEMBER 9, 2015 - 2:03 P.M.
3
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
5
PROCEEDINGS
6
MR. POLLAK:
The Department of Justice, Office
7
of the Attorney General, has proposed to amend Title 11,
8
Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations
9
concerning Proposition 65 enforcement actions brought by
10
private parties.
11
terms, penalty amounts, and attorneys' fees in civil
12
actions filed by private persons in the public interest
13
pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
14
Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition
15
65.
16
The amendments would affect settlement
A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published
17
in the California Regulatory Notice Register on
18
September 25th, 2015, in Register No. 39-Z, starting at
19
page 1679.
20
documents were posted on the Attorney General's Web site
21
the same day and mailed to approximately 100 interested
22
parties.
The noticed and related rule-making
23
On October 13th, the AG's Office received a
24
written request from Chris Heptinstall, the executive
25
director of the Environmental Research Center, Inc.
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 5
1
dated October 8th, 2015.
2
public hearing regarding the regulatory proposal.
3
request was made pursuant to Government Code Section
4
11346.8, Subdivision (a).
5
It was a request to hold a
The
On October 22nd, 2015, the Attorney General's
6
Office announced it would hold this public hearing.
7
posted on our Web site a notice with the time, date, and
8
place of hearing, and we mailed it to the same 100 or so
9
interested parties that received the Notice of Proposed
10
11
We
Rule Making.
During today's hearing, anybody who wishes to
12
speak may do so.
13
speak into the microphone so that all of us can hear
14
you, and that before you start in on your comments, you
15
introduce yourself, spell your name if needed, and your
16
affiliation.
17
myself, although there were only two of you out there
18
when I started.
19
We ask that you come up to the podium,
Which reminds me, I didn't introduce
But I am Harrison Pollak, Deputy Attorney
20
General in the Attorney General's Office here.
21
P-O-L-L-A-K.
22
Attorney General Sue Fiering, who I asked to come so she
23
could open the door as needed.
24
25
And with me today is Supervising Deputy
So as you can see, the hearing is being
transcribed by a certified court reporter.
The
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 6
1
transcript will be included in the Minister of Record
2
for the rule making.
3
business is conducted or at 5:00 p.m., whichever is
4
sooner.
5
Today's hearing will end when all
I should also say that -- oh, I have it back
6
here, so I will say it.
As with written comments, we
7
will consider all relevant matter presented to us during
8
today's hearing before the completion of the rule
9
making.
So while we might not and probably won't
10
respond here at the hearing, we will respond to all of
11
the comments at some point during the rule making or
12
when we issue our final rule.
13
Does anyone have any questions?
14
(Pause.)
15
MR. POLLAK:
Okay.
And can I get just a show
16
of hands -- you won't be committed to this, but just how
17
many of you intend to come up and make comments?
18
(Pause.)
19
MR. POLLAK:
All right.
Okay.
I've seen about two
20
and a half, three.
So I'm not going to place a
21
time limit on comments, but I would ask that you try to
22
keep your comments succinct and stick to the point.
23
also remind you that you can -- some of you have
24
submitted written comments.
25
comment period is today at the close of business.
And
The close of the written
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 7
1
2
So with that, I will ask our first commenter
to come to the podium, and proceed.
3
COMMENT BY MATTHEW MACLEAR
4
MR. MACLEAR:
Good afternoon.
My name is
5
Matthew Maclear.
6
Law Group and on behalf of interested parties, including
7
Environmental Research Center.
8
Attorney General's Office thank you for the opportunity
9
to provide oral comments on our proposed Title 11 rule
10
11
I'm here on behalf of Equa Terra Aeris
I'd like to tell the
making.
While ATA and its clients applaud the goals of
12
transparency and increasing protection of penalties
13
going to OEHHA, and accountability, there are several
14
questions that are raised by these proposed regulations,
15
including some of the mechanisms, the standards, the
16
necessities, the assumptions, and the effects of the
17
proposed amended regulations.
18
Starting with the elimination of the
19
additional settlement payments and out-of-court
20
settlements, my clients believe that out-of-court
21
settlements with additional settlement payments, with
22
proper Attorney General oversight, could achieve the
23
same public health protected purposes and benefits of
24
Prop 65 in-court settlements.
25
Eliminating additional settlement payments and
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 8
1
out-of-court settlements will increase the costs of
2
settlement and litigation to both parties, delay
3
protective and publicly beneficial remedies reached
4
through these settlements, deny the benefits conferred
5
on the public and the companies through effective and
6
efficient out-of-court settlements.
7
burden and expense on the enforcers in the companies.
8
It will reduce the incentive to settle, which is a
9
stated goal of the courts of the state of California,
It increases the
10
and it will overload the already overburdened courts
11
with ministerial acts which could be accomplished
12
through greater AG oversight.
13
As a proposal, we would like the Attorney
14
General's Office to consider providing for similar
15
requirements for out-of-court settlements as stated for
16
in-court settlements, involve the Attorney General's
17
Office earlier in the settlement process to provide the
18
assurances that they seek as indicated in the
19
regulations, and that would thereby allow out-of-court
20
settlements to include additional settlement payments,
21
albeit with greater AG oversight.
22
With regard to the attorneys' fees section,
23
the public benefit, the proposed regulations point out
24
that it's related to products.
25
cases that are brought under 25249.6 are about products,
Not all the warning
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 9
1
and so we believe the focus should be on the level of
2
chemical in question, not simply on the products.
3
With regard to the reformulation standards
4
proposed, the proposed language increases the likelihood
5
of delays of public benefits, increases the cost, and
6
will delay settlement and increase the likelihood of
7
trials on the centrally contested issues that could be
8
construed as admissions.
9
Reformulation -- oh, pardon me.
Strike that.
10
With regard to specifically additional settlement
11
payments, the proposed new increased nexus requirements
12
will have many unintended costly consequences.
13
and foremost, discounting future private -- or future
14
Prop 65 enforcement and reduction of exposure to Prop 65
15
listed chemicals, it shouldn't -- is not warranted.
16
First
Those goals provide substantial public
17
benefits by identifying potential violators, reducing
18
chemical exposures, and enhancing consumer choice based
19
on the warrants.
20
specific accounting rules such that it could be
21
construed as requiring separate accounts for each
22
different case.
23
and is unnecessary, the level of detail that's being
24
required.
25
on creating checklists for submission and approval as
The additional requirements impose
It is -- could -- it would be unwieldy
It puts form over substance and would focus
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 10
1
opposed to the substantive improvements that are gained
2
through Prop 65 enforcement.
3
things to be available is more appropriate than having
4
to include them in every settlement.
5
And simply requiring those
One last point is -- or second-to-last point
6
is the economic interest disclosure that's referenced by
7
incorporation of the Government Code -- I believe it's
8
18703 to 18703.5 -- we think is an overreach.
9
doesn't -- most of that applies to public officials and
It
10
shouldn't apply to private enforcers.
11
necessary to extend it to counsel as proposed.
12
are not parties to these agreements.
13
work for their clients, and we believe that the
14
inclusion of this term invades the counsel and clients'
15
free speech and statutory rights and privileges and
16
should not be permitted.
17
point out, there could be greater clarity with the
18
application of these new regulations to Prop 65
19
discharge cases, as well.
20
21
22
It's not
Counsel
They're doing the
And we would just like to
Thank you.
COMMENT BY JAMES WHEATON
MR. WHEATON:
Good afternoon.
Jim Wheaton
23
with the Environmental Law Foundation.
W-H-E-A-T-O-N.
24
Thank you, Mr. Pollak and Ms. Fiering for the chance to
25
converse with you about the new post rules.
As I
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 11
1
understand it, these are not actually regulations
2
binding on the parties, but rather publications or
3
guidelines the Attorney General intends to use in their
4
own review of settlements and then to inform the courts.
5
And perhaps over time the courts will begin to adopt
6
some of these, as well, and we welcome that effort.
7
On both sides of the regulations, both with
8
regard to the substantive decisions about how money is
9
distributed for a Prop 65 case, as well as the review of
10
attorneys' fees and ensuring that there is indeed a true
11
public benefit in order to -- as the foundation for any
12
kind of award of attorneys' fees under CCP 1021.5, I
13
want to let you know that the Environmental Law
14
Foundation, oh, many, many years ago would accept funds
15
itself to be held -- used in a manner of a trust for
16
various purposes to advance the interests of the
17
statute, but -- and even did that in cases that we
18
litigated with the Attorney General's Office, like the
19
leaded faucet case.
20
a dozen years ago and do not ourselves take any funds
21
directly from the defendant as a settlement for a Prop
22
65 case.
23
money directly under Prop 65, because I know we
24
discontinued it when there was an amendment to the
25
Business and Professions Code and a statutory initiative
We discontinued doing that at least
And indeed, I'm not sure that we ever took
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 12
1
that changed the way the Business and Professions Code
2
could be litigated, and that had been our principal
3
vehicle for using funds to advance the public purposes.
4
When that was passed in 2004, we just said, "We will do
5
it no longer," and we have not now for well over ten
6
years and probably close to a dozen or more.
7
part doesn't effect us particularly.
8
attorneys' fees, certainly documenting fees and the
9
basis for any attorney fee claim has been standard
10
11
So that
And on the
procedure forever.
My only caution on that side is please don't
12
make the burden of documentation and justification as to
13
every jot and tittle of time so burdensome it would
14
create in effect a second litigation over attorneys'
15
fees, which I know the Attorney General's Office has, at
16
least since the time of Attorney General Van de Kamp,
17
has always said is at least a meritorious kind of
18
litigation, not just litigation over fees.
19
sure to streamline that and keep it accountable, but not
20
create an administrative burden for your office, for us,
21
or for the courts.
22
So let's be
The only other thing I'd mention on the
23
substantive side, with regard to the practice of having
24
payments in lieu of penalties and having those funds
25
then directed anywhere other than the statutory
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 13
1
direction of 75 percent to the State and 25 percent to
2
the plaintiff, is a perhaps unintended potential
3
consequence.
4
over in the class action side, consumer class actions.
5
And the issue I want to raise is the potential
6
involvement, or rather, the approval of the defendant in
7
the action in where the money goes and to what purposes
8
it is put.
9
And for this I draw on some experience
And I'm going to specifically reference cases
10
that were done several years ago now involving bank
11
credit card fees and charges and practices, sometimes
12
over privacy, sometimes over charges, sometimes --
13
whatever it was, consumer credit cards.
14
neared settlement, the question arose of what to do with
15
any funds that were being disgorged.
16
sometimes to get that money back to the individual
17
credit card holders in very, very small amounts.
18
they used various cy pres remedies to direct the funds
19
other than directly back to the consumers.
20
And as those
Difficult
And so
And there is actually a statute in the Code of
21
Civil Procedure that unclaimed funds from class actions
22
have to go to certain designated places, legal services,
23
to consumer protection that's related -- and the word
24
"Nexus" is used, I believe, in the statute, or perhaps
25
just says, "related to the nature of the transgression
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 14
1
alleged."
2
where the funds were going to be directed, we saw over
3
and over again cases in which the credit card companies
4
or banks were insisting that the funds go to their
5
preferred places, and those often had nothing to do with
6
consumer protection.
7
the Boys Clubs, Chambers of Commerce, and other favored
8
charities of the defendant or defendants.
9
And yet where the defendants had control over
We saw them going to places like
In one case someone did a study and they
10
tracked -- I don't want to name the bank because I don't
11
want to get it wrong, but the settlement with the bank
12
and the list of places the cy pres funds were going
13
matched the previous year's charitable donations of the
14
bank.
15
advance anyone's interest.
That kind of thing, of course, does nothing to
16
So the key thing is to ensure that in writing
17
your guidelines, you make it clear that the approval of
18
the defendant in the action is not required for
19
distributing the funds.
20
of the Prop 65 in-lieu payments have been used for grant
21
purposes, for instance, where the funds will be
22
distributed later, where by definition the defendant has
23
no role.
24
money goes into the settlement itself for approval by
25
the judge, a practice we don't take issue with, it
And I raise that because some
By frontloading the decision of where the
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 15
1
raises the specter that the defendant's approval for
2
distribution of money will always be required, and that
3
gives them leverage that it should not have.
4
So perhaps some language in the guidelines to
5
the effect of, "The plaintiff's choice of where it shall
6
go shall be justified," or perhaps even prefatory
7
language specifically saying, "The defendant's approval
8
is not required."
9
procedure by which a settlement fund was being
But so I could see, for instance, a
10
distributed, it was created in the settlement and
11
approved by the Court, with the approval, of course, of
12
both parties as to the amount.
13
And there might be a separate appendix or
14
separate pleading even describing the plaintiff's choice
15
of where the money would be distributed and their
16
justification for the Court's approval, but it was the
17
plaintiff alone, not the plaintiff and defendant
18
proposing that, to ensure there wasn't a kind of
19
self-dealing potential by the defendants in trying to
20
control the distribution of the funds.
21
With that, I have nothing further to add, and
22
I thank you for the opportunity.
23
MR. POLLAK:
So for those -- this is Harrison
24
Pollak again.
For those who just came in, we're taking
25
comments in no particular order.
So if anybody wants to
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 16
1
speak, please step up, introduce yourself, and speak
2
away.
3
COMMENT BY RYAN HOFFMAN
4
MR. HOFFMAN:
Hello.
I am Ryan Hoffman.
I am
5
here speaking on behalf of interested parties.
6
want to start out by, of course, thanking our hosts of
7
the Attorney General's Office for having us here to have
8
this conversation about how we should proceed in
9
amending these regulations.
10
And I
A couple of -- a few comments on various
11
topics.
First would be the proposed changes to Section
12
3203, striking the language setting forth the standard
13
for evaluating the propriety of payments in lieu of
14
penalties or additional settlement payments, as they're
15
now referred.
16
In general, Section 3203, the proposed changes
17
would strike the existing language and replace it with a
18
general comment that the plaintiff must demonstrate to
19
the satisfaction of the Court it is in the public
20
interest to offset the subject penalty.
21
language in the proposed Section 3204 is intended to
22
serve the same function as the language currently in
23
Section 3203, but this isn't expressly stated, and it's
24
also not made precisely clear which portions are
25
intended to serve as criteria to inform the Court, so I
It appears that
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 17
1
think it would be useful to do something to clarify
2
those particular points.
3
In regard to the recordkeeping requirements
4
proposed in Section 3204, we think that they are
5
somewhat excessive.
6
specificity that is being proposed in the new Section
7
3204 would result in very time-intensive recordkeeping
8
activities, to the point where many private enforcers
9
would actually be forced to hire new staff simply to
In general, the level of
10
keep up.
11
activities for each consent judgment as a method of
12
following deadlines for each, following up separately on
13
each activity, potentially creating separate bank
14
accounts for each consent judgment to make sure funds
15
can be directly tracked.
16
tremendous expenditure of resources with little to no
17
perceptible benefit.
18
take to comply would be better spent on enforcement
19
activities.
20
It would require things like a log of
This would be a really
The time and money that it would
Perhaps more importantly, it would be,
21
frankly, impossible for a private enforcer to know in
22
advance how it needs to allocate money that it's
23
receiving through payments in lieu of penalties or
24
additional settlement payments such that it could be
25
stated precisely in consent judgments.
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 18
1
For example, if we were to say that a consent
2
judgment would allocate 50 percent of additional
3
settlement payments to new enforcement activities, such
4
as creating -- generating research and notices of
5
violations and 50 percent to existing litigation
6
activities, taking depositions, filing fees, expert
7
witnesses, and then sometime later down the line
8
encounter a situation where they needed far more money
9
to engage in litigation activities than they had
10
previously planned, they would then be locked into the
11
particular allocation that they had specified in the
12
earlier consent judgments, and this could affect the
13
enforcement activities.
14
Couple of comments on the economic interest
15
disclosure provision found in Section 3204, sub
16
(b)(6)(B).
17
exactly how the information that's drawn into this
18
section from other sections -- Code of Regulations
19
Section 18703, 18703.5 -- are to be applied to private
20
enforcers.
21
criteria for determining whether or not an action
22
affecting an official's economic interest is permissible
23
by comparing its effect on the official's economic
24
interest with its effect on the interest of members of
25
the public in that official's jurisdiction, but there is
First of all, it's a little bit unclear
For example, the Section 18703 describes
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 19
1
no logical analogy or corollary to private enforcers or
2
their counsel.
3
18703 is being incorporated into this definition.
4
minimum, that should be clarified, and perhaps 18703
5
should be stricken from the proposed regulation
6
altogether.
7
As a result, it's somewhat unclear why
At a
A second concern regarding this provision
8
would be that the proposed definition of economic
9
interest is sufficiently general that determining
10
whether or not it applies could in some circumstances be
11
an unreasonable burden.
12
where a person involved in a settlement has invested in
13
a mutual fund.
14
individual to investigate whether or not any company
15
that the mutual fund had invested in had any involvement
16
in the Proposition 65 settlement.
17
expensive, time-consuming proposition that serves no
18
discernible public benefit.
19
regulation should be clarified to limit the scope of the
20
economic interests that it is deemed to apply to.
21
22
A particular example would be
It would then be incumbent upon that
This could be a very
This portion of the
I think that's all I will say for the moment.
Thank you.
23
MR. POLLAK:
Anyone else have any more
24
comments?
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
25
Actually, speak now or submit them in writing by
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 20
1
2
3
5:00 o'clock.
Okay.
Well, then, we will consider this
public hearing closed.
Thanks, everyone.
4
(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded
5
at 2:37 p.m.)
6
7
---oOo---
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SS.
It the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
3
Reporter in the State of California, hereby certify that
5
the foregoing proceedings h/ere reported by me and were
6
thereafter transcribed under my direction into
1
typewriting, and that the foregoing is a full-, complete,
õ
and true record of said proceedings.
f further certify that I
9
am
not of counsel or
10
attorney for either or any of the parties in the
11
foregoing proceedings and caption named, nor in any
72
interested in the outcome of the cause named in said
13
caption.
I4
15
16
L1
18
I9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
IN
WITNESS VüHEREOF,
I have hereunto set
hand this 16th day of November, 2075.
my
way
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 1
4:10 18:12
affiliation
accept
5:16
11:14
afternoon
accomplished
7:4 10:22
8:11
AG
accountability
8:12,21
7:13
ago
accountable
11:14,20 13:10
12:19
agreements
accounting
10:12
9:20
AG's
accounts
4:23
9:21 17:14
ALAMEDA
achieve
21:2
7:22
albeit
Act
8:21
4:14
alleged
action
14:1
13:4,7 14:18 18:21
allocate
actions
17:22 18:2
4:9,12 13:4,21
allocation
activities
17:8,11,19 18:3,6,9,13 18:11
allow
activity
8:19
17:13
altogether
acts
19:6
8:11
amend
add
4:7
15:21
amended
additional
7:17
7:19,21,25 8:20 9:10
amending
9:19 16:14 17:24
16:9
18:2
amendment
administrative
11:24
12:20
amendments
admissions
4:10
9:8
amount
adopt
15:12
11:5
amounts
advance
4:11 13:17
11:16 12:3 14:15
analogy
17:22
19:1
Aeris
announced
7:5
5:6
affect
A
anybody
5:11 15:25
anyone's
14:15
APPEARANCES
3:1
appears
16:20
appendix
15:13
applaud
7:11
application
10:18
applied
18:19
applies
10:9 19:10
apply
10:10 19:20
appropriate
10:3
approval
9:25 13:6 14:17,24
15:1,7,11,16
approved
15:11
approximately
4:21
arose
13:14
asked
5:22
assumptions
7:16
assurances
8:18
ATA
7:11
attached
3:11
ATTACHMENT
2:10
attendance
2:12 3:11
attorney
1:2 3:4,5,6 4:7,20 5:5
5:19,20,22 7:8,22
8:13,16 11:3,18 12:9
12:15,16 16:7 21:10
attorneys
4:11 8:22 11:10,12
12:8,14
available
10:3
award
11:12
B
b
18:16,16
back
6:5 13:16,19
bank
13:10 14:10,11,14
17:13
banks
14:4
based
9:18
basis
12:9
behalf
7:5,6 16:5
believe
7:20 9:1 10:7,13 13:24
beneficial
8:3
benefit
8:23 11:11 17:17
19:18
benefits
7:23 8:4 9:5,17
better
17:18
binding
11:2
bit
18:16
Botelho
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 2
certified
5:25 21:3
certify
21:4,9
Chambers
14:7
chance
10:24
changed
12:1
changes
16:11,16
C
charges
C
13:11,12
2:4
charitable
CA
14:13
3:7
charities
California
14:8
1:3,13 3:3 4:1,8,17 8:9 checklists
21:1,4
9:25
caption
chemical
21:11,13
9:2,18
card
chemicals
13:11,17 14:3
9:15
cards
choice
13:13
9:18 15:5,14
case
Chris
9:22 11:9,19,22 14:9
4:24
cases
circumstances
8:25 10:19 11:17 13:9 19:10
14:3
civil
cause
4:11 13:21
21:12
claim
caution
12:9
12:11
clarified
CCP
19:4,19
11:12
clarify
Center
17:1
4:25 7:7
clarity
centrally
10:17
9:7
class
certain
13:4,4,21
13:22
Clay
certainly
3:7
12:8
clear
1:21 21:17
Boys
14:7
brought
4:9 8:25
burden
8:7 12:12,20 19:11
burdensome
12:13
business
6:3,25 11:25 12:1
14:17 16:24
clients
7:11,20 10:13,14
close
6:24,25 12:6
closed
20:3
Clubs
14:7
Code
4:8 5:3 10:7 11:25
12:1 13:20 18:18
come
5:12,22 6:17 7:2
comment
6:25 7:3 10:21 16:3,18
commenter
7:1
comments
2:3 5:14 6:6,11,17,21
6:22,24 7:9 15:25
16:10 18:14 19:24
Commerce
14:7
committed
6:16
commonly
4:14
companies
8:5,7 14:3
company
19:14
comparing
18:23
complete
21:7
completion
6:8
comply
17:18
concern
19:7
concerning
4:9
concluded
20:4
conducted
6:3
conferred
8:4
consent
17:11,14,25 18:1,12
consequence
13:3
consequences
9:12
consider
6:7 8:14 20:2
construed
9:8,21
consumer
9:18 13:4,13,23 14:6
consumers
13:19
contested
9:7
control
14:1 15:20
conversation
16:8
converse
10:25
corollary
19:1
cost
9:5
costly
9:12
costs
8:1
counsel
10:11,11,14 19:2 21:9
COUNTY
21:2
couple
16:10 18:14
course
14:14 15:11 16:6
court
5:25 15:11 16:19,25
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 3
courts
8:9,10 11:4,5 12:21
Court's
15:16
create
12:14,20
created
15:10
creating
9:25 17:13 18:4
credit
13:11,13,17 14:3
criteria
16:25 18:21
CSR
1:21 21:17
currently
16:22
cy
13:18 14:12
D
D
2:1
date
5:7
dated
5:1
day
4:21 21:15
de
12:16
deadlines
17:12
decision
14:23
decisions
11:8
deemed
19:20
defendant
11:21 13:6 14:8,18,22
15:17
defendants
14:1,8 15:19
defendant's
15:1,7
definition
14:22 19:3,8
delay
8:2 9:6
delays
9:5
demonstrate
16:18
deny
8:4
Department
1:1 3:3 4:6
depositions
18:6
Deputy
3:5,6 5:19,21
describes
18:20
describing
15:14
designated
13:22
detail
9:23
determining
18:21 19:9
different
9:22
Difficult
13:15
direct
13:18
directed
12:25 14:2
direction
13:1 21:6
directly
11:21,23 13:19 17:15
director
4:25
discernible
19:18
discharge
10:19
disclosure
10:6 18:15
discontinued
11:19,24
discounting
9:13
disgorged
13:15
distributed
11:9 14:22 15:10,15
distributing
14:19
distribution
15:2,20
Division
4:8
documentation
12:12
documenting
12:8
documents
4:20
doing
10:12 11:19
donations
14:13
door
5:23
dozen
11:20 12:6
draw
13:3
drawn
18:17
Drinking
4:13
E
E
2:1
earlier
8:17 18:12
economic
10:6 18:14,22,23 19:8
19:20
effect
12:7,14 15:5 18:23,24
effective
8:5
effects
7:16
efficient
8:6
effort
11:6
either
21:10
Eliminating
7:25
elimination
7:18
encounter
18:8
enforcement
4:9,14 9:14 10:2 17:18
18:3,13
enforcer
17:21
enforcers
1:7 8:7 10:10 17:8
18:20 19:1
engage
18:9
enhancing
9:18
ensure
14:16 15:18
ensuring
11:10
Environmental
4:25 7:7 10:23 11:13
Equa
7:5
evaluating
16:13
exactly
18:17
example
18:1,20 19:11
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 4
excessive
17:5
executive
4:24
existing
16:17 18:5
expenditure
17:16
expense
8:7
expensive
19:17
experience
13:3
expert
18:6
exposure
9:14
exposures
9:18
expressly
16:23
extend
10:11
F
far
18:8
faucet
11:19
favored
14:7
fee
12:9
fees
4:11 8:22 11:10,12
12:8,8,15,18 13:11
18:6
Fiering
3:6 5:22 10:24
filed
4:12
filing
18:6
final
6:12
first
7:1 9:12 16:11 18:16
Floor
3:7
focus
9:1,24
following
17:12,12
forced
17:9
foregoing
21:5,7,11
foremost
9:13
forever
12:10 19:24
form
9:24
forth
16:12
found
18:15
foundation
10:23 11:11,14
frankly
17:21
free
10:15
frontloading
14:23
full
21:7
function
16:22
fund
15:9 19:13,15
funds
11:14,20 12:3,24
13:15,18,21 14:2,4
14:12,19,21 15:20
17:14
further
15:21 21:9
future
hands
6:16
G
Harrison
gained
3:4 5:19 15:23
10:1
[email protected]
general
3:8
1:2 3:4,5,6 4:7 5:20,22 health
7:22 11:3 12:16
7:23
16:16,18 17:5 19:9
hear
General's
5:13
4:20 5:5,20 7:8 8:14
hearing
8:16 11:18 12:15
5:2,6,8,11,24 6:2,8,10
16:7
20:3
generating
held
18:4
11:15
gives
Hello
15:3
16:4
go
Heptinstall
13:22 14:4 15:6
4:24
goal
hereunto
8:9
21:14
goals
hire
7:11 9:16
17:9
goes
Hoffman
13:7 14:24
2:6 16:3,4,4
going
hold
6:20 7:13 13:9 14:2,6
5:1,6 19:24
14:12
holders
Good
13:17
7:4 10:22
hosts
Government
16:6
5:3 10:7
I
grant
14:20
identifying
greater
9:17
8:12,21 10:17
importantly
Group
17:20
7:6
impose
guidelines
9:19
11:3 14:17 15:4
impossible
17:21
H
improvements
half
10:1
6:20
incentive
hand
8:8
21:15
9:13,13
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 5
include
8:20 10:4
included
6:1
including
7:6,15
inclusion
10:14
incorporated
19:3
incorporation
10:7
increase
8:1 9:6
increased
9:11
increases
8:6 9:4,5
increasing
7:12
incumbent
19:13
indicated
8:18
individual
13:16 19:14
inform
11:4 16:25
information
18:17
initiative
11:25
insisting
14:4
instance
14:21 15:8
intend
6:17
intended
16:21,25
intends
11:3
interest
4:12 10:6 14:15 16:20
18:14,22,24,24 19:9
interested
4:21 5:9 7:6 16:5
21:12
interests
11:16 19:20
introduce
5:15,16 16:1
invades
10:14
invested
19:12,15
investigate
19:14
Investigation
1:6
involve
8:16
involved
19:12
involvement
13:6 19:15
involving
13:10
in-court
7:24 8:16
in-lieu
14:20
issue
6:12 13:5 14:25
issues
9:7
J
James
2:5 10:21
Jim
10:22
jot
12:13
judge
14:25
judgment
17:11,14 18:2
judgments
17:25 18:12
jurisdiction
18:25
Justice
1:1 3:3 4:6
justification
12:12 15:16
justified
15:6
K
Kamp
12:16
keep
6:22 12:19 17:10
key
14:16
kind
11:12 12:17 14:14
15:18
know
11:13,23 12:15 17:21
known
4:14
line
18:7
list
14:12
listed
9:15
litigated
11:18 12:2
litigation
8:2 12:14,18,18 18:5,9
little
17:16 18:16
locked
18:10
log
17:10
logical
19:1
longer
12:5
M
M
3:4
L
Maclear
language
2:4 7:3,4,5
9:4 15:4,7 16:12,17,21 mailed
16:22
4:21 5:8
Law
making
7:6 10:23 11:13
4:16 5:10 6:2,9,11
leaded
7:10
11:19
manner
legal
11:15
13:22
matched
let's
14:13
12:18
matter
level
1:5 6:7
9:1,23 17:5
Matthew
leverage
2:4 7:3,5
15:3
mechanisms
lieu
7:15
12:24 16:13 17:23
members
likelihood
18:24
9:4,6
mention
limit
12:22
6:21 19:19
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 6
meritorious
12:17
method
17:11
microphone
5:13
minimum
19:4
Minister
6:1
ministerial
8:11
moment
19:21
money
11:8,23 13:7,16 14:24
15:2,15 17:17,22
18:8
mutual
19:13,15
N
N
2:1
name
5:15 7:4 14:10
named
21:11,12
Natalie
1:21 21:17
nature
13:25
neared
13:14
necessary
10:11
necessities
7:16
needed
5:15,23 18:8
needs
17:22
new
9:11 10:18,25 17:6,9
18:3
nexus
9:11 13:24
notice
4:16,17 5:7,9
noticed
4:19
notices
18:4
November
1:14 4:2 21:15
O
Oakland
1:13 3:7 4:1
October
4:23 5:1,5
OEHHA
7:13
office
1:2 3:4 4:6,23 5:6,20
7:8 8:14,17 11:18
12:15,20 16:7
officials
10:9
official's
18:22,23,25
offset
16:20
oh
6:5 9:9 11:14
Okay
6:15,20 20:2
oOo
2:8,14 3:13 20:7
open
5:23
opportunity
7:8 15:22
opposed
10:1
oral
7:9
order
11:11 15:25
outcome
21:12
out-of-court
7:19,20 8:1,6,15,19
overburdened
8:10
overload
8:10
overreach
10:8
oversight
7:22 8:12,21
o'clock
20:1
7:12 12:24 16:14
17:23
penalty
4:11 16:20
percent
13:1,1 18:2,5
perceptible
17:17
period
6:25
permissible
18:22
permitted
10:16
P
person
page
19:12
2:3 4:19
persons
Pages
4:12
1:15
place
pardon
5:8 6:20
9:9
places
part
13:22 14:5,6,12
12:7
plaintiff
particular
13:2 15:17,17 16:18
15:25 17:2 18:11
plaintiff's
19:11
15:5,14
particularly
planned
12:7
18:10
parties
pleading
4:10,22 5:9 7:6 8:2
15:14
10:12 11:2 15:12
please
16:5 21:10
12:11 16:1
PARTY
podium
1:7
5:12 7:2
passed
point
12:4
6:11,22 8:23 10:5,5,17
Pause
17:8
6:14,18
points
payments
17:2
7:19,21,25 8:20 9:11
Pollak
12:24 14:20 16:13,14 3:4 4:6 5:19 6:15,19
17:23,24 18:3
10:24 15:23,24 19:23
peace
portion
19:24
19:18
penalties
portions
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 7
16:24
post
10:25
posted
4:20 5:7
potential
9:17 13:2,5 15:19
potentially
17:13
practice
12:23 14:25
practices
13:11
precisely
16:24 17:25
prefatory
15:6
preferred
14:5
pres
13:18 14:12
PRESENT
3:10
presented
6:7
previous
14:13
previously
18:10
principal
12:2
privacy
13:12
private
1:7 4:10,12 9:13 10:10
17:8,21 18:19 19:1
privileges
10:15
probably
6:9 12:6
procedure
12:10 13:21 15:9
proceed
7:2 16:8
proceedings
1:12 4:5 20:4 21:5,8
21:11
process
8:17
products
8:24,25 9:2
Professions
11:25 12:1
Prop
7:24 9:14,14 10:2,18
11:9,21,23 14:20
proper
7:22
proposal
5:2 8:13
proposed
4:7,16 5:9 7:9,14,17
8:23 9:4,4,11 10:11
16:11,16,21 17:4,6
19:5,8
proposing
15:18
proposition
1:8 4:9,14 19:16,17
propriety
16:13
protected
7:23
protection
7:12 13:23 14:6
protective
8:3
provide
7:9 8:17 9:16
providing
8:14
provision
18:15 19:7
public
4:12 5:2,6 7:23 8:5,23
9:5,16 10:9 11:11
12:3 16:19 18:25
19:18 20:3
publications
11:2
publicly
8:3
published
4:16
purposes
7:23 11:16 12:3 13:7
14:21
pursuant
4:13 5:3
put
13:8
puts
9:24
P-O-L-L-A-K
5:21
p.m
4:2 6:3 20:5
Q
question
9:2 13:14
questions
6:13 7:14
R
raise
13:5 14:19
raised
7:14
raises
15:1
reached
8:3
really
17:15
received
4:23 5:9
receiving
17:23
record
6:1 21:8
recordkeeping
17:3,7
reduce
8:8
reducing
9:17
reduction
9:14
reference
13:9
referenced
10:6
referred
16:15
reformulation
9:3,9
regard
8:22 9:3,10 11:8 12:23
17:3
regarding
5:2 19:7
Register
4:17,18
regulation
19:5,19
regulations
4:8 7:14,17 8:19,23
10:18 11:1,7 16:9
18:18
regulatory
4:17 5:2
related
4:19 8:24 13:23,25
relevant
6:7
remedies
8:3 13:18
remind
6:23
reminds
5:16
replace
16:17
reported
1:21 21:5
reporter
5:25 21:4
REPORTER'S
1:12
request
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 8
4:24 5:1,3
require
17:10
required
9:24 14:18 15:2,8
requirements
8:15 9:11,19 17:3
requiring
9:21 10:2
research
4:25 7:7 18:4
resources
17:16
respond
6:10,10
result
17:7 19:2
review
11:4,9
right
6:19
rights
10:15
role
14:23
rule
4:16 5:10 6:2,8,11,12
7:9
rules
9:20 10:25
rule-making
4:19
Ryan
2:6 16:3,4
S
Safe
4:13
satisfaction
16:19
saw
14:2,6
saying
15:7
says
13:25
scope
19:19
second
12:14 19:7
second-to-last
10:5
section
5:3 8:22 16:11,16,21
16:23 17:4,6 18:15
18:18,19,20
sections
18:18
see
3:11 5:24 15:8
seek
8:18
seen
6:19
self-dealing
15:19
separate
9:21 15:13,14 17:13
separately
17:12
September
4:18
serve
16:22,25
serves
19:17
services
13:22
set
21:14
setting
16:12
settle
8:8
settlement
4:10 7:19,21,25 8:2,17
8:20 9:6,10 10:4
11:21 13:14 14:11,24
15:9,10 16:14 17:24
18:3 19:12,16
settlements
7:20,21,24 8:1,4,6,15
8:16,20 11:4
sheet
2:12 3:11
Shorthand
21:3
show
6:15
side
12:11,23 13:4
sides
11:7
sign-in
2:12 3:11
similar
8:14
simply
9:2 10:2 17:9
site
4:20 5:7
situation
18:8
small
13:17
somewhat
17:5 19:2
sooner
6:4
speak
5:12,13 16:1,1 19:24
19:25
speaking
16:5
specific
9:20
specifically
9:10 13:9 15:7
specificity
17:6
specified
18:11
specter
15:1
speech
10:15
spell
5:15
spent
17:18
ss
21:1
staff
17:9
standard
12:9 16:12
standards
7:15 9:3
start
5:14 16:6
started
5:18
starting
4:18 7:18
state
1:3 3:3 8:9 13:1 21:1,4
stated
8:9,15 16:23 17:25
statute
11:17 13:20,24
statutory
10:15 11:25 12:25
step
16:1
stick
6:22
streamline
12:19
Street
3:7
stricken
19:5
strike
9:9 16:17
striking
16:12
study
14:9
sub
18:15
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 9
Subdivision
5:4
subject
16:20
submission
9:25
submit
19:25
submitted
6:24
substance
9:24
substantial
9:16
substantive
10:1 11:8 12:23
succinct
6:22
Sue
5:22
sufficiently
19:9
Supervising
3:6 5:21
sure
11:22 12:19 17:14
SUSAN
3:6
T
take
11:20 14:25 17:18
tell
7:7
ten
12:5
term
10:14
terms
4:11
Terra
7:5
thank
7:8 10:20,24 15:22
19:22
thanking
16:6
Thanks
20:3
thing
12:22 14:14,16
things
10:3 17:10
think
10:8 17:1,4 19:21
three
6:20
time
5:7 6:21 11:5 12:13,16
17:17
time-consuming
19:17
time-intensive
17:7
Title
4:7 7:9
tittle
12:13
today
5:21 6:25
today's
5:11 6:2,8
topics
16:11
Toxic
4:13
tracked
14:10 17:15
transcribed
5:25 21:6
transcript
1:12 6:1
transgression
13:25
transparency
7:12
tremendous
17:16
trials
9:7
true
11:10 21:8
trust
11:15
try
6:21
trying
15:19
two
5:17 6:19
typewriting
21:7
U
unclaimed
13:21
unclear
18:16 19:2
undersigned
21:3
understand
11:1
unintended
9:12 13:2
unnecessary
9:23
unreasonable
19:11
unwieldy
9:22
use
11:3
useful
17:1
V
Van
12:16
various
11:16 13:18 16:10
vehicle
12:3
violations
18:5
violators
9:17
W
want
11:13 13:5 14:10,11
16:6
wants
15:25
warning
8:24
warranted
9:15
warrants
9:19
wasn't
15:18
Water
4:13
way
12:1 21:11
Web
4:20 5:7
welcome
11:6
we're
15:24
Wheaton
2:5 10:21,22,22
WHEREOF
21:14
whichever
6:3
wishes
5:11
WITNESS
21:14
witnesses
18:7
word
13:23
work
10:13
writing
14:16 19:25
written
4:24 6:6,24,24
wrong
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
PROCEEDINGS - 11/9/2015
Page 10
14:11
W-H-E-A-T-O-N
10:23
X
X
2:1
Y
Y
1:21 21:17
years
11:14,20 12:6 13:10
year's
14:13
1
1
1:15
10
2:5
100
4:21 5:8
1021.5
11:12
11
4:7 7:9
11346.8
5:4
13th
4:23
1515
3:7
16
2:6
16th
21:15
1679
4:19
18703
10:8 18:19,20 19:3,4
18703.5
10:8 18:19
1986
4:14
2
2:03
4:2
2:37
20:5
20th
3:7
2004
12:4
2015
1:14 4:2,18 5:1,5
21:15
21
1:15
22nd
5:5
25
13:1
25th
4:18
25249.6
8:25
65
1:8 4:9,15 7:24 9:14
9:14 10:2,18 11:9,22
11:23 14:20 19:16
7
7
2:4
75
13:1
8
8th
5:1
9
9
1:14 4:2
94612-0500
3:7
9897
1:21 21:17
3
3203
16:12,16,23
3204
16:21 17:4,7 18:15
39-Z
4:18
4
4
4:8
5
5:00
6:3 20:1
50
18:2,5
510)622-2183
3:8
6
6
18:16
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - San Francisco
800-869-9132
www.deposition.com
Fly UP