184 D Mpo Depos-rog3 - P Opp

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

Document 184

4

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: [email protected]

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

1 2 3

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 1 of 33

6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff,

11 v. 12

Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

Date: August 6, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

15 16

Date Action Filed: Discovery Cut-off: Date Set for Trial:

January 6, 2007 August 18, 2008 December 2, 2008

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

1 2

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 2 of 33

Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee in opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order.

3

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

4

1.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of

5

California and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

6

California. I am the attorney representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.

7

2.

I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.’s Motion to

8

Compel Depositions & Request for Sanctions. The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if

9

called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in this

10

declaration.

11

3.

After business hours at 5:07 p.m. on July 31, 2008, the day before the filing deadline for

12

Defendants’ joint statement, defense counsel faxed to my office a draft of the joint statement. Defense

13

counsel did not call me or otherwise attempt to reach me. Thus, by the time the fax arrived, my business

14

hours were already over and I had already left for the day. This morning, because of a prior

15

appointment, I did not see or know of the fax until 1:00 p.m. today. I also noticed that one of the three

16

pages was missing. Defendants’ incomplete fax, transmitted after business hours the day before the

17

filing deadline can not in any way constitute a good faith meet and confer effort. Plaintiff contends that

18

Defendants have not satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 37-251. A true and correct copy of the fax

19

is attached as Exhibit 4.

20

4.

As they have done in nearly every motion in this action, Defendants advance numerous

21

untrue statements.

22

5.

“The parties had an agreement that Plaintiff would not serve any more interrogatories

23

after Defendants responded to Plaintiff s second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation of that

24

agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiff s unreasonable discovery demands.”

25

This is not true. There is no such agreement. Had there been one, Defendants would have

26

violated it since they went ahead and filed a motion for protective order against Plaintiff’s second set of

27

interrogatories anyway (Doc. 97). This Court heard and denied that motion and Defendants were then

28

obligated to respond to the second set. No agreements were necessary.

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6.

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 3 of 33

“Plaintiff has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-off but Defendants are

unwilling to do so.” This is not true. Plaintiff never asked for a waiver of the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff challenges Defendants to substantiate this false claim. 7.

“Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of

depositions and interrogatories Plaintiff has taken and served.” Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff is being abusive in attempting to depose the party

8

Defendants (of which there are 8), their retained experts and their consultants (of which there are 5), or a

9

handful of key witnesses named by Defendants themselves in their discovery responses, is absurd.

10

However, Defendants have done more than merely advocate a position; they have gone ahead and

11

granted themselves a stay on all of Plaintiff’s depositions in the absence of a court order and before even

12

filing a motion for protective order. To date, Defendants have not produced a single deponent in

13

response to the 17 deposition subpoenas which Plaintiff reasonably and properly noticed on July 3,

14

2008. With discovery due to close on August 18, 2008, Defendants’ bad faith conduct has materially

15

prejudiced Plaintiff.

16 17

8.

“The proposed amendment adds at least two new theories of recovery against the County.

It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to . . .” [fax cut off after this point].

18

The motion for leave to file the second amended complaint is not at issue in this motion. Plaintiff

19

has already filed a regularly-noticed motion regarding that matter (Doc. 161). Plaintiff has a due process

20

right to review Defendants’ arguments at length in a proper written opposition to that motion, as well as

21

an opportunity to then respond to Defendants’ arguments in a written reply. Defendants’ attempt to

22

hijack Plaintiff’s motion to amend and prematurely litigate it in this forum represents an attempt to deny

23

Plaintiff due process.

24

Moreover, the only new issue raised by the proposed amendments is the naming of Defendant

25

County of Kern as an additional defendant in Plaintiff’s due process claim pursuant to Monell v Dept. of

26

Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658. The Monell analysis revolves around whether or not the individual

27

Defendants acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a longstanding practice or custom

28

of the County of Kern in violating Plaintiff’s due process rights. Plaintiff challenges Defendants to

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

2

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 4 of 33

1

explain what additional discovery they could possibly hope to obtain from Plaintiff in regard to this

2

issue.

3

9.

“The depositions Plaintiff has taken to date have failed to elicit any relevant evidence

4

regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose witnesses who

5

have only the most marginal and remote connection to the case.”

6 7

Plaintiff’s past depositions are not at issue in this motion. Defendants failed to timely file any motions for protective order and therefore waived any argument about them.

8

Moreover, Plaintiff’s past depositions have been exceedingly probative. For instance, Plaintiff’s

9

experts have cited to them extensively in their Rule 26 reports. And Defendants agreed. They refrained

10

from filing a single motion for protective order regarding the depositions. Defendants recognized the

11

probative value of the depositions then and, despite their current protestations, they do now.

12

10.

“Plaintiff’s interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded almost

13

no information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have focused

14

on medical procedures that appear to have nothing to do with any of Plaintiff’s claims.”

15 16

Plaintiff’s past interrogatories are not at issue in this motion. Defendants failed to timely file any motions for protective order and therefore waived any argument about them.

17

Moreover, Plaintiff’s interrogatories have been exceedingly probative. And this Court agreed.

18

When Plaintiff had filed a motion to compel Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s past interrogatories

19

(Doc. 96), this Court not only ordered Defendants to respond, but imposed sanctions on Defendants

20

(Doc. 113). And Defendants themselves agreed. They refrained from filing a single motion for

21

protective order regarding the past interrogatories, other than the one that the Court denied. Defendants

22

recognized the probative value of the interrogatories then and, despite their current protestations, they do

23

now.

24

11.

“It is the wasteful nature of Plaintiff’s discovery that requires intervention from the Court

25

more so than the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories. But, under any standard, the sheer

26

number is unreasonable. Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories.”

27 28

There are no less than 8 party defendants and 11 causes of action in this litigation. Almost 30,000 pages of documents have been produced in discovery. The parties have retained 4 experts each,

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

3

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 5 of 33

1

for a total of 8 experts. Defendants deposed Plaintiff Dr. Jadwin for 4 days and Defendants’ forensic

2

psychiatrist examined and tested Dr. Jadwin for 3 days. This is not a typical action. An action this large

3

and complicated requires extensive written discovery. Restricting Plaintiff’s right to written discovery

4

would prejudice Plaintiff and prevent a fair resolution of this action on the merits.

5

Moreover, there has been nothing wasteful about Plaintiff’s discovery efforts. The only thing

6

wasteful in this action has been Defendants’ unceasing and unabated obstruction of discovery and

7

disregard of signed stipulations that has gone unchecked. It is as if Defendants are subject to a separate

8

set of rules than Plaintiff.

9 10 11

12.

Defendants have made numerous additional untrue statements at various other times that

Plaintiff seeks to address here: 13.

Defendants have claimed that, on June 30, 2008, Plaintiff announced his intentions to

12

take upwards of 25 depositions in the approximately 30 working days left before the discovery cut-off.

13

Defendants later claimed that Plaintiff is requesting upwards of 40 depositions. Neither statement is

14

true. Plaintiff has noticed 17 depositions. Later, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of 2 defense experts:

15

Robert Burchuk, M.D., and Thomas McAfee, M.D. The combined total is 19. Defendants attempt to

16

mislead the Court.

17

14.

Defendants have claimed that, on July 25, 2008, Plaintiff informed Defendants that

18

Plaintiff’s experts were not available for deposition before the discovery cut-of on August 18.

19

Defendants have also claimed the first set of dates [of availability] Plaintiff provided were in mid-July

20

when Defendants’ counsel was in depositions and trial in Orange County Superior Court and the second

21

set of dates were during the week of August 25, 2008, more than a week after the discovery cut-off.

22

Neither statement is true.

23

15.

The first set of dates of availability provided by Plaintiff were not all in mid-July. In

24

emails dated June 26, June 30 and July 1, Plaintiff informed Defendants of the following dates of

25

availability:

26

Dr. Reading:

July 11, 18

27

Ms. Rizzardi:

July 7-11, 14-16

28

Dr. Weiss:

August 1-9

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

4

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 6 of 33

1

Ms. Levison:

July 14

2

16.

True and correct copies of the emails are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

3

17.

Only one expert cited a date of availability that was in mid-July: Ms. Levison. Ironically,

4

defense counsel later stated that he could depose Ms. Levison on July 14. In an email dated July 1,

5

which belies defense counsel’s claim that he was unavailable for all of mid-July, he stated: I have a deposition in another case on July 11 and a pretrial conference in that same case on July 18. So, those dates do not work for me. If we postpone the July 14 hearing on the motion to transfer then I can do Levison on the 14th. (See Exh. 1)(emphasis added).

6 7 8

18.

Despite committing to July 14 to depose Ms. Levison, Defendants never noticed her

9 deposition. Plaintiff had assumed defense counsel could be taken at his word; Ms. Levison therefore 10 rearranged her schedule to make herself available for deposition on July 14. Ultimately, Defendants did 11 not bother to show up or even cancel the deposition ahead of time, inconveniencing Ms. Levison and 12 Plaintiff. Defendants never bothered to notice or cancel the other depositions either. 13 19.

Defendants then requested a second set of dates of availability for Plaintiff’s experts. In

14 emails dated July 21 and 30, Plaintiff provided the following dates, which were before the discovery cut15 off: 16 Dr. Reading:

August 4, 6, 7

Ms. Rizzardi:

August 1, 5-8, 12, 13

Ms. Levison:

August 15

17 18 19 20.

True and correct copies of the emails are attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

21.

Only Dr. Weiss was unavailable until late August due to a trip out of town. In short, none

20 21 of these dates (other than Dr. Weiss) were “during the week of August 25”, after the discovery cut-off. 22 22.

In an email dated July 22, 2008, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would set

23 Rizzardi for deposition on August 5 and Reading for August 6. See Exh. 2. 24 23.

Then on July 25, Defendants abruptly changed their minds and without further notice

25 decided to set the depositions of Dr. Reading and Ms. Rizzardi for August 12 and 14, respectively. 26 These are dates on which they are unavailable, as Plaintiff had previously informed Defendants. Plaintiff 27 has filed a motion for protective order regarding these depositions that seeks sanctions (Doc. 175). 28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

5

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 7 of 33

1

24.

True and correct copies of the depositions subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

2

25.

It is with great reluctance that Plaintiff charges defense counsel with being a

3

demonstrable and habitual liar. However, defense counsel has engaged in a pattern of lying to the Court

4

in nearly every motion in this action that begs for redress. Lying and zealous advocacy are not the same

5

thing. Plaintiff urges the Court to take appropriate measures against defense counsel for his repeated

6

breaches of his duties as an officer of the Court.

7 8 9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

10 Executed on: August 1, 2008 11 12

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

13

EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

6

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

1

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

2 3

EXHIBIT 1.

Emails between parties, dated June 26, 30 and July 1 of 2008

4

EXHIBIT 2.

Emails between parties, dated July 22 and 30 of 2008

5

EXHIBIT 3.

Defendants’ expert deposition subpoenas

6

EXHIBIT 4.

Defendants’ fax of July 31, 2008

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Page 8 of 33

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 9 of 33

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

EXHIBIT 1

26

Emails between parties, dated June 26, 30 and July 1 of 2008

27 28

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 10 of 33

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:21 PM '[email protected]' Levison deposition

Mark,    Ms. Levison is available to be deposed on July 14. Let me know if that works for you.   

Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : 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.

       

1

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 11 of 33

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Dr. Reading

  Mark,    I just got off the phone with Dr. Reading. He’s available on July 11 and 18. Please let me know what works for you. It may  make sense for you to create a master calendar with the tentative depo dates of all deponents for Plaintiff and  Defendant, since most of the deponents are on your side.   

Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : 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.

         

2

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 12 of 33

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM '[email protected]' Depositions

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Follow up Flagged

Mark,    I asked you for dates of availability to depose your experts last Monday. One week later, I’ve received one date from you  ‐‐ July 7 ‐‐ for Dr. Burchuk, and nothing more. After I explained I’m not available on July 7, I didn’t back heard from you.  It shouldn’t take this long to give me dates of availability for your experts. I will go ahead and notice their depositions  today since my attempt to work the dates out with you has failed.     It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to cooperate with me on something as simple as scheduling expert depos, but it  comes as no surprise given your conduct in this action to date.    I have heard back from Ms. Rizzardi. She is available to be deposed all of next week, from 7/7 to 7/11, and also on 7/14  to 7/16. At this point, I’m still trying to reach Dr. Weiss, who was traveling last I heard. I hope to hear back from him  soon though. I’ve already supplied you dates for Dr. Reading and Ms. Levison but haven’t heard back from you.    Also, Plaintiff would like to depose:    Supervisor Ray Watson (4 hours)  Supervisor Barbara Patrick (4 hours)  Peter Bryan (full day)  David Culberson (4 hours)  Irwin Harris (full day)  Scott Ragland (4 hours)  Jennifer Abraham (4 hours)  Royce Johnson (4 hours)  Joseph Mansour (4 hours)  Maureen Martin (4 hours)  Albert McBride (4 hours)  Philip Dutt (full day)  Savita Shertudke (4 hours)  Sandra Chester (4 hours)  Toni Smith (4 hours)  Karen Barnes (full day)  Arlene Ramos Aninion (4 hours)    If it would ease scheduling conflicts for Defendants, Plaintiff is willing to waive the stipulation to having depos only on  T/W/Th and is willing to consider any day of the week.    Please let me know no later than Wednesday where things stand regarding the foregoing. Time is running short and  Plaintiff cannot wait a week for Defendants to come back to Plaintiff with nothing more than a single date for a single  deponent.   

Sincerely, 1

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 13 of 33

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:12 PM '[email protected]' RE: Dr. Reading

Mark,    Weiss said he’s available first week of August. You now have dates of availability on all of Plaintiff’s experts.    I still need to hear dates from you on the non‐expert depos and Dr. Allen. I suggest we handle everything at once.   

Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : 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.

          From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Dr. Reading

  Gene, Sarkisian is available July 23 and 24. We can set Burchuk for after his return from vacation. He returns on July 27. I am in trial July 29 to July 31 but will be available after that. I have not yet heard from Allen but will keep following up. I have a deposition in another case on July 11 and a pretrial conference in that same case on July 18. So, those dates do not work for me. If we postpone the July 14 hearing on the motion to transfer then I can do Levison on the 14th. So, we have possible dates for Sarkisian, Levison and Burchuk. We still need dates for Reading, Weiss and Allen. Mark

1

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

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

EXHIBIT 2

26

Emails between parties, dated July 22 and 30 of 2008

27 28

Page 14 of 33

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 15 of 33

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]] Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:09 PM [email protected] RE: Expert depos

Gene, Let’s set Rizzardi for August 5 and Reading for August 6. We have Burchuk on August 4. Sarkisian is available August 13. Bourkidis is available August 14. McAfee is out of the office on vacation until August 18. That leaves Weiss and Levinson. We can fit them in. Let me know if that works for you. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Expert depos

Mark,    No other expert depos have been set. We’ve noticed Dr. Burchuk for Aug. 4. We’re still waiting on dates for the other  defense experts. Your asst mentioned I was aware Dr. Burchuk was on vacation. I don’t know where that came from.    Dr. Reading has given me the following dates: August 4, 6, 7    Ms. Rizzardi has said: August 1, 5‐8, 12, 13.    Ms. Levison will get back to me in the next few days. She has other client appts she is juggling at the moment.    I’m still waiting for Dr. Weiss to get back to me.    The calendars for the above experts will fill up quickly – so you need to get back to me quickly if you want any of them.  We still need to work out compensation for Ms. Levison’s time due to her canceled depo.   

Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  1

LEE

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 16 of 33

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:13 PM '[email protected]' Expert Depos

Mark,    Thank you for your faxed expert deposition subpoenas. I’ve reviewed them and checked with Plaintiff’s experts. None of  the deposition dates you selected fell on the dates of availability I had previously sent you not once, but twice. Despite  your disgraceful lack of professionalism and regard for the busy schedules of others, I have gone ahead and asked  Plaintiff’s experts to try to accommodate the deposition dates you selected. Unfortunately, only Ms. Levison has  indicated she is available on the date you set for her deposition. None of Plaintiff’s other experts are available on the  dates you unilaterally chose.    This email (and the many prior emails I have sent you regarding expert deposition scheduling) constitutes Plaintiff’s  attempt to meet and confer with Defendants on scheduling of depositions of Plaintiff’s experts prior to Plaintiff’s filing a  motion for protective order. Plaintiff will file the motion tomorrow. Please let me know whether Defendants are willing  to stipulate to shortening time on the motion. Unlike Defendants, Plaintiff does not intend to “stay” the expert  depositions in the absence of a court order.    

Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : 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.

         

1

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

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

EXHIBIT 3

26

Defendants’ expert deposition subpoenas

27 28

Page 17 of 33

Jul Jul 29 29 08 08 09:41 09:41 a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.1 p.1

Page 18 of 33

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser 400 400 Capitol Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Office Office 916-444-6400 Fax: Fax: 916-444-6405 916-444-6405

Fax To:

Eugene Lee

From: Amy Remly

Fax:

(213) 596-0487

Pages:

9 (including cover page)

Phone: (213) 992-3299

Date:

7/29/08

Re:

CC:

Jadwin v. County of Kern

D Urgent

o For Review

D Please Comment

D Please Reply

D Please Recycle

• Comments: Attached please find Subpoena's for Dr. Reading, Dr. Weiss, Ms. Rizzardi Pearson and Ms. Levison. Attached Levison.

Jul 29 08 09:42a

'"\( &'?i

~·AW~ ~.

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

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

(Hey 'l)§' 1/24) ! 194) Sllhpaena WhpQtlJ3 In in a Civil Civil CWie CiC'jH

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.2

Page 19 of 33

Issued by the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN

CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT OF

F. Jadwin, 0_0., D.O., F.C.A.P. F.CAP. David F,

SUBPOENA 1:'1 1?'l' A CIVIL CASE

vV. aL Countyof Kern, et al.

TO:

o

Case Number; Number: I 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

PhD. Anthony E. Reading, Ph.D. 462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445 Hills, California 90212 Beverly Hills.

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified below to testifY in the above case.

PLACE OF TESTIMONY

COURTROOM

DATE AND TIME

@' YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testilY atthe @ testifY at the taking of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSITION

462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445 Hllls, California Beverly Hills, CaliFornia 90212

DATE AND TIME

8/12/2008 10:00 am 8/1212008

@' Ii1" YOU ARE COMMANDED COMl\1ANDED to produce and permit pennit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): Your entire file on this matter.

PLACE

D

462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445 Beverly Hills, Calitornia California 90212

DATEAJ\"DTIME DATE AJ\D TIME

81121200810:00 8!12/2008 10:00 am

YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. below,

L_4. T_E_A_N_D_TI_~_1E I_D_A_T_E_A_N_D_T_I"_I_E

PREMlm PREMISES

__

Any organ orgal1ization ization 110t not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more oflicers, offkers, directors, direcwrs, or managing agel1ts, agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and rnay may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on wh which ich the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATUR::: SIGNATUR: AND TITLE nTLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)

d0J~ £0J~

DATE

712912008 7f2912008

ISSUIKG ISSUI1\G OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS lIND /\ND PHONE NUMBER

Mark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, 2640. Sacramento, California 95814; (916) 444-6400 H. Federal Rules o[Civil Pro-cedurc, I'm nm.:1 n(!~t page) (See Rllle Rule 45, Rul~s o[C;"i] Pro~edmc, Parts. Parts C & D nn

lI

undet case Ilumber. number. If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district und~t

Jul 29 08 09:42a AOKH AOHH

mO} l'94} ) '94} mC},

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

Subpoena in a CiYil Case

in f! Civil Ca!!e CaseSubpma 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p,3 p.3

Page 20 of 33

PROOF OF SERVICE DATE

SERVED

PLACE

462 N. Linden Drive, Suite 445, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013

7/29/2008

MANNER OF SERV1CE

SERVED ON (pRINT NAME)

Anthony E. Reading, Ph,D, Ph.D. and Eugene D. Lee, respectively. SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)

Facsimile and First Class U.S. UB. Mail to Eugene D. Lee per Stipulation TITLE

Amy Remly

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe that the foregoing information contained ofthc United States ofAmerica thatthe in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on 011

7129/2008 7/29/2008 DATE

or

ADDRESS OF SERVER

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule:) of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D: Rule 45, Federal Rules (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUH.JECT (cJ SUKJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

0) responsihle for the issuance and ,m'lce S:~r\'ice or 8a (lJ A l'lU'ty party or an attorney resp:::msihle s.ubp-oena steps to flvoid expense ,ubpocna s:ull s:,a11 take reasonable rCa30nablc !!teps avoid imrosing Imlloslng undue burden Qr or cxpcnse courl (}ll on b~h
(2) (A) A /i. person commanded to La produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papt::rs, documenl5 or tangible things, or inspectlon inspection of papers, document:; peTSon at the tbe place oJ'production ofproduction or inspcction inspection unless premises need not :tppear appear in [JeTSon tor .deposition, hearing or trial triaL commanded to appear !ordcpositilJn, (D) (B) Subject to paragraph (d) {2) of this rule, a person commanded to J 4 days after ser\'ice produce service of producc and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 subpoena or before the time. less lhan 14 tim~ specified for compliance if such time is lcs:ilhan serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpDena SUbpoena days after service, ,crvice, serVe \vTitten objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials \Hltten inspectionor ofany or of lhe premlses, subpoena shall not urthe premises. Ifob.iection Ifabieation is made, the party serving servirJg the subpa"nashall im;p~ct and copy materials except pursuant be entltled enntled to in!!p~ct rnatenals or inspect the premises cxcept to an ordercfthc court by which Whl~h tlJ~ the subpoena was issued. Ifobjection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon nOlice notice to the [Jerson person cormnanded commanded to produce., produce, move at any time for an order o-rder to compel the production. Such an order to comply production not a party or .an an pro
(3) (f\) was issued shall (I\) On all timely motion, the court by which 3a 5ubpoena 5ubpoenawas

quash or modify the subpoena if it

fails to allow reasonabl~ reasonuble time for compliance, (i) fail!! requires a person who ,,,·ho is not a party or an officer of a party parry to (ii) requIres traycllo a place more that! thM 100 miles from [he the place ,,-here travcllo where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, subject to the prm"isions (c) (3) (8) (iii) of this rule, rule. ;uch s.uch a persor! provisions of clause (e) person may in order to attend

trial be cornmanmallo the commanckLi to travel tmvel from any such place within the state in which [he trial tri al is i5 held, or ar privileged or othcrpwtected matter and (iii) requires disclosure djsclosure of ofprlvileged othcrprOleeled m"tter no exception exceptIon or wai"ver waiver applies, or to undue burden. (iv) subjects a person (0

(B) If a !!ubpoena subpoena (i) require~ requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or expert's opinion {]f or unrctaincd expert'!! (ii) requires disclosure disclosurc of an unrctain.ed information not describing speclflc specifiC evel1tsor notdescnbing events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from tbe c"Xpert's study made not at tbe the expert's the request of any party, or Dr (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer to offlcer of.a ofa party 10 in;;ur expense to travel more than 100 10(0 miles to attend trial, the court incur substantial expensc may, to protect protec:t a pcrson tbe subpoena, quash or modify person subject to or affected by tlle s.ubpoena is issued shows a or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena the subpoena, OJ, substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be othef\\ijse otherwise met without undue hardship and assures Lhal iliat th~ the person to whom the sUbpoena is addresst::d addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon spe;;i lied conditions. spe-cified

RESPDNDl"G TO SUBPOENA. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDlt'O

person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce (I) A per.,on course of busine% business or shaU organize and label tllem lJl~m as they th"y are kept in the usual coursc them to correspond with the categories in the demand. infmmation subjectto subjeetto a subpoena SUbpoena is wilhheld (2) When information witnheld on a claim that it is prjviIeged or 5ubjecllo privileged subject to protection as trial preparation material::, materials, the claim shall be expreiisly and shall be supported by a description of the natme nature of the made expressly documents, docume nts, communications, communkati ons, or things th ings not produced that is sufficientto suffici entta enable en able the demmding party to contest the clalm. demanding claim.

Jul Jul 29 29 08 08 09:42a 09:42a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

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

S'AQGR S'AQGR mev mev !! (94) (94) Subooena Subooena in in aa Civil Civil CaiSQ CaiSQ

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

pA pA

Page 21 of 33

Issued by the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT OF

David David f.f. Jadwin, D.O, F.C.A.P

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

V. County County of Kern, et al.

Case Number:' 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

TO: TO: Lawrence Lawrence M. M. Weiss, M.D. Divsion Divsion of of Pathology, Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center 1500 1500 E. E. Duarte Duarte Road Duarte, Duarte, California California 91010

o

YOU specified below below to to YOU ARE ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Cnited States District court at the place, date, and time specified testifY testifY in in the above case,

PLACE PLACE OF OF TESTIMONY TESTIMONY

COURTROOM COURTROOM

DATEAl'DTIME DATEAl'DTIME

~ YOU YOU ARE ARE COMMANDED to appear atthe place, datc, and time specified below to testifY atthe taking of ~ of aa deposition deposition

in the the above above case. in PLACE or or DEPOSITION DEPOSITION PLACE

ri

1500 E. Duarte Road Duarte, California 91010

DATE AND AND TIME TIME

811312008 811312008 10:00 10:00 am am

YOC ARE ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or YOC or objects objects at at the the piace, date, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): piace,

Your entire entire file file on on this matter. Your

PLACE PLACE

o

DATE AND AND TIME TIME

1500 E, E, Duarte Road 1500 Duarte, California 91010 Duarte,

811312008 811312008 10:00 10:00 am am

YOU ARE ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. YOU below.

I_D_A_TE_A_N_D_T_I~_lE

PREMISES PREMISES

__

Any orgaoization orgaoization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more Any more officers, officers, directors, or or managing managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person directors, person designated, designated, the the matters on on which which the person will testilY. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). matters ISSUING OFFICER'S OFFICER'S SIGNATURE SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) ISSUING

.

~dCv~

DATE

712912008 712912008

ISSUING OFFICER'S OFFICER'S NA"IE. NA"IE. ADDRESS ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ISSUING

Mark A. A. Wasser, Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 9581"1; (916) Mark (916) 444-6400 444-6400 (See Rule Rule 45, 45, Federal Federal Rules Rules of of Civil Civil Procedure, Procedure, Parts (See Parts C C& & 00 on on mxt mxt pill;e} pill;e}

If action action isis pending pending in in district district other other than than district district of of issuance, issuance, slate slate district district under under case case number. If number.

Jul 29 08 09:43a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

MRS (Rex I\%DS!!bmeqainoCjvj!C?,'5t (24) Subpoena in 11 Cry;] CV5t :\0&5 (Rey

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.5

Page 22 of 33

PROOF OF SERVICE SERVrCE DATE

SERVED

PLACE

1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 and 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100.

7129/2008 7/29/2008

SERVED ON (PRrKT (PR[KT NA\-!E) NAvrE)

MA.'-JNER MA.'lNER OF SERVfCE SERvrCE

Lawrence M. Weiss, M.D. and Eugene D. Lee, respectively.

Facsimile & & First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee per Stipulation TITLE

SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)

Amy Remly

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARATION DECLARAnON OF SERVER under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained I declare under penalty ofperjury of perjury 11l1derthe in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on

7/29/2008 7f29/2008 DATE

Amy Remly ADDRESS OF SERVER

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & & D: (e) PROTECTfON OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. (c) PROTECTION (1) A A party or an attorney attDrney responsible for dle the issuance and service of a subpceml shall take t2ke reasonable steps 10 avoid imposing undue burden or expense subpcenll ~xpense on a person subject sLlbjcct to that subpoena. The coun on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon [he in breach the party or attorney In of this duty an appropriate sanction which mOlY may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A person commanded to produce and permIt permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, rapers. documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for depllsition, deposition, bearing hearing or trial.

(d) (2) of this thiS rule, a person commanded to (B) SUbjec.t Subjec-t to paragraph (0) produce ar.d Elr.d permit inspcctlDn inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of prOdllCC ifsueh time time is less than 14 subpoena or before the time specified for compliance comphance ifsuch days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written copying ofany ofthe designated wrinen objection obje crion to inspection or copy ing of any or all cfthe desi gnated materials material 5 or oHhe objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not Dr of the premises. If IfobJeetion be entitled to inspect and copy materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order ofthe court by which the subpoena was was. issued. [[objection [fobjection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, produce. move at any time lLme for an order to compel the production. Such an order to com[Jly comply production shall protect any person ,:....ho .vho is not a party or an offL::er offLcer or of a party from significant significanl expense resulting from the inspection and

trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the stmc in which the trial is held, or (lii) ofprivilcgcd (li i) requires re quires disclosure of privileged or othe-r other proti.':cted prol~cted matter and

no exception or waiver applies., applies, or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. burol:rl. (B) If a sub[Joena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret Dr or other confidential research, development, or commercial commercinl infunnation, infunnalion, or (ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion -or Dr dispute and resulting information not no! describing specific events or occurrences in elispute th~ ex-pert's expert's study made not at the request of any party, or from the (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to (lii) incur s-ubstamial substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject subjecl to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena, or, if the th" party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otheT\'lIise substmltial Deed [ltherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to ',""hom whom the subpoena is addressed will win be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or Dr production only ollly upon specified conditions. produClion

-copying copying commanded.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDlNG RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA.

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court coun by which a subpoena was issued shall it quash or modify the subpoena if \t

(I) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce k~pt in the usual course of business or shall organi~ them as they an: kept organize and label -correspond with the them to correspond lhe categories in the demand.

(i) (j) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance, (ii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, mat, subject to the p~rson may in order to provisions of clause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person attend

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is is: \vithheld withheld on a claim that it is

privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall bebe made expressly expr~sly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produ<;cd pmdu\:-ed that is sufficient 10 to enable enabk the demanding party pllJ1:y to contest the claim.

Jul Jul 29 29 08 08 09:43a 09:43a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

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

5't 5't .!-088 .!-088 (Bey (Bey J1?4} J1?4} S!)boQcna S!)boQcna jn jn

fj fj

(:jyij (:jyij Case Case

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.6 p.6

Page 23 of 33

Issued by the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN

CALIFORNIA

DISTRlCTOF

David David f.f. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP

SUBPOENA I~ A CIVIL CASE

V. County County of Kern, et al.

Case Number: l 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

TO: TO: Stephanie Stephanie Rizzardi Pearson Rizzardi Rizzardi Pearson Pearson Associates 140 140 South South Lake Avenue, Suite 230 Pasadena, Pasadena, California 91101

o

YOU specified below below to to YOU ARE ARE COMMANDED COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified testilY testilY in in the the above case. COURTROOM COURTROOM

PLACE PLACE OF OF TESTIMO'
AND TIME TIME DATE AND

[il" YOU YOU ARE ARE COMMANDED COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testilY at the taking of [il" of aa deposition deposition above case. in the the above in PLACE OF OF DEPOSITION DEPOSITION PLACE

140 South Lake Avenue, Suite 230 Pasacena, California 91101

DATE AND AND TIME TIME

8/14/200810:00 8/14/200810:00 am am

~ YOU YOU ARE ARE C01VfMANDED C01VfMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthc following documents or ~ or objects objects at at the the

place, date, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): place, Your entire entire file file on on this matter. Your

PLACE PLACE

o

140 South South Lake Avenue, Suite 230 140 Pasadena, California 9t 101 Pasadena,

DATE A'iD A'iD TIME TIME

8/14/2008 8/14/2008 10:00 10:00 am am

YOU ARE ARE COMMANDED COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified YOU specified below. below.

[_D_A_T_E_A_N_D_TI_~_1E

PREMISES PREMISES

__

Any organization organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more Any more officers, officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, person designated, the the directors, or managing matters on on which which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). matters ISSUING OFFICER'S OFFICER'S SIGNATCRE SIGNATCRE At>:D TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) ISSUING

~.?P c'N~

DATE

7/29/2008 7/29/2008

I"SLING OFfICER'S OFfICER'S NAME. NAME. ADDRESS ADDRESS A'ID PHO"fE KUMBER I"SLING

Mark A. A. Wasser, Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95B1i; (916) Mark (916) 444-6400 444-6400 (See Rule Rule 45, 45, Federal Federal Rules Rules ofCivil ofCivil Proc:eJure. Proc:eJure. Parts (See Parts C C& &D D Ollllex! Ollllex! p.age) p.age)

II

Ifaction action isis pending pending in in district district other other than than dislrict dislrict of of issuance, issuance, state state district district under under case case number. If number.

Jul 29 08 09:43a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

Aosa mey [{z·o SubpQena A088 (Rey Ji9·lJ Subpoena In a jI Ciyjl Civil C;lse C\lse Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.l p.7

Page 24 of 33

PROOF OF SERVICE DilTE DATE

SERVED

PLACE

140 South Lake Ave, Suite 230, Pasadena, CA 91101 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013

7/29/2008 712912008

SERVED ON (PRINT NA..!v1E) NA!vlE)

MA."lNER OF SERVICE MA.NNER

Stephanie Rizzardi Pearson and Eugene D. Lee, respectiveIy, respective ly. SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)

Facsimile & First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee per Stipulation TITLE

Amy Remly

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARATIO)T DECLARA 110)/ OF SERVER I1declare declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmericathat ofAmerica that the foregoing information infonnation contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on

7/29/2008 DATE

Amy Remly ADDRESS OF SERVER

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule 45, Federal Rules of Ci'vil Civil Procedure, Parts C & D: 0: (e) (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS (1) pai'ty or an attorney responsible re:;ponsible for the issuance and servio.: service of a (I) A pmty subpoena shall take reasonable steps to a\'cid 3\'cid imposing imp(}sing undue burden or ex:pense e~pense on a person subject 10 to that subpoena. The court on behalf behalfofwhich of which the subpoena was issued s.hall or attorney in breach shall enfcrcethis duty and impose upon the party or of this duty ofthis dnl:' an appropriate sanction which may include, but is not limited to, lost carnings and reasonable attorney's fcc. earnings

trial be commanded to travel from any whlch the uny such place within the sffitc state in ""hich

trial is held, or (Ii i) requlres reg ui res dis closure of priyj Ieged or other protected matter and (iii) disclosure ofpriYilegcd no exception or waiver applies:, applies, or (iv) subjects

(2) (A) ,\ A person commanded to produce and pennit Inspection inspection and copying dC5ignated books. books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of of designated premi5es need not appear in person at the place ofproducl.ion Inspection unle5S premises ofproduclion or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial (8) SlibJect Sllbject to paragraph (d) (2) ofthis commanded to (B) of this rule, a person cormnanded produce and permit inspection and copying may, witl1in within 14 days after service of subpoena or before the time specifLed specifLt:d fOJ for campi compl iance ifsuch time is less than 14 days after service; service, serve >erve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena \/I'ritte:n copyingg of any designated wri lt~n objection 0 bj eGti cm to Inspection Qr copyin an} or all ofthe desi gnaled materials Dr ol"lhe premises. objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not or Drlhe premises, If objccrion be entitled 10 to inspect and copy material:; inspecl the premises except pursuant matetials or OJ inspect to an order ofthe court by WhlCh the subpocna subpoena was issued. If objection has been la made, the tile party sen.'ing serving the subpoena may, upon ullon notice to the person commanded lo produce, move al at any time for an order to compel the production, prOduction, Slich Such an to i:s not a party or an order to comply compiy production productlOl1 shall protect any person who is expense resultmg rmd officer of a party from significant cxpense rcsultlOg from fwm the inspection and copying c:mmmnded, copymg c~mm:.mded. (3) (A) On I1mely timely motion, the court by which it~ subpoena was issued shall qUBsh or ljr mlldify the subpocna if it qUflsh subpoena ifH tor compliance, (i) fails to allow reasonable time tlme 10r (li) requires u person who is not a party OJ of a party to (ill or .an an officer ofa tl1e place where that travel to a place more than 100 miles from the tbat person resides, is employed emp loyed or regularly transacts business in perscm, except that, subject to the provision'> pmvisiOni of clause claus~ (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person pcrson may in order to attend

Cl. (l

person to lo undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena (I) 0) rec:jllire, requires. dIsclosure disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential commercial information, informalion, or research, development, or Drcommcrcial (ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or or occurrences oceurrences in dispute and resulting information not describing specific events Dr from the cxpert"s expert's study made not al pam, or at the request of any party, (iii) requires a person riol a party or an officer a0 fa party topersoll who is r10t to incur subst,mtial attend Irial, the court ineur 5ubstoUltiai expense to travel more than 100 miles to anend may, to prote<)( prolc~( a person subject sllbj:,;t to or afieeted aficcted by the subp<"lena, quash or modify modjfy lhe subpoena,. the slibpoena, subpoena, or, if the party porrty in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a or material tltat other'.vise met substantial need for the testimony Dr Ihat cannot be otherwise without undue hardship and assures that thal the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDrNG TO SUBPOENA. (I) responding to a subpoena (0 to produce documents shall produ:;e produce {l) A person respOl1ding iJl'e kept in the usual course ofbllsiness them as they th<ey arc of business or shall organize and label them to CQrres.pond in the demand. IDem cQrrespond with the categories In (2) When information ::;ubject ,;ubject to a subpoena is withheld on aCl claim that it is protection as trial preparation materials, the claim privileged or subjectto subjecttD protecllon cl;um shall be made expressly and shall be 5upported suppQt1ed by a description of the natme nature of the documents, communications, OJ things th ings not produced produccd that th at is sufficienl suffi oien t to enable the demanding party to contc5t claim. contc 5t the clai m,

Jul 29 08 09:44a

~

e,gn

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG (Rev ](94) Subpoena in

ij

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.8

Page 25 of 33

Civil Cnse

Issued by the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN

CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT OF

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP.

v. Countyof Kern, et al.

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Number:!1 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG Case Nmnber: 1:07-cv-G0026-0WW-TAG

TO: Regina Levison Levison Search Associates Post Office Box 1133 Dorado, California 95623 EI Dorado.

o

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.

Of TESTIMONY PLACE or

COURTROOM

DATE AND TIME

@' YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify [if testifY at the taking of ofaa deposition ill in the above case. PLACE OF DErO::J1TION DEPo~mON

DATE AND TIME

Mall, Suite 2640 400 Capitol Mall.

8/15/2008 10:00 am

Sacramento. California Califomia 96814 95814

@' ~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): Your entire file on this matter.

PLACE PLi\CE

o

DATE AND TIME TlME

400 Capitol C;;Jpitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814

8/15/2008 8/1512008 10:00 am

I

VOl: ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. VOL"

PREMISES 'ReMISES

DATE AND TIME

-----------------------shall designate one or more ollicers, Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shal1 otIicers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, forth~ for each person designated, the matters on which the person 'will will testifY. testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). rSSUING orrICER'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEfENDANT)

~4J~

DATE

7/29/2008 712912008

ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS ADDR[SS AND PHONE ;-';UMBER XUMBER

A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, California 95814; (916) Mark A ·444-6400 444-6400 Federnl Rules ofCi.vil Oll next paf!c) (See Rule 45, Feder,,1 Rilles of Civil Pruccdllre, Pruced~re, Parts. Parts C & !J D Oll pag~)

11 If action is pending in district other than thEm district of issuance, state district under case number.

Jul 29 08 09:44a Jut

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

AGSR {Hcy mey 1/94) SlIbpoena In in a Cjyil Ciyjl cm Case A08!l 1:941 SllhpQena

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.9

Page 26 of 33

PROOF OF SERVICE DATE

SERVED

PLACE

P.O. Box 1133, EI Dorado, CA 95623 and P,O. 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013

7/29/2008

MANNER OF SERVICE

SERVED ON (PRINT NAME)

Regina Levison and Eugene D. Lee1espectively. Leef€spectively. SERVED BY (PRJNT NAME)

Facsimile and First Class C~ass U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee per Stipulation TITLE

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

Amy Remly

DECLARAnON OF SERVER DECLARATION

ofthe 1;nited I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the 1; nited States ofAmerica that the foregoing infonnation contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on

7/29/2008 DATE

Amy Remly ADDRESS OF SERVER

400 Capitol Mall, MaH, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814 95B14 Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & 0: D: (e) PROTECT[ON PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. (c)

(l} A party or an attorney service of "-a (1) aHorney responsible for the is.suance issuance and servio::

subpoena shall take rea50nable rea>onable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena_ subjcctto subpoena. The COtHton cOllrton behalf ofwhich the subpoena was issued shall enforce this thlS duty nnd impose upon the party or attorney in breach o1't11is of this duty an appropriate sanction which may include, includ~, but is [lOt not limited to, lost earnings and reElSonable reEISonable attorney's. attorney', fec. fee.

(2) (Al (A:I A person commanded cDrrunanded to produce and permit inspection and copying things, or inspection of designated deslgnated books, papers, dOCl.lments dOCLlments Or or tangible things. inspeclion of premises need not appear in person at the place ofproduction or inspection unless conunanded commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial. triaL (B) to (8) Subject to paragraph (d) (2) of this rule, a person commanded w produce and permit inspection and copying may, WIthin within 14 days after service SCf\iice of subpoena Dr before the time bme specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serVice, serve UpOLl the party or attorney designated in the subpoena wriLto::n of any an)' or all ofthc designated materials writt.n objection to inspection or copying c{)pyingof the premises premises. [f I r objection is made, the party serving the subpoena s.hall or of oflhc shall not premises except pursuant be entitleD to insp;>::t in51X~t and copy c(lPY materials or inspect lDSpect the prcmises to an order of the court by which tllcsubpoena the subpoena was issued. [[objection If obJection has been made, the party serving Lhe subpoena may, upon notice tollie perSOfl commanded totheperso[\ to produce, move moye at any time tor an order to compel the production. Such an order to comply production shall protect ~y my person who is not a party or an ofticer of a party from significant signific.ant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. coun by subpot:na was issued shall s.h~l1 (3) (A) On limely timely motion, the court hy which a subpoena quash or modify the subpoena ifit jf it ttlodiJY thlJ (i) fails to allo\-v all 01-'': reasonable: reasonable time for compliance, (ii) requires aapcrson is. not a party or an officer 01 of a party to person who i, travel to a place that persoll persoLl reside:;, plaiX: more thunlUO Lhl\Il IUO miles from the place where thal resides, is employed or regularly tran~ae~ except that, transacts business in person, cxcepl thaI, subject to the provisions of claus.e clause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person per:;;on may in order to attend

trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or privileged Or or other protected matter and (iii) requires requjres disclosure of oCprivi1e,ged fJf no exception or waiver applies., applies, Dr (iv) subject; subjects a person 10 to undue burden. (B) (6) If a subpoena

co

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other .;;:onfidential ~onfidential research, development, de\'e lopment, or commercial commerc ill! information, information. or unretaltled expert's npert's opinion or (ii) requires disclosure of an unretamed information not describing specific: llIfOTmation specific e....ents events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at lhe or the request of any party, Dr (iii) requires a person who is not a Darty (IiI) [larty or an officer of a party to eaun incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, lrial, tile the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify subpoena, or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued i~sued shows the ,ubpoena, ,hows a substantial need for ,ubstantial fDr the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the rhe subpoena is address.ed be reasonably reasonabiy compensated, the court ~Ollrt may order appearance or addressed will he pofOductl0n rroduction only upon specified conditions.

(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA (I) A person responding to produce document::: respondillg to au subpoena subpoen~ tD document~ shall produce them llS l1S they are kept in the usual course or or husiness business or shall organize Gnd and label the m to corrcspon with the caLegories in the demand. them correspondd '.Vith (2) When intormation informalion subject subjectto 011 a claim that it is to a subpoena subpoctla is withheld all priVilege;:! or 5ubjeet preparal~o[J Illateriats, pnvjlege{\ ,ubJect to protection prole-etion as trinl trilll preparahon materials, the c1aimshUil daimshUlI be made expressly and shall be ~l,.Ipparted nalure of the ~\-Ipparted by a description of or the nature documents, connnunications,orthings eonununications, orlhings not produced that is sufficientto enable the issu±ficlentto demanding party to conlest contest the claim. claim

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

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

EXHIBIT 4

26

Defendants’ fax of July 31, 2008

27 28

Page 27 of 33

Jul 31 08 04:58p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.1

Page 28 of 33

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400

Fax: 916-444-6405

Fax To:

Eugene Lee

From: Amy Remly

Fax:

(213) 596-0487

Pages:

6 (including cover page)

Date:

7/31108

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Re:

Jadwin v. County of Kern

o Urgent

o For Review

cc:

0 Please Comment

0 Please Reply

0 Please Recycle

-Comments: Attached pko!ase find the Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement Re: Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order.

Jul Jul 31 31 08 08 04:59p 04:59p

Mark Wasser

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

11

Document 184

44

Eug"n" D. L"" SB# 236812 LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeks, ell. 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 E-mail: eleeriVLOELcom

55

Attorneys for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.

66

Mark A. Wasser ell. SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARKA. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite I 100 Sacramento, ell. 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasserrtV.markwasser.com

22 33

77 88 99

10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14

15 15

Filed 08/01/2008

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abrallanl, Scott Ragland, Tom Smith and William Roy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17 17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21 21 22 22

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

DAvlD F. JADWIK, D.O. DAvlD

JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEM:ENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff,

19 19

20 20

vs.

Date: Time: Place: U.S, Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8

COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,

Defendants.

23 23

Complaint Piled: January 5, 2007 Trial Date August 26, 2008

24 24

2S 2S 26 26

Page 29 of 33

Bernard C. Barman, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 TrLlxlLlll Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]

16 16

18 18

p.2 p.2

916-444-6405

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37251 (a) in advancc of the August 6, 2008 hearing on Defendants' motion for protective order. 251

27 27 28 28 JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

I

Jul Jul 31 31 08 08 04:59p 04:59p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.3 p.3

Page 30 of 33

I.

22 33

Statement of Diseovery Disagreement

Plaintiff has noticed 17 additiona~ depositions on top of the 16 he has already taken. He

44

has also indicated the desire to depose at least some of Defendants' experts and supplemental

55

experts. This will apparently lead to another 5 or 6 depositions. That would bring the total

66

number of depositions by Plaintiff to more than 40.

77

Defendants have so far responded to two sets of interrogatories, consisting of 91

88

interrogatories, and Plaintitfhas now served another set of7 interrogatories, the first

99

interrogatory of which asks Defendants to provide, among other things, all facts upon which

10 10

Defendants base their responses to 290 requests for admission. Thus, the tirst interrogatory,

11 11

alone, requires potentially 290 separate responses. Other interrogatories in the third set require

12 12

similarly compound responses.

13 13

The parties had an agreement that Plaintiff woul d not serve any interrogatories after

14 14

Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation of

IS IS

that agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiffs umeasonable discowry demands.

16 16

Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of

17 17

depositions and interrogatories Plaintiff has taken and served. When Defendants agreed to give

18 18

Plaintiff "relief' from the limitations established in Rules 30 and 33 they did not consent to

19 19

unlimited depositions and interrogatOlies, particularly of the wasteful and useless nature Plaintiff

20 20

has purslled. has

21 21

Further, the depositions Plaintiffwallts to take cannot be completed before the discovery

22 22

cut-off. PlaintitI has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-off hut Defel1dants are

23 23

unwilling to do so. Waiving the discovery cut-off effectively jeopardizes the Scheduling Order

24 24

and Defendants are unwilling to do that without action hy the Court and

25 25

There is another, more significant issue. Plaintiff has noticed a motion to mnend his

26 26

complaint but that motion will not be heard until September 8. The proposed amendment adds at at

27 27

least two new theories of recovery against the County. It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to to

28 28 JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY D1SAGREE1VlENT

2

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

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 31 of 33

Jul Jul 31 31 08 08 05:00p 05:00p

Mark Wasser

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

916-444-6405

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.5 p.5

Page 32 of 33

11 'intimidation, 'intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Plaintiff claims Defendants created a hostile work

22

environment and damaged his reputation. Defendants claim, to the extent the workplace was

33

hostile, the hostility was caused by Plaintiff and, to the extent his reputation was damaged,

44

Plaintiff Plaintiff inflicted the damage on himself. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages for personal injury

55

and and loss of compensation.

66

III.

77

The Contentions of the Parties.

88 99

The depositions Plaintiff has taken to date havc failed to elicit any relevant evidence regarding regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose

10 10

witncsses with only the most marginal and remote connection to the case. This wastefulness is at at

11 11

least partly demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff has not even attempted to reconvene the two

12 12

depositions he adjourned - despite asking this Court for relief on one of them - because they were were

13 13

both a waste of time before Plaintiff adjourned them.

14 14

Plaintiffs interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded little, if

15 15

any, information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have have

16 16

focused on medical procedures that have nothing to do with any of Plaintiffs claims.

17 17

Plaintiffs approach to discovery has been burdensome and abusive.

18 18

Under any standard, the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories is unreasonable.

19 19

20 20

Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories. Plaintiff disagrees 311d believes the Defendants have no right to object to his discovery.

21 21

He believes he ean take as many depositions as he wants and serve as many interrogatories as he

22 22

wants. He reads the language in the Scheduling Order as granting him the right to unlimited wants.

23 23

depositions and interrogatories. He believes his discovery to-dute has been valuable.

24 24 25 25

He bclicves the Defendants' objections are in bad faith and that the Defendants should

submit to the depositions hc has noticed and answer all the intelTogatories.

26 26

TV.

27 27

Conclusion.

28 28

This Court's intervention is necessary to resolve the issue. JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGK.EEMENT

4

Jul 31 08 05:00p

Mark Wasser

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

916-444-6405

Document 184

Filed 08/01/2008

p.6

Page 33 of 33

Respectfully submitted, 2

3

Dated: July _ _,2008

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

4 By:

5

_

Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

6 7 8

Dated: July _ _, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

9 10 11

By:

_ Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27

28 JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

5