102 Mpo Perez Depo - Kc Declaration Re Joint Statement

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2 3

Document 102

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 4

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 16) 444-6400 Fax: 444-6405

4

5

2 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

28, a.m. Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8

21

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 3, 2008

22 23 24 25 26 27

I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows: 1.

I am counsel of record for the Defendants and am familiar with this case. The

statements in this Declaration are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and I can testify competently to them if called as a witness.

28 -1-

DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY TO PREPARE JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL PATRICIA PEREZ DEPOSITION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 4

1

2 3

2.

Plaintiff s motion to compel the deposition of Patricia Perez is another example

wo,rking rel
be1:wc~en

counsel. Defendants

Ms.

available for

4 cause,

5 3.

a PlamtiJtr S COUll1Sel,

bu~~ene

are very llrrntecl.

unsophisticated employee whose job

IS

asked her that particular question twice. (Perez Depo at p.

25:22.)

cOlmseJ

eJect\~c1

to vidleotape

she tried to

ele:ctc:d to

21

prepare the videotape himself using his own, personal home video camera. Defendants

22

requested a copy of the videotape of the deposition so this Court could see, first hand, the

23

abusive, sarcastic and intimidating style of questioning that Mr. Lee engaged in with Ms Perez.

24

However, in response to Defendants' request for the videotape, Mr. Lee reported that the

25

videotape is not available. A copy ofMr. Lee's March 31 e-mail to me informing me that the

26

videotape is not available is attached as Exhibit C. In an e-mail datedApriI2.2008.Mr. Lee

27

informed me that he would attempt to retrieve the videotape if the Defendants would pay him

28 -2-

DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY TO PREPARE JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL PATRICIA PEREZ DEPOSITION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 4

1

$1,000 as the estimated cost of hiring a technician to work on it. A copy of that e-mail is

2

attached at Exhibit D.

3 4

5

5.

Ms. Perez grew increasingly frustrated as

lrrl~levallt que~;;t1(ms

12-33:1

over

53:5-57:1

over

(See, e.g.,

16-67:24; 82:19-92:2.) It was

kept asking at

the same

27:18-28:12; I

context

even reno.otely tOllcllled on <:In,,fh'lnn of I'e Ie:vaI1ce

furih(~r

responses to the

interrogatories. Startirlg on retulsed to

statement"

discovery dispute regarding this motion. same

coc,pel~ate

joint statement

was

ever saw

never dls:cusse:d

retllsal to "c()operate" are 21

4.

I was out of the office and unavailable on April 17, when Mr. Lee sent the fax,

22

(and on the 18th , too) and Mr. Lee knew it because I had sent him at least four different e-mails

23

discussing my schedule that week. Copies of the e-mails are all attached as Exhibit F. I attended

24

a deposition with him on Saturday, April 19 and did not return to Sacramento until Saturday

25

evening. I spent Sunday, April 20, working on a speech I am giving on April 24 and I did not

26

see Mr. Lee's April 17 fax until I arrived in my office the morning of April 21.

27 28

5.

At no time did Mr. Lee ever attempt to discuss his proposed joint statement with

me. There has been no communication between the parties about it. -3-

DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY TO PREPARE JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL PATRICIA PEREZ DEPOSITION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

6.

Document 102

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 4 of 4

My comments during the Perez deposition were appropriate to the circumstances.

2

Mr. Lee became angry because Ms. Perez was frustrated with his repetitious and sarcastic

3

questioning

adjourned

deposition.

was no reason to adjourn it and Ms. Perez

4

13

wants to

Executed this 23 rd day of April, 2008, in Sacramento, California.

4 15 6 7

20 21 22 23 24

25 26

27 28 -4-

DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY TO PREPARE JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL PATRICIA PEREZ DEPOSITION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

EXHIBIT A

Document 102-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 3

•

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Law Offices of Document 102-2

•

Filed 04/23/2008 MARKA. WASSER

400 Capitol Mail, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 [email protected]

Page 2 of 3

asking her the same question again and again. As her frustration and confusion increased, your questioning became sarcastic and unreasonable. For example, asking Ms. Perez if there were a "million" employees in Payroll, for the dimensions of the building where Human Resources and Payroll are housed and then attempting to intimidate her by threatening to prolong her deposition because she was confused and struggling with your questions, was inappropriate. Ms. Perez is a line-staff clerical employee whose job duties and responsibilities are simple. She is not in management and is not experienced as a witness. She was doing her best in very unfamiliar territory. Your antagonism towards her upset her and made it more difficult for her respond.

Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada

•

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee March 3, 2008 Page 2

Document 102-2

•

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

EXHIBIT B

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

if

f

vs.

No. 1:0 -cv-00026-0WW-TAG

IT

liPE F

B.IC

rted by:

I

PE

Darlinda R. Thomason, CSR No.

13094

COpy

•

WOOD

RANDALL

Certified Shorthand Reporters A Professional Corporation

Main Office: 423 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 (800) 322-4595 Toll Free 8 (661) 395-1050 www.bakersfieldcourtreporter.com

Serving Central California - Bakersfield, Visalia & Fresno

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

0:19:19

1

A.

Yes .

00:19:19

2

Q.

You do.

umstan

:1

e,

:1

how

me

s

Document 102-3

Okay.

of your

it

Filed 04/23/2008

Can you tell me

first

seeing this

Page 3 of 31 22

the form.

e

came

?

I'm s

THE

vHTNESS:

a

et me

rry,

say that

again.

LE rep

rase

hat

or

r

e

o

Q.

Okay

00:19:48 18

A.

Nope

00: 9:51 19

Q.

Okay

00: 9:5320

says,

March 2,

Can you

2006,

A.

That's what

00:19:59 22

Q.

Okay.

.:20:0324 00:20:06 25

recollection at

Does all

the date

on the it

ear it was.

on the

right.

top i t Correct?

says.

that as

upper

help

to when

refresh

your

you might

received DFJ1157?

A.

a

u

estimate what

Looking at

00: 19: 57 21

00:20:0123

-ce

rs

" "..L 7

00; 9:

s

Nope. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

have

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

0:

Q.

1

:0

00: 20: 09

2

00:

3

in

So do

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

you think you might have

Page 4 of 31 23

received i t

2 00 5 ? No. Q.

\/Jhat

about

004.

Do you think 00

you m gh

?

o.

a

LEE:

00:

Q.

Okay. r

t

as

1.

ust

S

ear, au

.:::it

f

s

a

u

15

s a'd

e

o

ea

.L

?

o. s

s

s

e 00:

18

00:20:

00:20:

1

A.

Say that

Q.

Just

as

just to estimate,

19 been more than ten

00:20:58

20

00:20:59

21

A.

Yes,

00:20:59

22

Q.

Okay.

00:20:59

23

A.

That

.:21:04

24

Q.

Okay.

00:21:0525

the

first

again.

years

ago

that

could i t have

you saw

DFJl157

time? because

I

didn't work

for

KMC.

long ago. So you

think i t ' s

understand you correctly,

-- so if I

you believe you

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

received

for

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

00:

1: 1

1

DFJl157

2

It

at

any

could have [Vi

Document 102-3

time

been at W

remember.

during

ow

SER

Filed 04/23/2008

your

tenured employment?

any time? She

1 ong do

1

sa

s

you

0J

a

ing

sh

0

a

t

does .L

k

about

h

s

e

e

?

s

e 00:

Page 5 of 31 24

1: 1

JV1R.

1:

LEE:

e

ou

o

()

In e r

r

es.

o

:

o

1:

00:21:36 18

A.

No.

00: 1:36 19

Q.

You

00:21:4020

Is

00:21:4

attorney?

21

you

knovJ

don't

the person

e

know

e

the

A.

I t ' s [Vir.

00:21:46 23

Q.

Do

24

A.

No.

00:21:49 25

Q.

Do

es

o

()f

c'

name

of

rlarne

sitting next

00:21:45 22

.:21:47

e

to

you on

r

a

tor e

your your

attorney? right

Wasser.

you

know

his

you

know when

first

you

name?

first

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

spoke

?

to

your

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 I'1r.

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 31 25

Wasser?

A.

2

00:21:

Document 102-3

It

could have been

Oka

Looking

the

0

at

beginning

5

Jl

do

of this

you

recognize

e

c

es"

Q.

Ms.

Perez,

e

ro

just \Alant

to

e

b

a

a n

be r

s

d

hat

s

e

e

-.,

r

e

t

I

ear"

r

i

e

in this

room,

00:22:4218

able

to

give

:45

19

cats

I

00:22:48

20

because

00:22:

9

21

00:22:50

22

A.

Yeah,

00:22:51

23

Q.

Okay.

:22:58

24

:22:4017

00:

•

00:23:0125

have

an at

that Is

Do

shaul

a

estimate. home,

you

would be that

circumstances request?

yo

a

I

s

if

should

I

say

ask I

s

a

you how many

don

I

t

know

guess.

clear.

So what

you

But

a

because

clear?

that

of

swer

Dr.

do

Jadwin

recall

you I

when

s

recall leave

the

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

of

leave

about

the

absence started?

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.0:

1

recall whether

2

0

4:0

00:

r

can't

I

Q.

Okay.

the

request was

Page 7 of 31 27

complete

recall. You

see tha

signature on the bottom

Yes.

:lJ

:

you thought

Filed 04/23/2008

cor r e c t ?

3

• c_

Document 102-3

1

ommendation i t Q.

t

looks

looks

like

like i t was i t was

approve

appro e

es.

a

No,

:32

Q.

00:24:36 18 00:

'1:38

ea

19

00:24:4120

Dr.

I

e

ecall

ecif

r

e

cannot

ab e

reason to believe that

leave of absence

request

would not

been approved?

00:24:43

21

A.

I

00:24:45

22

Q.

Who makes

00:24:48 23

A.

My supervisor.

24

Q.

Ms.

00:24:50 25

A.

Yes.

.:24:49

e

recall.

Do you have any

Jadwin's

es

don't make those

determinations.

those determinations?

Nunn?

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

322-4595

have

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 102-3

\1\]1\S

[V1R.

e

Page 8 of 31 28

Who other than yourself would have

Q.

2 recollection about

00:24:

Filed 04/23/2008

now s

'FJ

the best

DFJ1157? You're

ER:

sk ng her to gu ss

o

ha

LE I'm ask ng you

Q.

00:

.1

hand ed

t

Oka

vi]

e1I e

I

f

a

0

beca yp

f

Cl

ee

forward

e

ge

v,7

r

0

~

-" l 1.

a

e

c

f

r

ca

~

"-

t

e

r ,

e

,

over to pa roll"

18

And is

00:25:42

19 payroll

00:25:46

20

00:25:47

21

00:25:50

22

00:25:54

23

Q.

How many people were

.:26:01

24

A.

I

00:26:02

25

Q.

Was

Okay.

se

e

00:25:40

Q.

no

r

as

m

17

ur

t

FJ115 a

3

h

there a particular person In

you would normally forward the

request

for a

leave of absence to? l\ .

don t I

I

put

it in a

little bin for

payroll.

I

know who handles it afterwards.

don t I

it a

in payroll in 2006?

remember. hundred people? WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

0:

00:2

6:05

1

A.

No.

:06

2

Q.

Was

3

A.

No.

Q.

What's

GO:

it

r

o

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 31 29

one million people?

your

estima e

of how man

ere

o

e

d

peop

estima

didn't

kno1tJ.

s

LEE:

SER:

Vv

Lvl

fo

i

he

ES

7 OG:26:2918

i

me

whether

payroll

there's

MR.

WASSER:

00:26:31

20

00:26:34

21

MR.

LEE:

6:34

22

MR.

WASSER:

00:26:35

23

:26:35

24

00:26:37

25

She's not

a

going

to

Counsel,

respond

ridiculous

just want

an

to

I'm asking No,

in the

not

that's that for

ridiculous.

question. an estimate,

on none

of

those

an

answer

Mark. terms.

question .

THE WITNESS: you

one million people

department?

19

That's

n

i

t

OG:26:29

GO:

•

te

er es

I

can give

answer. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

you

if

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.0:

6:38

1

9

2

00: 2

BY tJJ R.

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 31 30

LEE;

Q.

3 es

Document 102-3

No,

imate,

I

don't want an answer.

your best [VIR.

4

I

want

your

estimate~

Wl\SSER;

She can't

do

that.

She doe

't

o THE W

NESS.

don't

hand e

e

f

s

s

11 12

Q. ,0' c

No,

how many people

here

are

in t

e

payrol

artment.

3

o.

e

k

e e

:04

17

Q.

And who's

00:27:05

18

A.

Renita Nunn.

00:27:06

19

Q.

Okay.

00:27:12

20

00:27:15

21

00:27:19

22

goes

00:27:24

23

signature.

.:27:25

24

Q.

Who's

00:27:28

25

A.

Of what

00:

goes

to

the

that?

So after

the

leave

payroll department,

A.

My understanding is

for

the department

it

of

what

absence happens

next?

gets processed.

head recommendation's

the department

form

head?

department? WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

It

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

1

0: 00:

2

:33

Q. head's

It's

your term.

Filed 04/23/2008

You said the

Page 11 of 31 31

department

signature. Whi

3

I

h depar me

belie e

I

don?t

The

11 Q.

it

t,

whic

wou d be

head KMC department

ou

o

00:

Document 102-3

as reca

2

head. 0

1 .

KMC department

do?

t

ital.

es .

Ru

e

0

s

k

u

t

t

at

hos

ter

Tor

J:Vl

e o

know how to Okay.

00:28:22

18

Q.

00:28:24

19

form --

00:28:30

20

the

00:28:32

21

A.

Yes.

00:28:33

22

Q.

Is

00:28:37

23

A.

I

.:28:37

24

Q.

Okay.

00:28:41

25

just trying

the

explain

So you said that

leave of absence

KMC department

head

for

Renita Nunn the don't

to

that

to it

ou. would go

form would then go signature.

the to

Right?

KMC department

head?

know. But

you

just

said that

understand your

-- okay.

statements

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

and how

I'm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

1

0:28:43

they fit

3

D L

01

Page 12 of 31 32

Filed 04/23/2008

together . You

2

00:28:4

Document 102-3

o

just said that

the

the

depar ment

M

form would go

he

d

for

signat

d

then

hat

oul

T

Okay.

00:2 :0

a

What e

e

e

t

ey

o

o

er

happens

other

hat

re.

s

r

Okay.

from

uties,

er bod

L

an

do

es

a

th

e

e

L

rtai

e

e

e

e Q.

00:29:117

Yeah.

First of all,

you

00:29:24

18

other duties.

00:29:27

19

that

00:29:28

20

A.

What

00:29:30

21

Q.

Okay.

That's what

00:29:32

22

A.

Okay.

One question at

00:29:35

23

you're asking me what are my duties

.:29:37

24

duty.

00:29:37

25

you're

This Q.

Other than what?

said there are

referring to,

is

What

is

this duty

it

is what duty that

I'm referring to?

I'm asking a

you.

time because and what

is

first this

what?

I'm asking you about

--

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

it's

your phrase.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.0:51:

00:51:52

1 2

A.

She was

Filed 04/23/2008

the hospital

human

A.

I

e

11

resources

2006?

In

can't

rec

1

-

00:

Page 13 of 31 53

director.

3 4

Document 102-3

betwee

and carre

the

eav

designa

'iJh e n

2

ion

reate

I

i

h

er goin

?

at's

a

goo

e

"C

r

e

as

s

e

me

let l

aLl

he

t

the

out

erl

oi se

designation

letter goes

18

A.

I'm sorry,

00:52:42

19

Q.

Okay.

00:52:45

20 between the

00:52:50

21

00:52:50

22

A.

When

00:52:51

23

Q.

Yes.

.:52:52

24

A.

Okay.

00:52:52

25

Q.

And the designation going out.

How much time

leave

out?

again. typically passes

request package being complete and

correct? I

t

-\--

00:52:40

say that

e

receive

it?

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

322-4595

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.0:52:

1

00:

2

: 59

A.

I

Document 102-3

mail

them out as

signature.

It

takes

TrJ

i ch

s i gna

g ati

00:

n

le

Filed 04/23/2008

soon as

no more e

get

than three

he

f

I

s

gna

Page 14 of 31 54

the

days.

re

he

0

ter?

ig o

Q.

11

I

see.

Fight?

12

hat;s

An

c

the

rrect" T

see

enita

tee

Q.

17

00:53:32

18

00:53:38

19

00:53:38

20

A.

Yes.

00:53:40

21

Q.

And then

00:53:43

22

the

leave will

00:53:46

23

.:53:46

24

A.

Yes.

00:53:49

25

Q.

SO I'm just trying to

then

stated March Do

that

then

you

Do you

your designation 2,

see

at

enita

lS

s

00:5 :31

But

t

--

e

ter

f

DFJ7

2006. that?

also the

designation

end on March

15,

letter

says

2006.

see that?

WOOD (800)

&

--

RANDALL 322-4595

if

you

have no

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

:53:5

Document 102-3

1

understanding of

2

I'm

just

trying to Wel

ence

l·

this

of

ents

he day,

and no

n

A.

Uh-huh.

Q.

We

that's

fine,

a

I,

is

this

an

nus

a

le

e

requ

st

orm is

but

e

ave lVIar

al

e

l

l

and t

idea,

Page 15 of 31

understand.

first e

f

Filed 04/23/2008

eave

e

ea

e

ds

righ

aro

e

d

h

ig Is

ate

h

o

i

00:5

the

9

A.

00:54:3018

The

doesn't day

I

create

00: 54: 33

20

des i g nat ion 1 e t t e r g 0 e s

00:54:36

21

have

Okay.

signed this

So

23

A.

Possibly.

:54:46

24

Q.

Okay.

experience

That's

out. it

for

in.

in other words,

So that's

not

2

Then

I

the

Ms.

Chester may

then?

unusual

then?

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

the day

s i g nat u r e .

after March

00:54:45

00:54:4825

go

plug

19

00:54:4122

•

it

00:54:31

Q.

e

same day.

Oh, it.

r

l...C

322-4595

in

your

55

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

A.

No

2

Q.

Okay

.0:54:48 00:54:

3 sa

ould ha

4 IV! a

h

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 16 of 31 56

So the designation

letter,

would

e

out one or

wo da

af er

been

i

gone

s

you

2006? 5 Q~

00:

11

'-

would

the designation

2

a

letter.

rela

Corre

e

ho

t irn

?

es. ay.

So a

hat's

s

e

ai

OU.

ide

h

t

e

2.

submitted apparently on Marc 00:55:23

18

leave designation

00:55:26

19 probably went

00:55:28

20

A.

Uh-huh.

00:55:2

21

Q.

Okay.

00: 55: 32

22

the

I e a vee n d son Mar chI 5 .

00:55:37

23

the

request

.:55:40

24

March 13,

00:55:43

25

A.

o

e

e

!

es

The

ha

out

form

a

I t ' s dated March 2.

form is dated March 2 and

few

And the

days

after.

leave designation And Renita

recommending

just two days

before

it

the

Okay. WOOD & RANDALL (800)

for

322-4595

form says

Nunn signs

approval on

leave is

to end.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

00:

: 44

1

:4

2

Q. strike

Is

that

you as

erie

c

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

a

does

typical

-

that

Page 17 of 31 57

situation

odd in any way based on your

?

No. ue

e

e

1

es.

knowledge,

a

:5

t

s

I

de:)

why this

't

seq en e

of

ne

Q

te

o c

k

ka d

l'1R.

LEE:

00:56: 6 19

MR.

WASSER:

00:56:27 20

MR.

LEE:

:5 :15 17 00:56:26 18

00:56:2921

Do

aka

o

break

or

Please.

Okay.

We're

off

taken.)

the

record at

12:02 p.m. (Luncheon

recess

02:23:09 23

MR.

Back on

02:23:25 25

~vant

lunch?

02:23:09 22

.2:23:21 24

you

BY MR. Q.

LEE:

the

record at

1:29 p.m.

LEE: Ms.

Perez,

who

is

responsible

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

in the HR

s

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.2:33:18 :3 :2

1 2

MR. that

right

Document 102-3

WASSER:

Page 18 of 31 66

Filed 04/23/2008

You're asking her to calculate

now? LEE:

IVIR.

I

d n't

Yeah. ha

e

al

t

e

informatio

to

a L E:

o

a

:3

calculation that

ob positio

D

you would normal e

ca c

ce

t

s

17

responsibi

ity?

02:33:58

18

to calculate this

02:34:01

19

02:34:05

20

02:34:05

lat

y

a ke

0

e

e

Is

i t part of your

county

A.

Anything that

21

Q.

Okay.

02:34:06

22

A.

Is

02:34:10

23

.:34:13

24

02:34:16

25

is

leave

job descrip ion

for employees?

asked of me

I

have to do

it

if it

it my direct

is or if i t Q.

responsibility,

I

don't

know

isn't.

Typically are you asked or can you recall

ever being asked to calculate a

county leave for

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

a

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.2:34:

1

02:34:22

Document 102-3

county employee?

A.

2

Yes. Okay.

to

ask

If

you

ou had to estimate

to

r

o

f

A.

4 11

r

ou dn't

I

vJell,

12

s

b

emp

1\1s.

yment

a

o

e

w 11,

+- '

,-lrnes

estimate how many

l

3

Page 19 of 31 67

Filed 04/23/2008

u'

e

in

y

a

y

T' -'-

KIVlC.

o

tell

you.

Perez,

we

a

ee

I

don't

rernembe

e

entit

ed

u

irnate. S

e

be under

a

4

+'

re

e

er

e

17 02:35:0018

B

['v1R.

LEE:

Would i t

Q.

fifty,

ten

times

a

A.

I

can't

recall

Q.

That's

02:35:03

19

02:35:05

20

02:35:05

21

02:35:11

22

02:35:16

23

.:35:16

24

A.

Correct.

02:35:17

25

Q.

Okay.

But

hundred,

a

hundred and

year?

okay.

anyway,

unfortunately. That's

fine.

i t wasn't all

that

often.

Correct?

So

in Dr.

Jadwin's

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

case with regard

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 102-3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 20 of 31 82

did that person train you to do that?

2

A. e

is

tha

They let me

know you need to make sure

a

p

1

's

it.

sor

r

s

ignature on the

that

time

sheets

eet

""-

-F

out?

raining

WAS S E R ..

MR e

s i g

required to do that.

s

at

re

Lo 0 k a t

n

~~

t he

e1

t ime hat

,s

Ri

ht?

s pr

+-

'~

r

s a. s

s much what

:53:

02:53:1

18

A.

Right.

02:53:17

19

Q.

Okay.

02:53:2320

you

jus

said.

You said you were physically

relocated into the payroll department?

02:53:26

21

A.

Yes.

02:53:26

22

Q.

So where were you physically located before

02:53:30

23

.:53:31

24

A.

At another desk.

02:53:34

25

Q.

Okay.

that?

Where was

this

other desk?

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

2:

:35

02:53:

Document 102-3

1

A.

In

2

Q.

The payroll department

3

re

u

ces.

human

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 21 of 31 83

resources. is

In human

Cor ect?

Y s.

4

on

B

de of

u

a

es

es~

e

Q.

Let me

inish

In

q estion.

u

e

k

Than

0

s

17

Ii

x·

Yes?

02:54:06

18

A.

Yes.

02:54:08

19

Q.

Okay.

02:54:10

20

02:54:22

21

02:54:26

22

02:54:28

23

2:54:3124

02:54:35

25

talking about?

0

e

f

e

In

How big is

How big is

Q.

Okay.

n

S

And how big is

A.

0

d

t

e

o

•

s

u

it?

s

0

l

d. e

u

, e

e

r

es

f

this

0,

v

f

1-

e

e

office

that we're

the HR office physically?

Probably three

times

this

room.

30

feet

by

30

So this feet

And where

room looks

actually. is

the

like

it's

about

Okay.

HR office

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

located in Kern

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.2:

1 fVledica1

:4

02:54:42

2

vJ e

mber

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 22 of 31 84

Center?

A.

:4

Document 102-3

re

I

south of Mary Kay Shell,

Building

4

Q.

Oka

Is

our

HR dep

rtment

ocated in

a

s .

.r

11 12

Q. de

Now

rtme

earlier

asked

ou

how b

g

the payro

s

i

as. uh.

h

:5

I

ou

:55:11

17

worked in payroll.

:55:11

18

her.

02:55:11

19

BY MR.

02:55:12

20

Q.

02: 55: 1

21

P eo pIe w 0 u 1 d

02:55:16

22

department?

02:55:17

23

A.

At

.2:55:17

24

Q.

Yes.

02:55:18

25

A.

There

l

That's

e

the

e

question

a

you aske

LEE: I'm going

Okay. you

this

is

to

est i mat e a r e

ask you now,

in the pay roll

time?

six of us.

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

how many

322-4595

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

2:55: 02:55:27

1

Q.

Okay.

Document 102-3

Six people.

2 payroll department n e

r

qu s

And you said that

typically receives Correc

forms.

Page 23 of 31

these

the

leave of

?

Correct.

IL

o

l

t

1

Filed 04/23/2008

at

re eive

h

ea e

o

de

ctr

sence

re

e

p

of a

or

processing? e

2

are put

i

a

s

t

me

h C

>.../

Q.

e

f

vJ e

7

h

0.

1

Okay.

02:56:12

18

02:56:14

19 members

02:56:16

20

02:56:19

21

A.

No.

02:56:22

22

Q.

Okay.

02:56:24

23

of you worked as

.:56:29

24

responsible.

02:56:29

25

A.

So

to t:

l

as

or

ella

a

bi

ho's

of absence

a

all

1;J

request

but not all

Yeah. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

six of the responsible

forms.

l i t t l e confused.

team,

nishe

e

tea.

in other words,

I'm a

f

e

u

of the payroll department are

processing leave

a

0.2

for

Correct?

You said all

six of you are

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

.2:5

:31

:56:

Q.

1

Correct?

L.

"

processing

3

pa

0

Document 102-3

1

4

leave

Okay. of

epa

Ine n t ?

I 'm

sorry,

So who

absence

re

Filed 04/23/2008

is

responsible

request

hrase

forms

k

mean,

0

m

appy

r

COU

Don't

se

..L

0

l

o

t

stions

in the

r

you

for

tha

s so

Page 24 of 31 86

b 1 am e

f/j s.

Pee z .

s

he

er be

e

Nar

s

fv1R.

:5

•

LEE:

What

02:57:01

18 Ms.

02:

: 02

19

02:

: 05

20

02:

:0721

explain to

us

02:57:12

22

office has

to do wi th

02:57:12

23

not even going

:57:12

24

MR.

LEE:

02:57:14

25

MR.

WASSER:

e

e

Sl

b

i

un easonab e

abo

L

tha

Perez? MR.

has

s

ask n

T'

WASSER:

to dow i t h

the what

Well,

we could debate what

1 a w sui t,

co u n s e 1 .

the

of the

size Dr.

there because No,

that's

I

but we're

you can't .

true,

So we're going to WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

resources

claims,

know not

You might

human

Jadwin's

it

Mark. spend a

lot

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

2:

:

5

02:57:1

1

of time.

2

I

mean,

Page 25 of 31 87

Filed 04/23/2008

Ask her how big the building

is.

Ask her .

take your time. NR.

:1

Nark,

LEE: purpose

e

:20

Document 102-3

for

v\! S

first it,

of a

but tha

yeah, s

actua

11 rig t.

00

E

Ns.

Perez

I'

9

ing

o ask you

e m

0

e

es.,

st

si n

:57:40 18 02:57:

19

said who.

Q.

I

A.

There's not a direct person responsible. MR.

02:57:43 20 02:57:4521

this

is

No,

LEE:

02:57:46 23

NR.

WASSER:

24

02:57:49 25

BY MR. Q.

I

think

the third time. MR.

.2:57:49

She's told you that

WASSER:

22

02:57:46

epartrnent.

The payroll

7

there's got -No,

there doesn't have to be.

LEE: Okay.

Who typically in the payroll WOOD & RANDALL (800)

322-4595

I

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

department processes

2

for

.2:57:52 02:

:5

Document 102-3

leave of absence

Page 26 of 31 88

request

forms

county employees? R.

3 4

Filed 04/23/2008

you the

'r

ltVASSE put

S e's

in a

binder and the

s

b

:0

answered l

a

Sh

binder

's

o d

is

Ie"

:03

e

:5 : ~

11

i,rJe

ha

12

Ch

istl

pril

e

e

Smith

tv}

:24

Mark,

Angela

onger.

n

Tetimas Okay

02:

Myself.

Thatis

EE:

R.

you're

not

No,

02:58:25

18

02:58:27

19

MR.

WASSER:

02:58:28

20

MR.

LEE:

02:58:31

21

please.

02:58:32

22

state

02:58:32

23

BY MR.

.:58:32

24

Q.

Ms.

02:58:32

25

A.

Yes.

Okay.

not

I

he

uest

said

I

want

e

just asked

for

as

e

names

--

even obj ecting. You

Stop with the

If you've

got

speaking objections,

an objection,

it. LEE: Perez.

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

names.

322-4595

just

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

2:58:33

1

02:58: 5

2

Q.

Page 27 of 31 89

Filed 04/23/2008

I'm going to ask you again.

Okay.

Please state the names of the people

3 pa

ep

01.

4 abse

ce

rtment

reques

b

ho t

forms

e

11

Document 102-3

a

we

e

ss

lea e

of

or co un y employees.

ea

r

t

pically proc

in the

1

i

c-;

u

ar

LEE:

BY

o

s

2

re

e pa

roll

s

s

rne

e

'iflJASSER:

Yo

forrrlS

THE WITNESS:

02:59:05

18

02:59:05

19

Smi th.

02:59:05

20

BY

02:59:07

21

02:59:11

22

02:59:11

23

MR.

.:59:12

24

THE WITNESS:

02:59:05

25

MR. Q.

esse

a

l

ues

MR.

l

iAiant

a.

ea

e

epartme es

to st p

l

s

~

Pe

e

aSK

Christine Tetimas,

April

LEE: Okay.

So,

I'm sorry,

you said

say their

names again because your counsel

Smith,

o

t~

WASSER:

You were

talking counsel.

Christine Tetimas,

and Armida Smith. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

April

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

:1"

1

02:59:17

2

BY MR.

Document 102-3

Page 28 of 31 90

Filed 04/23/2008

LEE: Okay.

Q.

So three members

of

the payroll

eo

ley

3 department? 4

Yes. o

reco lec'Ci

h

L

an

ree

s

n ers an

u

J

it

have

"[me e

been \'1

of

18

:00:01

19

03:00:03

20

03:00:04

21

03:00:06

22

03:00:07

23

.:00:07

24

03:00:08

25

knowledge,

she

a

:

in

e pr cessed

e

ee

Well,

I

r.

o 6?

forms

req est

LEE.

WASSER:

doesn't MR.

say you don't MR. persist

three peop e

e

was

of

asking

to

her

Mark.

MR. but

vJO

bsenoe

IVJE. 03:00:00

0

those

that

She

said i t

you

don't

could have

been,

know.

LEE:

If

know,

Ms.

Perez,

just

know. WASSER: she's

Well,

then

supposed to

know

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

you

322-4595

follow

up

something.

and

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

MR .

1

3:00:

2

03:00:10

this depo.

Document 102-3

LEE:

Mark,

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 29 of 31

I'm going to have to stop

if you continue with this.

What object ons are you stating,

3

Mark?

You're n t e e n sating any objections.

s

s

se.

o s

this deposition rig t in

e

feri

9r

now because you

ou are

a.

u.

er speaki g objec ion

a

d

I

l

a

1

re

re

o

n

: 00:

" 1

Ask

'7 I

03:00:32

18

03:00:32

19

03:00:3520

MR.

LEE:

no.

No,

our next q estion. We're going to adjourn

and I'm going to do a motion to compel. the record at

2: 06

03:00:38

21

Mark,

03:00:39

22

MR.

03:00:41

23

.:00:41

24

03:00:41

25

We're off

p.m.

are we off the record?

WASSER:

It's your deposition,

We're here.

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

322-4595

counsel.

91

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG 1

·3:00:4

2 3

MR.

LEE:

Document 102-3

No,

Filed 04/23/2008

we're off the

(2:06 p.m.) -

00000

-

4

1

1 18 19 20 21 22

•

23 24 25

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

Page 30 of 31 92

record.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

•

Document 102-3

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2

COUNTY OF KERN

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 31 of 9431

ss.

I,

4

Dar inda E.

Thomaso f

1

a Certi ied Shortna d

OI'

e e

r

13

tness were written down b

e

s

stenotypy and thereafter transcribed by computer under the f

o S

l

+--

19 20

reg

n

a

e

n

in any way interested in the result or outcome thereof. Dated this 17th day of March, California.

21 22 23

•

s

l

e 18

me in

24 25

WOOD & RANDALL (800)

322-4595

2008,

at Fresno,

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-4

EXHIBIT C

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-4

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of2 Page 2 of 5

Mark Wasser From:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]

Sent:

Monday, March 31, 2008 12:24 PM

To:

[email protected]

SUbjE~ct:

Perez Depo Video

EMPLOYMENT

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 900 3 Te : (213)992-:3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - ill a i I: QIQQ@l1~QEJ,.~-"J1J Web sit e: www.LOELcom B log' "Y""\'LC:'lI,'lttQIl&w.~QJll

message transmission

received

Califorr1lia Labor & Emplo)lmenl

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:22 AM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Two things Gene, First, I want a copy of the video of the Patricia Perez deposition. Can you please prepare one for me? Second, we want to set Dr. Jadwin's independent medical exam. Would you like me to give you some dates to choose from?

4/21/2008

Page 2 of2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Let me know. Thanks. Mark

Offices of Mark

Wasser

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: IJ:1Y!~A;~D@rrJ~d~~I~~LS;;Qm

4/21/2008

Document 102-4

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-4

Filed 04/23/2008

EXHIBIT D

Page 4 of 5

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-4

Filed 04/23/2008

Mark Wasser From:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]

Sent:

Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11 :54 AM

To:

[email protected]

Sl.lbjE~ct:

Supplemental Production Costs

W

OFFle

FUN

EMPLOYMENT

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Te : (213)992-3299 Fax: (2 3)596-0487 E - ail: t

:

California Labor & Employment Law 810g

4/21/2008

Page 5 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 30

EXHIBIT E

11 \lIB.

1-","

VI I

IV'"'

VI

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

12131 1392-3299 TELEPHONE

AW

-'-""',J"'"""

...........

Document 102-5

OFFICE

E U G ENE (2131 596-04B7 FACSIMILE

oF

statements responses and 2

EMAIL

L E E

555 WEST F'1f'TH STREET SUITE 3100 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900 1 3-10 1 0

F

Attached are

Filed 04/23/[email protected] Page 2 of 30

WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

10: narK wasser

I!! :lI11-'1"l't-O
r fUll:

Law VI I I \.It;;

\/I

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

LU:f\II t\J

LV","

Document 102-5

';}

-, _..... ..., ... .. -.... ~

. . --

Filed 04/23/2008

r~

Page 3 of 30

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFlCE OF EUGENE

2

555 West

3

6

20

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

21

1.

22 23

I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants'

24

counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On

25

Thursday, April 17, 2008, I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version ofthe Joint Statement re: Discovery

26

Disagreement (with all exhibits attached), requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the

27

draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change.

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORlES 1

II \l1li;

Lan VII I"''''

VI

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

3. 4.

To date, I

L-U~11\J

L.VV

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 4 of 30

not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the Joint M<Jltelll1en1.1

as

At1~acl1ill,ent

is a true

correct copy

Joint Statement

3

6

correct.

9

Declarant

20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 5 of 30

1

9

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

ATIACHMENT A DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3

ri

VII:

L('M UII l\1v V1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LU~II\I L.VV

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 30

2

re: re: MOTION COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

UAc"".',,",

v.

20

COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., 21 Defendants. 22 23 24

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy COlurtr'ooJ:n! 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008

25

26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 30

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in 2008

2

hP<"-'n'"

on Plamtltr

mC)tlOln

to cOlnp,el responses to mt,ern::lgaltor'ies

3

hflU"'"\!

2,

20

pathologist for 'unavailability" and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.

21

On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home

22

during working hours until May 1,2007, Around May 1, 2007, Defendant infonned Plaintiff of its

23

decision to either "buyout" the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or

24

simply let the contract "run out". On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff's employment

25

contract.

26

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave

27

interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without

28

procedural due process. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2

IV.

1"",11'\

11'''''''''''",,,,,

""

'U.'U

....

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 30

Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiffs tenure as a pathologist at Kern 2

"VA"''''''''''' Center.

PJ"""If,tt's

rel:alH)llshlP

3

the me(llCal

extent

6

20

Defendant's refusal to state a single fact responsive to this interrogatory despite numerous meet and

21

confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules.

22

Moreover, as plaintiff has already communicated to defendant several times, contention

23

interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See

24

Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co; (0 CT 2003) 218 FRO 29,34; United States v.

25

Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2001) ("Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an

26

interrogatory the answer to which involves 'an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the

27

app lication of law to fact. '. The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of

28

'pure law' that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3

I U;

1101 r\

~a;:);:n;;:1

C' v 1V--'''T'''Y \T"T'LhJ

I

I

"-lIN.

"-_..-

..... •

.........

_.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

--..1-"-

_

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 30

Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the FOTIns 4340. As such, 2

the corlterltle,n

"-,fpr-rr,ct"t,,r,c>Q

were permls:slble

HO\/ces were

reauln~d to

reS'pOl1ld to them. "

3

6

states:

was

State each and

on

a videotam;d

that

20

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2 21 The Fourth AffiTInative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks 22

infoTInation protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

23

PLAINTIFF'S POSITION 24 See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No.1 above.

25

DEFENDANT'S POSITION

26 [INSERT HERE] 27 28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4

• oJ

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

C.

Document 102-5

_. - -

_

••

.•• --

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 30

INTERROGATORY NO.3

State

every

s

3

6

v. Procter, 356

.s.

were

20

by whom, at whose direction, etc., (ii) what physical confrontations Plaintiff allegedly had with other

21

persons and with whom, (iv) to whom plaintiffwas "overbearing and dismissive", (v) which of

22

plaintiff's "interpersonal dealings" were "disrespectful and disagreeable", (vi) which of plaintiff's

23

"working relationships" "steadily eroded and unraveled", with whom, and what behavior by plaintiff

24

allegedly caused that.

25

Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed a

26

(4-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts

27

supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant's one paragraph response, devoid of any facts, is an

28

to hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5

~J'_._-_OW"'--

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 102-5

"--r-

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 11 of 30

Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has case states:

20 21

E.

22

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.

23

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5

24

The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks

25

INTERROGATORY NO.5

information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

26

PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

27

See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No.1 above.

28

DEFENDANT'S POSITION JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 6

."'

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 102-5

..• _ - - . . . . . _-

"--r--

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 12 of 30

[INSERT HERE]

2 YOU

State

COflteflO Sllpp~~rtS

6

20

[INSERT HERE]

21

H. 22

23

INTERROGATORY NO. 46

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state

24

in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 25

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46 26 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is

27 privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?

28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 7

. ..,._ ............._ ... _-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

"--r--

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 13 of 30

PLAINTIFF'S POSITION 2

37 states:

20

I.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47

21

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial

22 Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in

23 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 24 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 25

We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is 26 privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?

27 PLAINTIFF'S POSITION 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 8

'.,J

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 102-5

•

-~

-..

....

• •• - -

•• - -

Filed 04/23/2008

r-

Page 14 of 30

See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No. 46 above.

2

6

meet

vVUJ.'-'l.

an answer

an

the ple:ldlflgs,

37 states:

20 21

22

a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if ... (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 .... For purposes of this subdivision (a), an

evasive or incomplete disclosure. answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

23 By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,

24 defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. 25

DEFENDANT'S POSITION

26 [INSERT HERE]

27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 9

• -.I

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

••• - -

-

••

•••

- -

•• - -

Filed 04/23/2008

r-·-

Page 15 of 30

CONCLUSION mol:lOn to coume!

entItled to

or

3 was SUb:staJ:1ltla.lly jl.llstl1Jed

ma~:ing

or 0ppOSUlg

6

essence to ensure pla:mti:tf

20 21

22

Dated: April _, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

23

24 25

26 27

By:~~;c;--

_

Mark A. Wasser, Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH, AND WILLIAM ROY

28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 10

fl UBi:

LOt'f Vi I Ivti Vi

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

2008

L~lfV

L.vf;i

Document 102-5

I:J

IVI4V

V

tI

f

.,""""""

....... -

Filed 04/23/2008

t"...

Page 16 of 30

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE

2

4 5

9

20 21

22 23 24

25

26

27 28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 11

11\11II.

L........,

VII

IVV

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

VI

L..""J1""n,r .... ow'"'

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 17 of 30

INTERROGATORIES

20 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., 21

Defendants. 22 23

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

('rYllrl"{'\{'\,ml

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008

24 25

26 27 28 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

1

II~.

Lun

VII

IVV

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

V1

II-UJVlrv

II-VV

Document 102-5

~

oJ

••• - -

-

o ••

o.

--

"

--

Filed 04/23/2008

r-

Page 18 of 30

1

1:

2

lamltlH s IflterrOg.atones Set One7

Eug,ene Lee

6

9

20 21

22 23 24

25

26 27 28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

2

~;}~..."

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

...__ .... ..... ~

"--r-

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 19 of 30

2 3

6

20

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

21

1.

22 23

I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters set forth

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants'

24

counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On

25

Thursday, April 17, 2008, I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery

26

Disagreement (with all exhibits attached), requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the

27

draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change.

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ 1

f I VIII;

Lon

VI I

I \.Iv

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

3.

VI

L.U;JVIIV

L.\lV

Document 102-5

a;J

- _ ..... -

"".# •

o. - -

•• - -

Filed 04/23/2008

r-

Page 20 of 30

To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the Joint StaJenaent.! as Attachme10t A is a true

2

correct copy

Statement

20 Executed on: April 23, 2008 21 22

23

lsi Eugene D. Lee

24

EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

25

26 27 28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ 2

I

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

:;

LVI LV

"1-"

I

I I

VV

I • VV

Filed 04/23/2008

I"""

Page 21 of 30

3

6

20 21

22 23 24

25

26 27 28

ATTACHMENT A DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINTSTATEMENTre: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ 3

I;,

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

L II LV

V

U

, .,

'iI....

. . . . . . . . . . , . . ....

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 22 of 30

1

3

6

v.

20 COUNTY OF KERN, et a1, 21

re: ....'.. _'6" DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY SANCTIONS

Defendants. 22

23 24 25

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy 1300 18th S1., Bakersfield, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3. 2008

26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 1

• J

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

-_. - -

_..

. •. - -

.. - -

Filed 04/23/2008

r-

Page 23 of 30

statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-25 1(a) in

1

hea:nng on plamtJJr's mo'hon

3

6

n.

A STATEMENT OF

OF THE CASE AND

20 21

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center

22

("KMC") and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this

23

Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him

24

for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues and regulatory violations at KMC. As a

25

result, Plaintiffwas forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic clinical

26

depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff

27

pathologist for "unavailability" and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.

28

On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 2

0,J

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-5

__

0_- _ ..... --

.. _-

Filed 04/23/2008

r--

Page 24 of 30

during working hours until May 1,2007. Around May 1,2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its out"

rernalmn.g term

contract

to

on not renew

3

THE

OF

Oc1~ob(~r 4,

or

I-'i'l,nt,tt'

JD~'L-AA PARTY

3 4

20

A.

Deirenl~e CouI~el's Conduct

at

concisely a nOI!laj['gum{~nt:ilti~ve deponent not to answer when necessary preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). [emphasis added].

21 Counsel may not use "speaking objections" to "coach" the deponent. For instance, counsel may 22 not interrupt mid-question to ask for a "clarification", or in the course of objecting attempt to suggest 23 answers or warn the witness. See Hall v. Clifton Precision, Inc. (E.D. Penn. 1993) 150 FRD 525,530.

24 Rule 30(c)(2) renders "relevancy" objections meaningless in most depositions. The deponent 25 must even answer questions calling for blatantly irrelevant information "subject to the objection." FRCP

26 30(c)(2); International Union ofElec., Radio & Machinery Workers, AFL-CIO v. Westinghouse Elec. 27

Corp. (D. DC 1981) 91 FRD 277,278. 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 25 of 30

the space of just 68 minutes, from 11 :30 a.m. to 2:05 p.m. (excluding a lunch break from 12:02 p.m.

3

Document 102-5

:29

deten~;e

Cl:mflsel mt1erpose:d no

statements mcJludtl(\

33

oh"tnJ(~tino-

lrr/~le'i!arICV

statements.

8 statements

su~~,ge:stlrlg

20

as later proven in the deposition. Ms. Perez not only was able to estimate how many people there were

21

in KMC's payroll department, of which she is a member, she gave the exact number: six (including Ms.

22

Perez). Perez Deposition, 84:20-25. She testified that KMC's entire HR department (including the 6-

23

person payroll department) is housed in a single trailer that sits on the KMC campus. Perez Deposition,

24

84:4-10. She also recited the names ofthe other five payroll employees with ease:

26

In the payroll department we have an employee named Bobbi Gains. We have Annida Smith. We have April Smith. Myself. Angela Conger. And Christine Tetimas. Perez Deposition, 88:9-12.

27

Later, Mr. Wasser launched into an extended and improper harangue criticizing the relevance of

25

28

plaintiff's line of questioning that had impeached Ms. Perez: JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 4

10: narK wasser e ~In-qqq-~

fr \JIll; LCM VI I I\lv VI

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

2

L~lrv LV\.I

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 26 of 30

we could debate what it has to do with the lawsuit, counsel. You might explain to human resources office has to do with claims, a I can't. ... So we're mean,

20

stating: "She said it could have been, but she doesn't know." Perez Deposition, 90:10-20. Ms. Perez

21

never said that "she doesn't know". None of Mr. Wasser's statements on the record were stating

22

objections or instructions not to answer on privilege grounds. They had no proper purpose and were

23

intended to coach the deponent how specifically to respond to plaintiff's questions and to frustrate

24

plaintiff's examination of the witness.

25

Plaintiff's counsel asked defense counsel one last time to stop coaching the witness and

26

obstructing the deposition, stating "Mark, I'm going to have to stop this depo if you continue with this.

27

What objections are you stating, Mark? You're not even stating any objections." Defense counsel

28

responded "Your questions don't make sense" -an improper objection - and later "I'll object the way I JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF 5 PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY

I I VR!.

1-un VI I IV'"'

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

VI

LUJVlrv

LV"'"

Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 27 of 30

want." Mr. Wasser

2

COlldllctitng an

o ..rlPrJ"

deo()sition

Dep,:)sitic)n, 9

6

Because Mr. Wasser's

" U l U U ..

18

an

has

who can

f:"'"o ... <>.",f1

a

examirlati
to bear the costs

20 depositions and filing the inevitable motions that follow. By comparison, defendant County of Kern has 21 ample resources at its disposal to obstruct plaintiff's discovery in this action, and has done so,

22 prejudicing plaintiff significantly.

23 Plaintiff asks this Court for an order reconvening of the deposition of Patricia Perez, as well as a 24 protective order against further obstructive behavior by Mr. Wasser (which has been characteristic at 25 depositions thus far) at future depositions, plaintiff's attorney fees and costs associated with the

26 adjourned depositon and this motion, and any other remedy which the court deems proper and just. 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 6

I I \JWI;

Lan

VI' ,\.Iov V1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

L.U~IJ'U

L-VV

' J .... ' _....

Document 102-5

....., . . , - -

"--

Filed 04/23/2008

r-

Page 28 of 30

1. Defendants' Position 2

was

sut~stantl,llly

iusljfie:d

to reconvene

20

seeks reimbursement of the $529.40 the reporter fee and $179.86 reporter hotel charge as well as the

21

$189.36 hotel charges for plaintiff. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this court deems

22

proper and just. In total, Plaintiff seeks sanctions of at least $4,718.76.

23 24

Respectfully submitted,

25 26 Dated: April _, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 7

,

I VJIIl.

"-'U'n'

'WI'

1_.... _.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

--..1-"- _ Document 102-5

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 29 of 30

1

2

20

21 22

23 24

25

26 27

28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 8

."J-_._-_ ..... _-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

9

Document 102-5

·---r··-

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 30 of 30

re: DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ

v,

20 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 21

Defendants. 22

23

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a,m. Place: U,S. District Court, Bankruptcy 1300 18th S1., Bakersfield, CA

('r.lllrtr'rlrll'Y1l

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008

24 25

EXHIBIT 1:

Excerpted pages from Transcript of Plaintiff's Deposition of Patricia Perez on

26 February 28, 2008

27 EXHIBIT 2:

Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion

28

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

EXHIBIT F

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 11

Page 1 of3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 11

Mark Wasser From:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]

Sent:

Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:06 PM

To:

'[email protected]'

Cc:

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

Sul:>jec;t: RE: Depos

understand the start time a.m. start time for Dr. Kolb's deposition. That is fine.

FFI

e-mail

have

a

F

EMPLOYMENT

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - ill a i I: ~kefa)LOEL.c.9Jn Web sit e: w\v~.LOEL.cJLm B log: www.CaLaborLaw.com

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

4/21/2008

Page 2 of3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 11

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:24 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser Subject: RE: Depos

Gene, The time slots you propose for and Kolb are 10 hours TO ENSURE WE GET OUR 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD. MANY OF PAST DEPOS HAVE CUT SHORT UNEXPECTEDLY. BREAKS DEPOS NOT GO BEYOND 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD. Bakersfield?

says he

can

to Roy, we have called him and his lawyer several times but have not been able to confirm YOU WERE HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. WHO IS HIS ATTORNEY? PLEASE WITH HIS CONTACT NFO IF NEED TO SERVE THE DEPO NOTICE

8:00

",n\,'thlr'"

Mark

Mark, If that's the case, please disregard the previously proposed depo schedule for the week of April 12. We'd now like to schedule depos as follows for April 16 to 19: Day 1 (4/16): 8am - 2pm: Gilbert Martinez 2pm - 7pm: Vangie Gallegos Day 2 (4/17): 8am - 6pm: William Roy Day 3 (4/18): 8am - 6pm: Albert McBride

4/21/2008

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 4 of 11

Day 4 (4/19): Sam - 6pm: Marv Ko1b

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

am told that Kolb is available for on 9 at at the International This was relayed to my have not had any direct contact do not know any more. If you have questions, I will do my best to answer them. Mark

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: [email protected]

4/21/2008

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of3 Page 5 of 11

Mark Wasser From:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]]

Sent:

Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:40 PM

To:

'[email protected]'

Cc:

Assistant to Mark

Wasser ([email protected]); Karen Barnes ([email protected])

Sul>jec:t: RE: Depos

That is one of the dates but is date delom;iticln on the 1 ,Gilbert Martinez and Vangie Gallegos on the 16 th , and

SubjE!ct: RE: Depos

FF

F

EMPLOYMENT

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E-mail: e1e.<e@LQ!:::L.com Web sit e: lvww"kQE..k&Q!l1 B log: w\'{w. C~J,Jl.bQI.LID.y'.gJJll

----~-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:24 PM

4/21/2008

Page 2 of3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 11

To: [email protected] Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser Subject: RE: Depos

Gene, TO ENSURE WE GET OUR 7 HOURS The time slots you propose for and Kolb are 10 hours long. ON THE RECORD. MANY OF PAST DEPOS HAVE BEEN SHORT UNEXPECTEDLY. BREAKS ALSO CUT INTO OUR TIME. DEPOS WILL NOT GO BEYOND 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD. available

YES.

can start.

a

THOUGHT YOU WERE HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. IS HIS HIS CONTACT INFO IF NEED TO SERVE THE DEPO NOTICE ON HIM. Mark

If that's the case, please disregard the previously proposed depo schedule for the week of April 12. We'd now like to schedule depos as follows for April 16 to 19: Day 1 (4/16): 8am - 2pm: Gilbert Martinez 2pm 7pm: Vangie Gallegos Day 2 (4/17): 8am - 6pm: William Roy Day 3 (4/18): 8am - 6pm: Albert McBride 2pm - 7pm: Arlene Ramos-Aninion

4/21/2008

Page 3 of3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Day 4 (4/19): 8am - 6pm: Marv Kolb Sincerely,

FFI 5 5

From:

Wasser

Sent: Wednesday,

20082:08 PM

To:

Lee Cc: Assistant

Wasser

Mark

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: rrrwas~el@ma[Js_VL~~$.eLCOm

4/21/2008

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 11

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 11

Mark Wasser From:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]]

Sent:

Tuesday, April 08,20083:17 PM

To:

'[email protected]'

Cc:

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

(aremly«ymark:waiSsE~r

SI.l!:ljec:t: RE: Depos

Arlene is available and We could set her for Tuesday but assume you want the whole day for

squeeze

A E. OS ANGE ES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E-mail: tl~\).@l-,_OJ3.ld;Qlll Web sit e: www"LOEL.com. B log: www.CaLaborLaw.cQD1

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:40 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser; Karen Barnes

4/21/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 11

Subject: RE: Depos Gene, Dr. Roy is available on Tuesday, April 15. That is not one of the dates you suggested but it is the only date he has for awhile. We could take his deposition on the 15th , Gilbert Martinez and Vangie Gallegos on the 16th , and Dr. Kolb on the 1 Los Angeles. am not available on the 17th and 18 th and neither is Dr. McBride. The best he can do is 3 hours on the 18 t h. We told him we need more time and he is looking at his schedule What do you think?

Lee

FFI

F

EMP 555

This message is sent a law firm and may contain information that is or confidential. received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:24 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser Subject: RE: Depos Gene, The time slots you propose for Roy and Kolb are 10 hours long. Why? TO ENSURE WE GET OUR 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD. MANY OF THE PAST DEPOS HAVE BEEN CUT SHORT UNEXPECTEDLY. BREAKS ALSO CUT INTO OUR TIME. DEPOS WILL NOT GO BEYOND 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD.

4/21/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 102-6

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 11

Are you proposing these for the Holiday Inn in Bakersfield? Kolb says he is only available in LA YES. WE'LL DEPOSE KOLB IN LA. I do not know when Kolb"s flight will arrive in LAX but I will find out how early we can start. I do not know if 8:00 will work. PLEASE LET ME KNOW. will check with the others and let you know their avaiilatlility OK.

am attending a conference in Monterey on the 17th , 18th and 19th but be able to 7 - 4/19. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE. are

Sent:

that a little.

:::\\AI:::llt,r,,,

a

Th" ,re,;::>\!

To: [email protected] Cc:

Mark

Wasser'

s as

Day 2 (4/17): 8am - 6pm: William Roy Day 3 (4/18): 8am - 6pm: Albert McBride 2pm - 7pm: Arlene Ramos-Aninion Day 4 (4/19): 8am - 6pm: Marv Ko1b Sincerely, Gene Lee

-------------------------------------------------------------------4/21/2008

NEED

Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

AW

Document 102-6

OFFICE

OF

EMPLOYMENT

Filed 04/23/2008

UGENE

Page 11 of 11

EE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)5 6-0487 E-ma I: Web s j t e: lYly:wJ",QEJ",'6)l)} Bog: www.CaLaborLaw.com

& Em~)loyrnent

Gene, am told that Dr. is available for 9 at at the Hotel at Los An(lPI~'C:: International Airport. This information was relayed to my have not had any direct contact with Kolb and do not know any more. you have will do my best to answer them.

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: !Jl...Yv.g§.Se[@m~JJs.\iYs;l..;;~e r. Gpm

4/2112008