57 Mx Protective Order - Mp&a

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG I 2 3 4

Document 57

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 1 of 5

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasserlaimarkwasser.com

5

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN C01JNTY COUNSEL 6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue. Fourth Floor 7 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 8. Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: [email protected] 9 10 II

Attorneys for Defendants County

Kern,

IPeter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, ~ and Roy

Smith

12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IS 16

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24

Plaintiff. vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Defendants.

~

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

) ) ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: HOME ADDRESSES

Date: November 5, 2007 Time: 9:30 a.m. (date cleared by CRD) Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, ) Bakersfield Courtroom 8

~ ~

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008 ) ) ------------)

25 26

Defendants submit this memorandum in support of their motion for a protective order

27

preventing the disclosure or discovery of employee home addresses to Plaintiff David Jadwin.

28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE

I

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

I.

2 3

Document 57

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 2 of 5

THIS COURT MAY ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER ON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows issuance of a protective order

4

to limit disclosure or discovery, Foltz v, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 33! F3d 1122,

5

1130 (9th Cir. 2003),

6

The party seeking a protective order has the burden of establishing good cause sufficient

7

to justify the protection requested. Id. Generally, the party must show that specific prejudice or

8

harm

9

result in

n.

absence of the protective order. Id,

GOOD CAUSE EXSISTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PROTECETIVE ORDER

10 !!

II Rule 26(a)(l)(A) requires Defendants to disclose to Plaintiff the name and, if known, the I ! 2 II address telephone of to information about i 13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21

22 23 24

25

26 27 28

the ease. Defendants have done that. Defendants have disclosed to Plaintiff the name, address and telephone number of each County employee who may be a witness in this case. The addresses and telephone numbers that have been disclosed are the employees' actual- individual - work addresses and telephone numbers. All potential witnesses are available at the addresses that have been provided and through Defendants legal counsel. In addition to the disclosures, Defendants have provided Plaintiff with VvTitten assurances

I that all employees

be made available to Plaintiff upon request, that Defendants

provide

Plaintiff with contact information on any employees who leave County employment during the pendency of this case and that Defendants' counsel will accept service of all process and notices on behalf of all Defendants and employees to ensure their availability to Plaintiff The disclosures fully comply with Rule 26 and the assurances Defendants have provided go substantially beyond the requirements of Rule 26. Plaintiff has more than he is entitled to under the Rule. Despite this, Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel disclosure of "home" addresses. There is no justification for disclosing home addresses and the Defendants and employees object to doing so. Hence, Defendants seek a protective order to protect the home addresses.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE

2

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

Document 57

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 3 of 5

Filed herewith are the declarations of Jennifer Abraham, Toni Smith, Michelle Burris, 2

Denise Long and Jane Thorton. All five individuals are Kern County employees and work at

3

Kern Medical Center where Plaintiff used to work. They all know Plaintiff and had substantial

4

contact with him during the course of his employment. For reasons of safety and privacy, they

5

do not want Plaintiff to know where they live.

6 7 8 9

Jennifer Abraham is a physician. Her declaration recites that Plaintiff assaulted her verbally several times and physically assaulted another physician at Kern Medical Center. She

I, had several

interactions

considers

to be emotional, confrontational

and arrogant and does not trust him. She has privacy and safety concerns for her children and

10

family and does not want Plaintiff to know where she lives. She is available at her work address

11

and can be contacted through Defendants' legal counsel.

12

Jane Thornton is a SUJlerVl';or

the Pathology Laboratory WhFfF

used to

13

She considers him to be emotional and confrontational and does not want Plaintiff to know

14

where she lives. She considers her personal life to be private. She is available at the work

15

address that has been disclosed and through Defendants' legal counsel.

16

The other three employee, Toni Smith, Michelle Burris and Denise Long, all recite

17

privacy concerns and a desire to keep their work lives separate from their personal lives. None

18

of them want Plaintiff to know where they live and all are available at their work addresses and

19

through Defendants' legal counsel.

20 21 22

Defendants believe every employee listed in the initial disclosures would express similar concerns if asked. Defendants only submitted five declarations for efficiency reasons. Protecting employee home addresses will not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff has actual

23

addresses for every employee witness. Plaintiff also has individual telephone numbers. He has

24

the Defendants' assurances that all the employees will be made available. He has, in short,

25

guaranteed access to every employee witness. There is no reason to order superfluous

26

disclosures ofredundant personal address information, certainly not in the face ofthe privacy

27

and safety concerns that have been expressed.

28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE

3

I

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

Document 57

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff has alleged a hostile work environment. The Defendants have alleged that, to

2

the extent the work environment was hostile, Plaintiff was responsible for it. Emotions continue

3

to run strong over Plaintiff s behavior at Kern Medical Center. Several employees remain afraid

4

of him. There is no reason to risk taking those emotions from the workplace and injecting them

5

into individual, private lives - certainly not when Rule 26 has been fully satisfied through the

6

disclosures that have been made. One might ask why Plaintiff is so determined to learn where

7

individual employees live when he already has complete information with which to contact them.

8

PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUING DEMAND FOR "HOME" ADDRESSES IS UNREASONABLE

9

10 II

Although Defendants have attempted to resolve this home address dispute through a prolonged exchange of correspondence with Plaintiff s counsel, . Plaintiffs dernaIJds

ilUUilll)

issue remains unresolved an

br;come more extreme as

13

unfolded. Plaintiff eontinues to seek an order compelling disclosure of home addresses as well

14

as sanctions against Defendants for refusing to disclose them. Despite the meet-and-confer

IS

process on the initial disclosures, Plaintiff has just served a request for production of documents

16

on Defendants that also seeks discovery of home addresses. Plaintiff s position is manifestly not

17

in good faith and is entirely unjustified.

IV.

18

DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR RESONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES

19

20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27

28

required by Rule 26 or the discovery rules and in light of the concerns that employees at Kern Medical Center still harbor over Plaintiff s behavior and their personal safety, Defendants have no alternative but to seek protection of their home addresses. Defendants should be awarded their reasonable attorneys fees incurred in prosecuting this motion. III III III III

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE

4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG 1 2

Document 57

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 5 of 5

Wherefore, Defendants request that this Court grant a protective order protecting the home addresses of County employees from disclosure or discovery to Plaintiff.

3 4

Respectfully submitted,

5 6

Dated: October 12, 2007

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A WASSER

7 8

9 10

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

11

12

13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE

5