David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.
I. 1 2 3 4 5 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 10 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!almarkwasser.com Bernard C. Barmann. Sr. KE~N COUNTY COUNSEL 6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor 7 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 8 . Fax: (661) 868-3805 I' E-mail: email@example.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) vs. ) ) COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ------------) DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows: 1. Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL Date: November 5. 2007 Time: 9:30 a.m. . Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008 I am counsel of record for Defendants herein and am familiar with this action. The statements in this declaration are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and I can testify competently to them if called as a witness. 1 DECLARATION OF MARK A WASSER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPE Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG I 2. Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 10 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my letter of September 2 3 4 5 6 7 13,2007 to Eugene Lee which served as a transmittal letter for Defendants' supplemental initial disclosures. The letter contains my written representation to Plaintiff that the Defendants' will make all County employees available upon request and will accept service of all process and notices on behalf of the Defendants' and County employees. The addresses and telephone numbers that the Defendants' disclosed are the individual employees' actual addresses and telephone numbers. 3. Since September 13, numerous writings, copies nt-'cvhirh are attached to 9 10 11 Declaration as Exhibt B, I have repeatedly confirmed these representations and expanded them to include also providing Plaintiff with updated contact information on any employees who leave I County employment during the pendeney ofthis ease_ The Defendants remain committed to access to employees wants upon request. 4. 12 -providing Plaintiff 13 14 IS 16 My standard hourly rate is $350 per hour. I have spent approximately twelve hours preparing opposition to Plaintiff s motion to compel and corresponding with Plaintiff s counsel in an attempt to resolve it. 17 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 18 19 Executed this 12'D day of October, 2007, Sacramento. California. 20 21 22 23 By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPE Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 10 EXHIBIT A. Letter from Defendant's attorney to Plaintiffs attorney transmitting supplemental initial disclosures, dated September 13, 2007 • Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG • MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suire 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 firstname.lastname@example.org Law Offices of Document 55 • Filed 10/12/2007 Page 4 of 10 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 September 13,2007 FIRST CLASS HAru~ Eugene Lee Offices of Eugene 555 West Street, Suite 31 n1'16""'0, California 9001 1 0 Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et DearMr. Lee: We have revised the witness list we enclosed as part of our initial disclosure so that it describes the subjects of information the various witnesses are believed to have in more detaiL When our ovm investigation is complete, we may know more about the witnesses' knowledge but these descriptions fairly summarize what we presently know. We deleted the names of witnesses for whom we have no specific subject information, even so seems contrary to Dr. Jadwin's interests. My intent in giving you the names the first was to be inclusive but, if you want less, we give you less. I have aiways subscribed to the view that it is better to have a witnesses' name to not have it but I have no interest in convincing you of that. Your suggestion that our initial disclosure was deficient or that we "acknowledge" the baseless position you have taken does not warrant further comment. We are not providing home addresses for any persons who are employed by the County. Unlike Dixon v. Certainteed Corporation, which you cite, the County has not and will not resist making its employees available to you for deposition or informal interview. As I have told you from the outset, (I believe I first represented this to you in March) I will accept service of all papers on behalf of the Defendants and all County employees and will make arrangements to produce any employees you want. Thus, employment addresses afford you complete access to all employees. Also, because of Dr. Jadwin's threatening and intimidating behavior towards his co-workers at Kern Medical Center, many employees are afraid of him and are unwilling to let him know where they live. Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee September 13, 2007 Page 2 • Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 • Page 5 of 10 Even though Dr. Jadwin knows the street address ofKem Medical Center, having worked there for several years (and having referred to it as simply "KMC" in his own witness list) we have included it for you. Finally, we are providing a copy of a memorandum of coverage with the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority. It was not included in our first disclosure because the County had not been able to verify its coverage. As you will note, County has a $2 million self·insured retention before any insurance is available. Very Truly Yours, cc: Karen Barnes Joan Herrington Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 6 of 10 EXHIBIT B. Meet and Confer Correspondence Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 7 of 10 Mark Wasser from: Sent: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasseLcom] Wednesday, September 19, 2007 530 PM 'elee@LOEL.com' RE: Jadwln/KC: Initial Disclosures Gene, You love to threaten motions and sanctions. ! do not respond to threats, Rule 29 states the parties "may" stipulate, If you actually want to stipulate, then propose somethln9 we have actually agreed to. I have never worked with a lawyer who finds disagreement everywhere. The fact is, we are In complete agreement on this Issue as far as I can determine. You want witnesses and I have promised to provide them. What is the Issue? Why are we even meeting and conferring on an issue about which there Is no disagreement. I do not understand. As far as your latest threat, what do you propose sanctions for? That we have agreed to produce witnesses? am truly lost as to what the issue is. Mark To: Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 8 of 10 Mark Wasser From: Sent: To: Mark Wasser [email@example.com] September 19, 2007 4:54 PM 'eiee@lOEL.com' SUbject: RE: Jadwin/KG: initial Disciosures Gene, You may characterize things however you want. OUf has been and remains consistent. The County will produce any employees Dr. Jadwin wants and will keep you advised of contact information on former employees. That is it That has been our position since you and i first spoke on the telephone over 6 months ago. It has never changed. You want to embeilish our representation with additional terms we have not agreed to and blame me for rejecting them. That Is contentiousness. Mark Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 9 of 10 From: Sent: To: Ce: Mark Wasser [firstname.lastname@example.org Wednesday. September 19, 2007 3:42 PM 'eiee@LOEl.com' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Jadwln/KC: Initial Disclosures Gene, When I say you are contentious, this would be an example. I am not agreeing to your stipulation. if i was, i would sign it. I am representing to you that the County will make available to you, upon reasonable request to me. any employee and that we will keep you current on contact Information for former employees. That's It. Mark Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Mark Wasser From: Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 10 of 10 Mark Wasser [email@example.com] Thursday, September 20,2007 11:48 AM 'elee@LOEL.com' Sent: To: Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Initial Disclosures Gene, First, here is the address for The Camden Group, David Culberson's employer: The Camden Group, 100 N, Sepulveda Blvd" Ste, 600, EI Segundo, California 90245, I have been told that David Culberson Is in Minnesota on an assignment but have not verified It Second, I assumed you understood that the witness list we served with the supplemental disclosures was a new list that replaced the previous list If you were not clear about that, this should clarify It Why else would we send a new list? I do not understand your confusion or why that would be an Issue, I am not reserving the Initial disclosures, We covered that yesterday or the day before, I forget I am lost on this one, You say you are "entitled to contact Information for all witnesses", We agree 100% and we gave you contact information on all witnesses, We even accompanied that with our written representation that we will make all employees available to you on request We have fully complied with both the spirit and letter of all rules and offered the additional courtesy of providing contact information for any employees that may leave County employment during the pendency of this case, How you can extract a dispute from this is beyond me, No rule requires that all agreements between counsel be reduced to stipulation, In my 30+ years of federal court practice, no opposing attorney has ever suggested they must be, Rule 29 clearly states that the parties "may" prepare stipulations, Having said that, I am not adverse to stipulations but I am not willing to sign the one you sent beoause It goes beyond what we have discussed and would impose time limits that I find unreasonable, It is also one-sided. The Plaintiff is not the only party who will need discovery, Our agreement is fine the way It Is, If you believe It must be reduced to a stipulation, then you will have to explain why and we will have to discuss the terms, I am open to that but don't send me documents and tell me to sign them by such-andsuch date on threat of sanctions, You opened your e-mail with a request that I "leave the personal Insults out of our Interactions" but proceed to accuse me of "piaying hardbaii", being "abusive" and being "ridiculous" (among other things) In an overall tone that Is snotty and condescending, If you want the tone of our communications to improve, it will require reciprocity, Your communications invariably come from a position of take-it-or-ieave-it that is arrogant and unhelpful, Lighten up, What will you do when we get to issues that actually matter? If you can tell me how we have failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1), please do so, Otherwise, I suggest we move on to the next issue, whatever that will be, This is the most extreme case of form over substance I have encountered in memory, Mark 10/8/2007
Pages to are hidden for
"55 MTC ID - Opposition Declaration"Please download to view full document