97 Kc Mx Protective Order Rog2

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

2 3 4 5

Document 97

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fmc (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasserCcDmi\rkwasser.com Bernard i KERi'J

6 7 8

I Mark 1115 T~~~?~~, fWlclHle

[7,,,,,,,,1-

Bakersfield, CA Phone: (661 868-3800 (661) E-mail: mnlalllom:(CI)I~o

9 10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT

14

CALIFORNIA

15

No,: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-

16

) )

17

) DEFENDANTS' ) AND MOTION FOR A ) ORDER RE: FURTHER

18 19 20 21 22 23

et Defendants,

) ) 2008 ) Date: April 9:30 a.m, ) ) Place: u.s. Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8 )

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

24

TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

25

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 28, 2008 at 9:30 a,m, or as soon thereafter as the th

26

matter can be heard in the courtroom of the above-referenced Court at 1300 18 Street,

27

Bakersfield, California, Defendants will, and hereby do, move the Court for a protective order

28

protecting Defendants from having to respond to further interrogatories from Plaintiff. -1DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

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

Document 97

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 2 of 2

The motion will be made on the grounds that, although the Joint Scheduling Order grants 2

Plaintiff "relief' from the 25-interrogatory limitation in Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure, Plaintiff has thus far promulgated 91 "interrogatories" with 124 discrete subparts, for

4

a total of 2! 5 interrogatories. Nothing about this case warrants so many interrogatories.

5

has rejected Defendants' attempts to negotiate a reasonable limit on interrogatories and contends

6

he can c0l1tnme to promulgate interrogatories Wlth01Jt limitation. Because PlaLintiit's latest set

7

interrogatories requests mtorrnatlon that is almost

pnln'p,

Hie IeVaJlt to the

the case.

1

8 success

9 10

this L uelenaams

11

12 13

an alt(1mjJt to fP,n IVPI

a

Slalem,eol re )1 S(lnVel'V Di,iag11eelmelnt 00 or betore Respectfully submitted, 2008

WASSER

LAW

15 16 17

Mark

Wasser et

18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mai!: illll'i5i'~f!illJill:J~~~Qill Bernard C. Barrnann. Sr. KERN COUNTY COL'NSEL Mark Nations. 1115 TruxtonAvenue. Pmn·'h Bakersfield. CA 93301 Phone: (661 868-3800 (661) 00('-3·00,) F-mai!: ffiJ1.aUOm;(Cljco.Ke:m.:;a

9 10 11

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

]4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 16 17

]8 et

19

) Case : 1:07-cv-00026-0WW) ) MEMORANDUM ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN DEFENDANTS' My,..n,,,, ) SUPPORT ) RE: ) )

Defendants.

20 21 22 23 24

) ) Date: April 28, 2008 (Date Cleared by CRD) ) Time: 9:30 a.m. ) Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, ~ Bakersfield Courtroom 8

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

25

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

26

further interrogatories by Plaintiff. Defendants will supplement this memorandum by filing a

27

joint statement re discovery disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 on or before April 23,

28

2008. ·1· DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

1

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to "make any

2 3 4 5

order which justice requires to protect a party" from "undue burden or expense".

i

The Ninth Circuit has written that District Courts have "extensive control" over the

i

discovery process. United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System. Inc.• 666 Fed.2d 364. 369 (9th

1982).

§

6

7

Ninth Circuit noted that a court may be as inventive as the necessities

case require

to carry out

8

Feller;ll Rules

9 10

at p.

";";He'"

sllpIHallO:ll. to serve not more

a wrlitf'"

court Dr

iIltelTOj.;atori.es on

11

Ischeduling order as granting him the right to serve unlimited interrogatories that range far field from any issues 15

those efforts

case. Defendants have tried to negotiate an agreement nnWf'n

unsuccessful. Defendants have already responded to 47 interrogatories

16 17

Rule 33, On March 25,

but

"H'UiU

count as 72 interrogatories.

',en·en a second set

interrogatories

~VH"OUHe of

18 19

20

215, More significant than the

number of interrogatories, however, is the scope of

21

information that Plaintiff is requesting. For example, in the latest set, Plaintiff seeks extensive

22

information about the renewal, non-renewal and length of employment contracts with several

23

physicians at Kern Medical Center - none of whom worked with Plaintiff; extensive information

24

about specific patient files; extensive information about the peer review of other physicians ostensibly related to patient files Plaintiff identifies; extensive information regarding Kern

26

Medical Center policies for reporting and processing claims of physician impairment, substance

27

abuse, cognitive function disorder and emotional disorder; information about "diagnostic errors";

28

and information on the number of cases per day processed by various pathologists in the Kern ·2· DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

I

Medical Center pathology department. Defendants are unable to comprehend any connection

2

between these interrogatories and any issues in this case.

3

Defendants have already responded to extensive discovery. They have produced 26,000

4

pages of documents and they have provided extertSI'ie responses to Plaintiffs first set of

5

interrogatories. meet and confc:r p'rocesl3, Defendants offered to respond to addrtrOl1a1

6

7 8 9

10

interrogatories in return

an agreement establishing the number

rPiPV,lm

interrogatories

serve. For all to rel;pcmd to

seclond set

1 ."","

LL

13

14

15

Mark A. Wasser Attor'ney for Defendants, County of Kern, et at

16 17

18 19 20 21 22

23 24

25 26

27 28 ~3-

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

I 2 3 4

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: mwasser(i1lmarkwasseLcom

Bernard C. Barmann, Sf. , KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Chief Denulv 6 'Mark 1115 Floor 7 Bakersfield, Phone: (661 8 (661) 000-301jj E-mail: mn'al1()lls:'tYco.kel 9 5

10 11

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

]4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 ) Case

16

: 1:07-cv-00026-0\'vI'v-TAG

)

Plaintiff

7

]8

) MOTIONTTy'vn el

19

Defendants.

20 21 22 23 24

) DECLARATION ) IN SUPPORT nFj~Fl'lDA.N

~~1T;ERiRO(;,:IUR[E;

Ii'

) )

) ) ) )

Date: April 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S, Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8

)

) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 ) Trial Date: December 3, 2008 ------------) I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:

25 26 27

I,

I am counsel of record for Defendants I am familiar with this proceeding. The

facts 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 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

1

2.

Defendants have made a good faith effort to meet and confer with Plaintiff in an

2

effort to resolve this dispute. Defendants have offered to respond to additional relevant

3

interrogatories

4

serve. Defendants have offered to

5

All

Defendants

7

discovery disagl'eeJment and

8

Local

9

pn!prl";n

other proposals on how best to resolve

Issue.

Defendants proposals have been rej ected.

3.

6

return for an agreement establishing the number of interrogatories Plaintiff can

prepare and lorwBrrl to the same

statement re on or before

23,2008 pursuant to

L foregoing is true

correct

10

11 12 A. Wasser

J3

J5

16 17 18

9 20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27 28 ·2· DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF