184 d Mpo Depos-rog3 - p Opp

8/14/2019 184 d Mpo Depos-rog3 - p Opp

1/33

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

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

26

27

28

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299

Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Date: August 6, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom

1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Discovery Cut-off: August 18, 2008Date Set for Trial: December 2, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 33


2/33

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1

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

26

27

28

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

protective order.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

declaration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is attached as Exhibit 4.

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

untrue statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3/33


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

26

27

28

6. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prejudiced Plaintiff.

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].

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

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

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

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

hijack Plaintiffs motion to amend and prematurely litigate it in this forum represents an attempt to deny

Plaintiff due process.

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

County of Kern as an additional defendant in Plaintiffs due process claim pursuant toMonell v Dept. of

Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658. TheMonell analysis revolves around whether or not the individua

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

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



4/33


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

26

27

28

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

issue.

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

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

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

Plaintiffs 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.

Moreover, Plaintiffs past depositions have been exceedingly probative. For instance, Plaintiffs

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

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

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

10. Plaintiffs interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded almost

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

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

Plaintiffs 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.

Moreover, Plaintiffs interrogatories have been exceedingly probative. And this Court agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

now.

11. It is the wasteful nature of Plaintiffs discovery that requires intervention from the Cour

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

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

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,



5/33


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

26

27

28

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

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

and complicated requires extensive written discovery. Restricting Plaintiffs right to written discovery

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

Moreover, there has been nothing wasteful about Plaintiffs discovery efforts. The only thing

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

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

set of rules than Plaintiff.

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

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

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

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

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

mislead the Court.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither statement is true.

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

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

availability:

Dr. Reading: July 11, 18

Ms. Rizzardi: July 7-11, 14-16

Dr. Weiss: August 1-9



6/33


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

26

27

28

Ms. Levison: July 14

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

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

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

which belies defense counsels 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 caseon July 18. So, those dates do not work for me. If we postpone the July 14 hearing onthe motion to transfer then I can do Levison on the 14th. (See Exh. 1)(emphasisadded).

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

deposition. Plaintiff had assumed defense counsel could be taken at his word; Ms. Levison therefore

rearranged her schedule to make herself available for deposition on July 14. Ultimately, Defendants did

not bother to show up or even cancel the deposition ahead of time, inconveniencing Ms. Levison and

Plaintiff. Defendants never bothered to notice or cancel the other depositions either.

19. Defendants then requested a second set of dates of availability for Plaintiffs experts. In

emails dated July 21 and 30, Plaintiff provided the following dates, which were before the discovery cu

off:

Dr. Reading: August 4, 6, 7

Ms. Rizzardi: August 1, 5-8, 12, 13

Ms. Levison: August 15

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

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

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

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

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

decided to set the depositions of Dr. Reading and Ms. Rizzardi for August 12 and 14, respectively.

These are dates on which they are unavailable, as Plaintiff had previously informed Defendants. Plaintif

has filed a motion for protective order regarding these depositions that seeks sanctions (Doc. 175).



7/33


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

26

27

28

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

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

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

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

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

breaches of his duties as an officer of the Court.

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.

Executed on: August 1, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant



8/33

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

26

27

28

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

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

EXHIBIT 2. Emails between parties, dated July 22 and 30 of 2008

EXHIBIT 3. Defendants expert deposition subpoenas

EXHIBIT 4. Defendants fax of July 31, 2008



9/33

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

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 1

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



10/33

1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:21 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Levison deposition

Mark,

Ms.LevisonisavailabletobedeposedonJuly14.Letmeknowifthatworksforyou.Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E

E M P L O Y M E N T L A W

5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3

T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]

W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.comB 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 thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.



11/33

2

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

To: [email protected]: Dr. Reading

Mark,

IjustgotoffthephonewithDr.Reading.HesavailableonJuly11and18.Pleaseletmeknowwhatworksforyou.Itma

makesenseforyoutocreateamastercalendarwiththetentativedepodatesofalldeponentsforPlaintiffand

Defendant,sincemostofthedeponentsareonyourside.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


E M P L O Y M E N T L A W5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0

L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]





12/33

1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Depositions

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Mark,

IaskedyoufordatesofavailabilitytodeposeyourexpertslastMonday.Oneweeklater,Ivereceivedonedatefromyo

July7 forDr.Burchuk,andnothingmore.AfterIexplainedImnotavailableonJuly7,Ididntbackheardfromyou.

Itshouldnttakethislongtogivemedatesofavailabilityforyourexperts.Iwillgoaheadandnoticetheirdepositions

todaysincemyattempttoworkthedatesoutwithyouhasfailed.

Itisunfortunatethatyouareunwillingtocooperatewithmeonsomethingassimpleasschedulingexpertdepos,butit

comesasnosurprisegivenyourconductinthisactiontodate.

IhaveheardbackfromMs.Rizzardi.Sheisavailabletobedeposedallofnextweek,from7/7to7/11,andalsoon7/14

to7/16.Atthispoint,ImstilltryingtoreachDr.Weiss,whowastravelinglastIheard.Ihopetohearbackfromhim

soonthough.IvealreadysuppliedyoudatesforDr.ReadingandMs.Levisonbuthaventheardbackfromyou.

Also,Plaintiffwouldliketodepose:

SupervisorRayWatson(4hours)

SupervisorBarbaraPatrick(4hours)

PeterBryan(fullday)

DavidCulberson(4hours)

IrwinHarris(fullday)

ScottRagland

(4

hours)

JenniferAbraham(4hours)

RoyceJohnson(4hours)

JosephMansour(4hours)

MaureenMartin(4hours)

AlbertMcBride(4hours)

PhilipDutt(fullday)

SavitaShertudke(4hours)

SandraChester(4hours)

ToniSmith(4hours)

KarenBarnes(fullday)

ArleneRamos

Aninion

(4

hours)

IfitwouldeaseschedulingconflictsforDefendants,Plaintiffiswillingtowaivethestipulationtohavingdeposonlyon

T/W/Thandiswillingtoconsideranydayoftheweek.

PleaseletmeknownolaterthanWednesdaywherethingsstandregardingtheforegoing.Timeisrunningshortand

PlaintiffcannotwaitaweekforDefendantstocomebacktoPlaintiffwithnothingmorethanasingledateforasingle

deponent.

Sincerely,



13/33

1

Eugene D. Lee

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

Mark,

WeisssaidhesavailablefirstweekofAugust.YounowhavedatesofavailabilityonallofPlaintiffsexperts.

IstillneedtoheardatesfromyouonthenonexpertdeposandDr.Allen.Isuggestwehandleeverythingatonce.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


E M P L O Y M E N T L A W5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0

L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]



From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:34 PMTo: [email protected]: 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 amin 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 dnot work for me. If we postpone the July 14 hearing on the motion to transfer then I can do Levison on the 14

th.

So, we have possible dates for Sarkisian, Levison and Burchuk. We still need dates for Reading, Weiss and Allen.

Mark



14/33


15/33

1

Eugene D. Lee

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

Gene,

Lets 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 18That 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 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Expert depos

Mark,

Nootherexpertdeposhavebeenset.WevenoticedDr.BurchukforAug.4.Werestillwaitingondatesfortheother

defenseexperts.YourasstmentionedIwasawareDr.Burchukwasonvacation.Idontknowwherethatcamefrom.

Dr.Readinghasgivenmethefollowingdates:August4,6,7

Ms.Rizzardi

has

said:

August

1,

58,

12,

13.

Ms.Levisonwillgetbacktomeinthenextfewdays.Shehasotherclientapptssheisjugglingatthemoment.

ImstillwaitingforDr.Weisstogetbacktome.

Thecalendarsfortheaboveexpertswillfillupquicklysoyouneedtogetbacktomequicklyifyouwantanyofthem.

WestillneedtoworkoutcompensationforMs.Levisonstimeduetohercanceleddepo.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~








16/33

1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:13 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Expert Depos

Mark,

Thankyouforyourfaxedexpertdepositionsubpoenas.IvereviewedthemandcheckedwithPlaintiffsexperts.NoneothedepositiondatesyouselectedfellonthedatesofavailabilityIhadpreviouslysentyounotonce,buttwice.Despiteyourdisgracefullackofprofessionalismandregardforthebusyschedulesofothers,IhavegoneaheadandaskedPlaintiffsexpertstotrytoaccommodatethedepositiondatesyouselected.Unfortunately,onlyMs.Levisonhasindicatedsheisavailableonthedateyousetforherdeposition.NoneofPlaintiffsotherexpertsareavailableonthedatesyouunilaterallychose.Thisemail(andthemanyprioremailsIhavesentyouregardingexpertdepositionscheduling)constitutesPlaintiffsattempttomeetandconferwithDefendantsonschedulingofdepositionsofPlaintiffsexpertspriortoPlaintiffsfilingamotionforprotectiveorder.Plaintiffwillfilethemotiontomorrow.PleaseletmeknowwhetherDefendantsarewillingtostipulatetoshorteningtimeonthemotion.UnlikeDefendants,Plaintiffdoesnotintendtostaytheexpertdepositionsintheabsenceofacourtorder.Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~









17/33

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

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 3

Defendants expert deposition subpoenas



18/33

Jul 29 08 09:41 a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, Califomia 95814Office 916-444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405

FaxTo: Eugene LeeFax: (213) 596-0487Phone: (213) 992-3299

From: Amy RemlyPages: 9 (including cover page)Date: 7/29/08

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:

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.


29 08 09:41 a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, Califomia 95814Office 916-444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405


From: Amy RemlyPages: 9 (including cover page)Date: 7/29/08

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:

D Urgent o ForReview 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.


19/33

Jul 29 08 09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2

~ '"\( &'?i ' l ) ' !194) WhpQtlJ3 in aCivil CiC'jHIssued by the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP.vCountyof Kern, et aL

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

SUBPOENA 1:'1 A CIVIL CASE

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

o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified below totestifY 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 taking of a depositionin the above case.

PLACE OF DEPOSITION 462 North Linden Drive, Suite 44 5Beverly Hllls, California 90212DATEAND TIME

8/12/2008 10:00 am@' YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at theplace, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

Your entire file on this matter.

PLACE 462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445Beverly Hills, Calitornia 90212DATEAJ\"DTIME81121200810:00 am

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.PREMISES I_D_A_T_E_A_N_D_T_I"_I_E

Any orgal1ization 110t a party to this sui t that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more oflicers,directors, or managing agel1ts, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and rnay set forth, for each person designated, thematters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATUR: AND nTLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ORDEFENDANT) DATE 0 J ~ 712912008ISSUIKG OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS lIND PHONENUMBERMark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, California 95814; (916)444-6400

(See RllleH. Federal Rules o[Civil Pro-cedurc, Parts. C & D I'm n ( ! ~ t page)

I If action is pending in district other than districtof issuance, state district undet case number.



~ A W ~ (Hey 1/24) Sllhpaena In a Civil CWie

Issued by theUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADavid F, Jadwin, 0_0., F.C.A.P.

V.Countyof Kern, et al.

TO: Anthony E. Reading, Ph.D.462 North Linden Drive, Suite 44 5Beverly Hills. California 90212

SUBPOENA 1?'l' A CIVIL CASE

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

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


DATE AND TIME

@ YOU ARECOMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testifY at the taking of a depositionin the above case.

PLACE OF DEPOSITION 462 North Linden Drive, Suite 44 5Beverly Hills, CaliFornia 90212

DATEAND TIME8/1212008 10:00 am

Ii1" YOUARE COMl\1ANDED to produce and pennit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at theplace, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):


PLACE 462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445Beverly Hills, California 90212DATE AJ\DTIME

8!12/2008 10:00 amD YO U ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and t ime specified below,PREMlm L_4.T _ E _ A _ N _ D _ T I _ ~ _ 1 E _

Any organ ization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore offkers,direcwrs, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, thematters on wh ich the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATUR::: AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATEd 0 J ~ 7f2912008ISSUI1\G OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS /\ND PHONE NUMBERMark A. Wasser, La w Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640. Sacramento, California 95814; (916)444-6400

(See Rule 45, Federal R u l ~ s o[C;"i] P r o ~ e d m c , Parts C & D nn nm.:1 page)

l If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district u n d ~ t case Ilumber.


20/33

Jul 29 08 09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3AOKH mO} ) '94} Subpoena in a CiYil Case

SERVEDDATE

7/29/2008

PROOF OF SERVICEPLACE

462 N. Linden Drive, Suite 445, Beverly Hills, CA 90212555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013SERVED ON (pRINT NAME)Anthony E. Reading, Ph.D. and Eugene D. Lee,respectively.SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)Amy Remly

MANNER OF SERV1CEFacsimile and First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Leeper StipulationTITLEAssistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARATION OF SERVERI declare underpenalty ofperjury under the laws ofthcUnited StatesofAmericathatthe foregoing information containedin the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on 7129/2008DATE

ADDRESS OF SERVER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

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

0) A l'lU'ty or an attorney responsihle for the issuance and S : ~ r \ ' i c e or 8s.ubp-oena s:ull take reasonable steps to flvoid imrosing undue burdenQr expenseon a person s l l ~ i o ; : e t to thatsubpoena. The courl on b ~ h < t l r o r w h i c h the subpoena..vas issued shall c n f o r c ~ 1 I 1 1 ~ Lluty and imposeupon the party Of attorneyin breachof this duty an appropriatesan.ction whicllll1ay il,clude, but is not limitedto, lostearnings and reasonable attomer/s fee.

(2) (A) A person commanded La produce and permit inspection and copyingof designated books, papt::rs, documenl5 or tangible things, or inspection ofpremises need not :tppear in peTSon at tbe place ofproduction or inspection unlesscommanded to appear tor .deposition, hearing or triaL

(B) Subject to paragraph (d) {2) of this rule, a person commanded toproduce and permit inspection and copying may, within J4 days after ser\'ice ofsubpoena or before the time. specified for compliance if such time is less lhan 14days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the SUbpoena\vTitten objection to inspection or copying of anyor all of the designated materialsor of lhe premlses, Ifob.iection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall notbe entltled to i m ; p ~ c t and copy materials or inspect the premises except pursuantto an ordercfthc court by which t l J ~ subpoenawas issued. Ifobjection has beenmade, the party servingthe subpoenamay, upon nOlice to the [Jerson cormnandedto produce., move at any time for an o-rder to compel the production. Such anorder to comply pro


21/33

Jul 29 08 09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

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


EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADavid f. Jadwin, D.O, F.C.A.P

V.County of Kern, et al.

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

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

TO: Lawrence M. Weiss, M.D.Divsion of Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center1500 E. Duarte RoadDuarte, California 91010o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in theCnited States District court at the place, date, and time specified below totestifY in the above case,


DATEAl'DTIME

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear atthe place, datc, and time specified below to testifY atthe taking of adepositionin the above case.

PLACEor DEPOSITION 1500 E. Duarte RoadDuarte, California 91010

DATE AND TIME811312008 10:00 am

r i YOCARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copyingof the following documents or objects at thepiace, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):


PLACE 1500 E, Duarte RoadDuarte, California 91010DATE AND TIME

811312008 10:00 amo YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.PREMISES I _ D _ A _ T E _ A _ N _ D _ T _ I ~ _ l E _

Any orgaoization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, thematters on which the person will testilY. Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, 30(b)(6).ISSUINGOFFICER'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE. ~ d C v ~ 712912008ISSUING OFFICER'S NA"IE. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERMark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 9581"1; (916) 444-6400

(SeeRule 45,Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & 0 on mx t pill;e}

If action is pending in district other than districtof issuance, slate district under case number.


ul 29 08 09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

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


EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADavid f. Jadwin, D.O, F.C.A.P



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

TO: Lawrence M. Weiss, M.D.Divsion of Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center1500 E. Duarte RoadDuarte, California 91010o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the Cnited States District court at the place, date, and time specified below totestifY in the above case,


DATEAl'DTIME

YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear atthe place, datc, and time specified below to testifY atthe taking of a depositioin the above case.

PLACE or DEPOSITION 1500 E. Duarte RoadDuarte, California 91010

DATE AND TIME811312008 10:00 am

r i YOCARECOMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at thepiace, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):


PLACE 1500 E, Duarte RoadDuarte, California 91010DATE AND TIME

811312008 10:00 amo YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.PREMISES I _ D _ A _ T E _ A _ N _ D _ T _ I ~ _ l E _

Any orgaoization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, thmatters on which the person will testilY. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE. ~ d C v ~ 712912008ISSUING OFFICER'S NA"IE. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERMark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 9581"1; (916) 444-6400

(SeeRule 45,Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & 0 on mxt pill;e}

If action is pending in district other than districtof issuance, slate district under case number.


22/33

Jul 29 08 09:43a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5: \0&5 (Rey \%DS!!bmeqainoCjvj!C?,'5t

SERVEDDATE

7129/2008

PROOFOF SERVICEPLACE

1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 and555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013SERVED ON (PRrKT NA\-!E)Lawrence M. Weiss, M.D. and Eugene D. Lee,respectively.

SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)Amy Remly

MA.'-JNER OF SERVfCEFacsimile & First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee perStipulationTITLEAssistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARATION OF SERVERI declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws oftheUnited States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained

in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on 7/29/2008DATE

Amy RemlyADDRESS OF SERVER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, PartsC & D:(e) PROTECTfON OF PERSONSSUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

(1) A party or an attorney responsible for dle issuance and service of asubpceml shall t2ke reasonable steps 10 avoid imposing undue burden or expenseon a person sLlbjcct to that subpoena. The coun on behalfofwhich the subpoenawas issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon [he party or attorney in breachof this duty an appropriate sanctionwhich may include, but is not limited to, lostearnings and reasonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A personcommandedto produce and permit inspection and copyingof designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection ofpremises need not appear in person atthe place of production or inspectionunlesscommanded to appear for deposition, bearing or trial.

(B) Subjec-t to paragraph (0) (2) of this rule, a person commanded toproduce Elr.d permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service ofsubpoena or before the time specified for compliance ifsueh t ime is less than 14days after service, serve upon th e party or attorney designated in the subpoenawritten objection to inspectionor copying of any or all of the designatedmaterialsor oHhe premises. If objection is made, th e party serving the subpoena shall notbe entitled to inspect and copymaterials or inspectthe premises except pursuantto anorder of the court by which the subpoenawas. issued. [fobjection has beenmade, the party servingthe subpoenamay, upon notice to the person commandedto produce , move at any t ime for an order to compel the production. Such anorder to com[Jly production shall protect any person ,: ...ho is not a par ty or anoffL::er or a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and-copying commanded.

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shallquash or modify the subpoena if it(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance,(ii) requires a person who is not a par ty or an officer of a party to

travel to a placemore than 100 miles from the placewhere that person resides, isemployed or regularly transacts business in person, except tha t, subject to theprovisions of clause (c) (3) (B) (ii i) of this rule, such a p ~ r s o n may in order toattend

trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the stmc in which thtrial is held, or

(lii) requires disclosure ofprivilcgcdor othe-r proti.':cted matter andno exception orwaiver applies., or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.(B) If a sub[Joena

(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret Dr other confidentiaresearch, development, or commercinl infunnation, or( ii ) requi res disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion -o

information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resultinfrom t h expert's study made not atthe request of any party, or

(ii i) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party toincur s-ubstamial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the courmay, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modifythe subpoena, or, if the par ty in whose behalf the subpoena is i ssued showssubstantial need for the tes timony or material that cannot be otheT\'lIise mewithout undue hardship and assures tha t the person to ',""hom the subpoena iaddressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance oproduction ollly upon specified conditions.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDlNG TO SUBPOENA.

(I ) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall producthem as they an: k ~ p t in the usual course of business or shall o r g a n i ~ and labethem to -correspond with the categories in the demand.

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is: \vithheld on a claim that it iprivileged or subject to protection as trial preparationmaterials, the claim shall bemade expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of thedocuments,communications,or things not pmdu\:-edthat is sufficientto enable thdemanding party to contest the claim.


Jul 29 08 09:43a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5MRS (Rex I (24) Subpoena in 11 Cry;] CV5t

SERVEDDATE

7/29/2008

PROOF OF SERVrCEPLACE

1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 and555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100. Los Angeles, CA 90013SERVED ON (PR[KT NAvrE)Lawrence M. Weiss, M.D. and Eugene D. Lee,respectively.

SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)Amy Remly

MA.'lNER OF SERvrCEFacsimile & First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee perStipulationTITLEAssistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARAnON OF SERVERI declare under penalty ofperjury 11l1derthe laws of th e United States ofAmericathat the foregoing information contained


Executed on 7f29/2008DATE


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

(1) A party or an attDrney respons ib le for the issuance and service of asubpcenll shall take reasonable steps 10 avoid imposing undue burden or ~ x p e n s eon a person subjectto that subpoena. The coun on behalfofwhich the subpoenawas issuedshall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney In breachof this duty an appropriate sanctionwhich mOlY include, bu t is not limited to, lostearnings and reasonable attorney's fee.

(2) (A) A personcommandedto produce andpermIt inspection and copyingof designated books, rapers. documents or tangible things, or inspection ofpremises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unlesscommanded to appear for depllsition, hearing or trial.

(B) SUbjec.t to paragraph (d) (2) of thiS rule, a person commanded toprOdllCC ar.d permit inspcctlDn and copying may, within 14 days after service ofsubpoena or before the time specified for comphance ifsuch t ime is less than 14days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoenawrinen objecrion to inspection or copy ing of any or all cfthe desi gnatedmaterial5Dr of the premises. IfobJeetion is made, the party serving the subpoena shall notbe entitled to inspect and copy materials or inspect the premises except pursuantto anorder of the court by which the subpoena was issued. [[objection has beenmade, the party servingthe subpoenamay, upon notice to the person commandedto produce . move at any lLme for an order to compel the production. Such anorder to comply production shall protect any person .vho is not a pa rty or anoffLcer of a party from significanl expense resulting from the inspection andcopying commanded.

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

(j) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance,(ii) requires a person who is not a par ty or an officer of a par ty to

travel to a place more than 100 miles from the placewhere that person resides, isemployed or regularly transacts business in person, except mat , subject to theprovisions of c lause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person may i n order toattend

trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the stmc in which thtrial is held, or

(li i) requires disclosure of privileged or other p r o l ~ c t e d matter andno exception orwaiver applies, or(iv) subjects a person to undue burol:rl.

(B) If a sub[Joena(i) requires disclosure of a t rade s ec ret or other confidentiaresearch, development, or commercial infunnalion, or( ii ) requi res d isclosure of an unretained expert's opinion D

information no! describingspecific events or occurrences in elispute and resultinfrom the ex-pert's study made not at the request of any party, or(lii) requires aperson who is no t a party or an officer of a party toincur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial , the coumay, to protect a person subjecl to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modifythe subpoena, or, i f th" party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued showssubstmltial Deed for the tes timony or material that cannot be [ltherwise mewithout undue hardship and assures tha t the person to whom the subpoena iaddressed win be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance DproduClion only upon specified conditions.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA.

(I ) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall producthem as they an: kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and labethem tocorrespond with lhe categories in the demand.

(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it iprivileged or subjectto protection as trial preparationmaterials, the claim shall bmade e x p r ~ s l y and shall be supported by a description of the nature of thedocuments, communications, or things not produ


23/33


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


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


DISTRlCTOF CALIFORNIA

SUBPOENA I A CIVIL CASE

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

TO: Stephanie Rizzardi PearsonRizzardi Pearson Associates140 South Lake Avenue, Suite 230Pasadena, California 91101o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified below to

testi lY in the above case.PLACE OF TESTIMO':D TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ORDEFENDANT) DATE

~ . ? P c ' N ~ 7/29/2008I"SLING OFfICER'S NAME. ADDRESS A'ID PHO"fE KUMBERMark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95B1i; (916) 444-6400

(See Rule 45, FederalRules ofCivil Proc:eJure. Parts C & D Ollllex! p.age)

I If action is pending in district other than dislrictof issuance, state district under case number.


24/33

Jul 29 08 09:43a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.7Aosa mey [{zo SubpQena In a Ciyjl C;lse

DilTEPROOF OF SERVICE

PLACE

SERVED 7/29/2008 140 South Lake Ave, Suite 230, Pasadena, CA 91101555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013SERVED ON (PRINT NA!vlE)Stephanie Rizzardi Pearson and Eugene D. Lee,respectiveIy,SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)Amy Remly

MA."lNER OF SERVICEFacsimile & First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee perStipulationTITLEAssistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARA110)/ OF SERVERI declare underpenalty ofperjury underthe lawsoftheUnited States ofAmericathat the foregoing information contained




Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D:(e) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS

(1) A pai'ty or an attorney re:;ponsible for the issuance and service of asubpoena shall take reasonable steps to a\'cid imposing undue burden or ex:penseon a person subjectto that subpoena. The court on behalfofwhich the subpoenawas issued s.hall enfcrcethis duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breachof this duty an appropriate sanction which may include, but is not limited to, lostcarnings and reasonable attorney's fcc.

(2) (A) A person commanded to produce and pennit inspection and copyingof dC5ignated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection ofpremi5es need not appear inperson atthe place ofproducl.ion or Inspection unle5Scommanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial

(8 ) Sllbject to paragraph (d) (2) ofthis rule, a person commanded toproduce and permit inspection and copyingmay, witl1in 14 days afterservice ofsubpoena or before the time specifLt:d fOJ campi iance ifsuch t ime is less than 14days after service; serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena\/I'ritte:n objection to Inspection Qr copying of any or all ofthe designatedmaterialsDr ol"lhe premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoenashall notbe entitled to inspect and copy material:; or inspecl the premises except pursuantto anorder of the court by WhlCh the subpoena was issued. If objection has beenmade, tile party sen.'ing the subpoenamay, upon notice to the person commandedlo produce, move at any time for an order to compel the prOduct ion , Such anorder to comply production shall protect any person who i:s not a party or anofficer of a party from significant expense resultmg from the inspection rmdcopying c:mmmnded,

(3) (A) On t imelymotion , the court by which it subpoenawas issued shallqUflsh or mlldify the subpoena ifH

(i) fails to allow reasonable time tor compliance,(li) requires u personwho is not a party OJ .an officer of a party to

t ravel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where tbat person resides, isemployed or regularly transacts business in perscm, except that, subject to theprovision'> of clause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person may in order toattend

trial be commanded to t ravel from uny such place within the state in ""hich thetrial is held, or(iii) requlres disclosure ofpriYilegcd or other protected matter and

no exception or waiver applies:, or( iv) subjects Cl person lo undue burden.

(B) If a subpoena0) requires. disclosure of a trade secret or other confidentia

research, development, or commercial informalion, or( ii) requi res d isclosure of an unretained expert's opinion o

informationnot describing specific events or oceurrences in dispute and resultingfrom the cxpert"s study made not a t the request of any party, or

(iii) requires a person who is riol a party or an officer 0 fa party toincur subst,mtial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend Irial, the courmay, to prote


25/33


Issued by th eUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.CA P.

v.Countyof Kern, et al.SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

Cas e N umber:! 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

TO : Regina LevisonLevison Search AssociatesPost Office Box 1133EI Dorado, California 95623o 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 O f TESTIMONY COURTROOM

DATE AND TIME

@' YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a depositionill the above case.

PLACE OF D E P o ~ m O N 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento. California 96814

DATE AND TIME8/15/2008 10:00 am

@' YOU ARECOMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at theplace, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):


PLACE 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, California 95814DATE AND TIME8/15/2008 10:00 am

PREMISESo VOl: ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.IDATE AND TIME------------------------Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore ollicers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set f o r t h ~ for each person designated, the

matters on which the person will testifY. Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, 30(b)(6).DATE

7/29/2008ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDR[SS AND PHONE ;-';UMBERMark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, California 95814; (916)444-6400

(See Rule 45, Federnl Rules ofCi.vil Pruccdllre, Parts. C & !J Oll next paf!c)

1I f action is pending in district other thEm district of issuance, state district under case number.



e,gn (Rev ] (94) Subpoena in ij Civil CnseIssued by the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP.v.Countyof Kern, et al.


Case Nmnber: 1 1:07-cv-G0026-0WW-TAG

TO: Regina LevisonLevison Search AssociatesPost Office Box 1133EI Dorado. California 95623o 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 or TESTIMONY COURTROOM

DATE AND TIME

[i f YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear atthe place, date, and time specified below to testifY at the taking ofa depositionin the above case.

PLACE OF DErO::J1TION 400 Capitol Mall. Suite 2640Sacramento. Califomia 95814

DATEAND TIME8/15/2008 10:00 am

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

Your entire f ile on this matter.

PLi\CE 400 C;;Jpitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, California 95814DATE AND TlME

8/1512008 10:00 amo VOL" ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.'ReMISES IATE AND TIME

Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shal1 designate one ormore otIicers,directors, ormanaging agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, thematters on which the person 'will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).rSSUING orrICER'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ORDEfENDANT) DATE~ 4 J ~ 712912008ISSUINGOFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE XUMBERMark A Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, California 95814; (916)444-6400

(See Rule 45, Feder,,1 Rilles of Civil P r u c e d ~ r e , Parts C & D Oll next p a g ~ )

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


26/33

Jut 29 08 09:44a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.9AGSR mey 1/94) SlIbpoena in a Ciyjl Case

PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVEDDATE

7/29/2008PLACEP.O. Box 1133, EI Dorado, CA 95623 and555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013

SERVED ON (PRINT NAME)Regina Levison and Eugene D. Lee1espectively.SERVED BY (PRJNT NAME)Amy Remly

MANNER OF SERVICEFacsimile and First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Leeper StipulationTITLE

Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

DECLARATION OF SERVERI declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe1;nitedStates ofAmericathat the foregoing infonnation containedin the Proof of Service is true and correct.



Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & 0:(e) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

( l} A party or an at torney responsib le for the is.suance and service of "-subpoena shall take rea50nable steps to avoid imposing undue burdenor expenseon aperson subject to that subpoena_ The COtHton behalf ofwhich the subpoenawas issuedshall enforcethis dutynnd impose upon the party or attorney in breachof this duty an appropriate sanction which may i n c l u d ~ , but is not limited to, lostearnings and reElSonable attorney's. fee.

(2) (A:I A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copyingof designated books, papers, dOCl.lments Or tangible things, or inspection ofpremises need not appear inperson atthe place of production or inspection unlessconunanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Subject to paragraph (d) (2) of thi s rule, a person commanded toproduce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service ofsubpoena Dr before the time specified for compliance i f such time is less than 14days after service, serve UpOLl the party or attorney designated in the subpoenawriLto::n objection to inspection or copyingof an)' or all ofthc designatedmaterialsor of the premises. Ir objection is made, the party serving the subpoena s.hall notbe entitleD to insp;>::t and copy materials or inspect the premises except pursuantto an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. [[objection has beenmade, the party serving Lhe subpoenamay, upon notice tollie perSOfl commandedto produce, move at any time tor an order to compel the production. Such anorder to comply production shall protect ~ person who is not a party or anofticer of a party from signific.ant expense resulting from the inspection andcopying commanded.

(3) (A) On limely motion, the coun by which a subpot:nawas issued s . h ~ l 1quash or modify the subpoena jf it

(i ) fails to allo\-v reasonable: time for compliance,(ii) requires apcrson who is. not a par ty or an officer of a par ty to

travel to a place more thunlUO miles from the placewhere that persoLl reside:;, isemployed or regularly t r a n ~ a e ~ business in person, except that, subject to theprovisions of claus.e (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a per:;;on may in order toattend

trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which thetrial is held, or(ii i) requires disclosure of privilegedor otherprotectedmatter andno exception orwaiver applies., fJf(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) If a subpoenaco requires disclosure of a trade secret or other .;;:onfidentia

research, development, or commercial information, or(ii) requires disclosure of an unretaltled npert 's opinion orinformation not describingspecific: e ....ents or occurrences in dispute and resultingfrom the expert's study made not at the request of any party, Dr(iii) requires a person who is not a Darty or an officer of a party toincur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial , t ile eaunmay, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modifythe subpoena, or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is i ~ s u e d shows asubstantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise mewithout undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena isaddress.ed will be reasonabiy compensated, the ~ O l l r t may order appearance orpofOductl0n only upon specified conditions.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA

(I ) A person responding to a subpoena to produce document::: shall producethem l1S they are kept in the usual course or business or shall organize Gnd labelthem to correspond '.Vith the caLegories in the demand.

(2) When informalion subjectto a subpoena is withheld 011 a claim that it ispriVilege;:! or 5ubjeetto protection as trinl p r e p a r a l ~ o [ J Illateriats, the c1aimshUil bemade expressly and sha ll be ~ l , . I p p a r t e d by a description of the nalure of thedocuments, eonununications,orlhings notproducedthat is sufficienttoenable thedemanding party to conlest the claim.


Jul 29 08 09:44a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.9A08!l {Hcy 1:941 SllhpQena In a Cjyil cm

PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVEDDATE

7/29/2008PLACE

P,O. Box 1133, EI Dorado, CA 95623 and555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013SERVED ON (PRINT NAME)Regina Levison and Eugene D. Leefspectively.SERVED BY (PRJNT NAME)Amy Remly

MANNER OF SERVICEFacsimile and First C ~ a s s U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Leeper StipulationTITLEAssistant to MarkA. Wasser

DECLARAnON OF SERVERI declare under penaltyofperjury under the laws ofthe 1;nited StatesofAmerica that the foregoing infonnation contained



Amy RemlyADDRESS OF SERVER

400 Capitol MaH, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95B14

Rule 45, Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Parts C & D:(c) PROTECT[ON OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.

( 1) A par ty o r an aHorney r es pons ib le for the issuance and servio: : of asubpoena shall take rea>onable steps to avoid imposing undue burdenor expenseon a person subjcctto that subpoena. The cOllrton behalfofwhich the subpoenawas issued shall enforce thlS duty nnd impose upon the party or attorney in breacho1't11is duty an appropriate sanctionwhichmay include, but is [ lOt limited to, lostearnings and reEISonable attorney', fec.

(2) (Al A person cDrrunanded to produce and permit inspection and copyingof deslgnated books, papers, dOCLlments or tangible things. or inspeclion ofpremises need not appear inperson atthe place ofproduction or inspection unlesscommanded to appear for deposition, hearing or triaL

(8 ) Subject to paragraph (d) (2) of this rule, a person commanded wproduce and permit inspection and copying may, WIthin 14 days after SCf\iice ofsubpoena Dr before the bme specif ied for compliance if such t ime is less than 14days after serVice, serve UpOLl the party or attorney designated in the subpoenawritt.n objection to inspectionor c{)pyingofany or all ofthc designated materialsor oflhc premises [ f objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall no tbe entitleD to i n 5 1 X ~ t and c(lPY materials or lDSpect the prcmises except pursuantt o an order of the court by which tllcsubpoena was issued. If obJection has beenmade, the party serving Lhe subpoenamay, upon notice totheperso[\ commandedto produce, moye at any t ime tor an order to compel the production. Such anorder to comply production shall protect my person who is not a part y or anofticer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection andcopying commanded.

(3) (A) On t imely mot ion, the court hy which a subpoenawas issued shallquash or ttlodiJY thlJ subpoena ifit

(i) fails to all 01-'': reasonable time for compliance,(ii) requires a person who i, not a part y or an officer 01 a par ty to

travel to a plaiX: more Lhl\Il IUO miles from the placewhere thal persoll resides, isemployed or regularly transacts business in person, cxcepl t haI, subject to theprovisions of clause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a per son may in order toattend

trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the sta te in which thetrial is held, or(iii) requjres disclosure oCprivi1e,ged Or other protected matter and

no exception or waiver applies, Dr(iv) subject; a person 10 undue burden.

(6) If a subpoena(i ) r equi re s d is cl os ur e of a tr ade s ec re t or other ~ o n f i d e n t i a l

research, de\'elopment, or commercill! information. or(ii) requires disclosure of an unretamed expert's opinion or

llIfOTmation not describingspecific events or occurrences in dispute and resultingf rom the expert's study made no t at lhe request of any party, or

(IiI) requires a person who is not a [larty or an officer of aparty toincur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend lrial , the courmay, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modifythe ,ubpoena, or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued ,hows a,ubstantial need fDr the tes timony or mater ia l that cannot be otherwise metwithout undue hardship and assures that t he per son to whom rhe subpoena isaddressed will he reasonably compensated, the courtmay order appearance orrroduction only upon specified conditions.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA

(I ) A person respondillg to u s u b p o e n ~ tD produce d o c u m e n t ~ shall producethem llS they are kept in the usual course or husiness or shall organize and labethem to corrcspon d with the caLegories in the demand.(2) When intormation subject to a subpoctla is withheld al l a cla im that it is

pnvjlege{\ or ,ubJect to prole-etion as trilll preparahon materials, the daimshUlI bemade expressly and shall be ~ \ - I p p a r t e d by a description or the nature of thedocuments, connnunications,orthingsnot produced that issuficlentto enablethedemanding party to contest the claim


27/33

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

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 4

Defendants fax of July 31, 2008



28/33

31 08 04:58p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916-444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405


From: Amy RemlyPages: 6 (including cover page)Date: 7/31108

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern cc:o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle-Comments:Attached pko!ase find the Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement Re: Defendants' Motion for aProtective Order.


31 08 04:58p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916-444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405


From: Amy RemlyPages: 6 (including cover page)Date: 7/31108

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern cc:o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle-Comments:Attached pko!ase find the Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement Re: Defendants' Motion for aProtective Order.


29/33

31 08 04:59p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2

1 Eug"n" D. L"" SB# 236812LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE2 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeks, ell. 900133 Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-04874 E-mail: eleeriVLOELcom5 Attorneys for PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O.6 Mark A. Wasser ell. SB #060160LAW OFFICES OFMARKA. WASSER7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite I100Sacramento, ell. 958148 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-64059 E-mail: mwasserrtV.markwasser.com

10 Bernard C. Barman, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL11 Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy1115 TrLlxlLlll Avenue, Fourth Floor12 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-380013 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,15 Jennifer Abrallanl, Scott Ragland, Tom Smith and William Roy16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA18 DAvlD F. JADWIK, D.O. Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG1920 vs.

Plaintiff, JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERYDISAGREEM:ENT RE: DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER21 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,22 Defendants.23

Date:Time:Place: U.S, Bankruptcy Courthouse,Bakersfield Courtroom 8Complaint Piled: January 5, 200724 Trial Date August 26, 2008

2S This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-26 251 (a) in advancc of the August 6, 2008 hearing on Defendants' motion for protective order.2728

JOINT STATEMENTRE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTI


: p Mark Wasser 91 -444- 40 p.2

1 Eug"n" D. L"" SB# 236812LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE2 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeks, ell. 900133 Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-04874 E-mail: eleeriVLOELcom5 Attorneys for PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O.6 Mark A. Wasser ell. SB #060160LAW OFFICES OFMARKA. WASSER7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite I100Sacramento, ell. 958148 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-64059 E-mail: mwasserrtV.markwasser.com

10 Bernard C. Barman, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL11 Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy1115 TrLlxlLlll Avenue, Fourth Floor12 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-380013 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,15 Jennifer Abrallanl, Scott Ragland, Tom Smith and William Roy16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA18 DAvlD F. JADWIK, D.O. Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG1920 vs.

Plaintiff, JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERYDISAGREEM:ENT RE: DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER21 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,22 Defendants.23

Date:Time:Place: U.S, Bankruptcy Courthouse,Bakersfield Courtroom 8Complaint Piled: January 5, 200724 Trial Date August 26, 2008

2S This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-26 251 (a) in advancc of the August 6, 2008 hearing on Defendants' motion for protective order.2728

JOINT STATEMENTRE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTI


30/33

Jul 31 08 04:59p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3

I.2 Statement ofDiseovery Disagreement3 Plaintiff has noticed 17 a d d i t i o n a ~ depositions on top of the 16 he has already taken. He4 has also indicated the desire to depose at least some ofDefendants' experts and supplemental5 experts. This will apparently lead to another 5 or 6 depositions. That would bring the total6 number of depositions by Plaintiff to more than 40.7 Defendants have so far responded to two sets of interrogatories, consisting of 918 interrogatories, and Plaintitfhas now served another set of7 interrogatories, the first9 interrogatory ofwhich asks Defendants to provide, among other things, all facts upon which

10 Defendants base their responses to 290 requests for admission. Thus, the tirst interrogatory,11 alone, requires potentially 290 separate responses. Other interrogatories in the third set require12 similarly compound responses.13 The parties had an agreement that Plaintiffwould not serve any interrogatories after14 Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation ofIS that agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiffs umeasonable discowry demands.16 Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of17 depositions and interrogatories Plaintiffhas taken and served. When Defendants agreed to give18 Plaintiff "relief' from the limitations established in Rules 30 and 33 they did not consent to19 unlimited depositions and interrogatOlies, particularly of the wasteful and useless nature Plaintiff20 has purslled.21 Further, the depositions Plaintiffwallts to take cannot be completed before the discovery22 cut-off. PlaintitI has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-offhut Defel1dants are23 unwilling to do so. Waiving the discovery cut-off effectively jeopardizes the Scheduling Order24 and Defendants are unwilling to do that without action hy the Court25 There is another, more significant issue. Plaintiffhas noticed a motion to mnend his26 complaint but that motion will not be heard until September 8. The proposed amendment adds at27 least two new theories of recovery against the County. It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to28

JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY D1SAGREE1VlENT2



I.2 Statement ofDiseovery Disagreement3 Plaintiff has noticed 17 a d d i t i o n a ~ depositions on top of the 16 he has already taken. He4 has also indicated the desire to depose at least some ofDefendants' experts and supplemental5 experts. This will apparently lead to another 5 or 6 depositions. That would bring the total6 number of depositions by Plaintiff to more than 40.7 Defendants have so far responded to two sets of interrogatories, consisting of 918 interrogatories, and Plaintitfhas now served another set of7 interrogatories, the first9 interrogatory ofwhich asks Defendants to provide, among other things, all facts upon which

10 Defendants base their responses to 290 requests for admission. Thus, the tirst interrogatory,11 alone, requires potentially 290 separate responses. Other interrogatories in the third set require12 similarly compound responses.13 The parties had an agreement that Plaintiffwould not serve any interrogatories after14 Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation ofIS that agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiffs umeasonable discowry demands.16 Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of17 depositions and interrogatories Plaintiff has taken and served. When Defendants agreed to give18 Plaintiff "relief' from the limitations established in Rules 30 and 33 they did not consent to19 unlimited depositions and interrogatOlies, particularly of the wasteful and useless nature Plaintiff20 has purslled.21 Further, the depositions Plaintiffwallts to take cannot be completed before the discovery22 cut-off. PlaintitI has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-off hut Defel1dants are23 unwilling to do so. Waiving the discovery cut-off effectively jeopardizes the Scheduling Order24 and Defendants are unwilling to do that without action hy the Court25 There is another, more significant issue. Plaintiff has noticed a motion to mnend his26 complaint but that motion will not be heard until September 8. The proposed amendment adds at27 least two new theories of recovery against the County. It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to28

JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY D1SAGREE1VlENT2


31/33



32/33


1 'intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Plaintiffclaims Defendants created a hostile work2 environment and damaged his reputation. Defendants claim, to the extent the workplace was3 hostile, the hostility was caused by Plaintiffand, to the extent his reputation was damaged,4 Plaintiff inflicted the damage on himself. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages for personal injury5 and loss of compensation.6 III.7 The Contentions of the Parties.8 The depositions Plaintiffhas taken to date havc failed to elicit any relevant evidence9 regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiffhas elected to depose10 witncsses with only the most marginal and remote connection to the case. This wastefulness is at11 least partly demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiffhas not even attempted to reconvene the two12 depositions he adjourned - despite asking this Court for relief on one of them - because they were13 both a waste of time before Plaintiff adjourned them.14 Plaintiffs interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded little, if15 any, information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have16 focused on medical procedures that have nothing to do with any of Plaintiffs claims.17 Plaintiffs approach to discovery has been burdensome and abusive.18 Under any standard, the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories is unreasonable.19 Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories.20 Plaintiffdisagrees 311d believes the Defendants have no right to object to his discovery.21 He believes he ean take as many depositions as he wants and serve as many interrogatories as he22 wants. He reads the language in the Scheduling Order as granting him the right to unlimited23 depositions and interrogatories. He believes his discovery to-dute has been valuable.24 He bclicves the Defendants' objections are in bad faith and that the Defendants should25 submit to the depositions hc has noticed and answer all the intelTogatories.26 TV.27 Conclusion.28 This Court's intervention is necessary to resolve the issue.

JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGK.EEMENT4


31 08 05:00p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

1 'intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Plaintiff claims Defendants created a hostile work2 environment and damaged his reputation. Defendants claim, to the extent the workplace was3 hostile, the hostility was caused by Plaintiffand, to the extent his reputation was damaged,4 Plaintiff inflicted the damage on himself. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages for personal injury5 and loss of compensation.6 III.7 The Contentions of the Parties.8 The depositions Plaintiffhas taken to date havc failed to elicit any relevant evidence9 regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose10 witncsses with only the most marginal and remote connection to the case. This wastefulness is at11 least partly demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff has not even attempted to reconvene the two12 depositions he adjourned - despite asking this Court for relief on one of them - because they were13 both a waste of time before Plaintiff adjourned them.14 Plaintiffs interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded little, if15 any, information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have16 focused on medical procedures that have nothing to do with any of Plaintiffs claims.17 Plaintiffs approach to discovery has been burdensome and abusive.18 Under any standard, the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories is unreasonable.19 Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories.20 Plaintiffdisagrees 311d believes the Defendants have no right to object to his discovery.21 He believes he ean take as many depositions as he wants and serve as many interrogatories as he22 wants. He reads the language in the Scheduling Order as granting him the right to unlimited23 depositions and interrogatories. He believes his discovery to-dute has been valuable.24 He bclicves the Defendants' objections are in bad faith and that the Defendants should25 submit to the depositions hc has noticed and answer all the intelTogatories.26 TV.27 Conclusion.28 This Court's intervention is necessary to resolve the issue.

JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGK.EEMENT4


33/33

31 08 05:00p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.6

Respectfully submitted,23 Dated: July__ ,200845678 Dated: July __ , 200891011121314

15161718

19

202122232425262728

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By: _Eugene D. LeeAttorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

LAW OFFICES OFMARK A. WASSER

By: _Mark A. WasserAttorney for Defendants, County ofKern, et al.


31 08 05:00p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.6

Respectfully submitted,23 Dated: July__ ,200845678 Dated: July __ , 200891011121314

15161718

19

202122232425262728

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By: _Eugene D. LeeAttorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

LAW OFFICES OFMARK A. WASSER

By: _Mark A. WasserAttorney for Defendants, County ofKern, et al.

Documents

184 d Mpo Depos-rog3 - p Opp