82 MTC RPD1

Document Sample
82 MTC RPD1 Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 82

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 992-3299 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487 Email: elee@LOEL.com Joan Herrington, SB# 178988 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Telephone: (510) 530-4078 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725 Email: jh@baelo.com Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 14, 2008 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN (Plaintiff) will and hereby does move this Court for an order compelling defendant COUNTY OF KERN (Defendant) to produce and further respond to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set one. The factual and legal bases for this motion will COUNTY OF KERN; et al. Defendants. Date: January 14, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA Date Action Filed: Date Set for Trial: January 6, 2007 December 3, 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1

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

Document 82

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 3

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

be set forth more fully in the parties’ Joint Statement regarding this discovery dispute, which will be filed on or before January 9, 2008. After Defendant served initial responses, Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes without having to burden this Court. As Defendant has admitted, Plaintiff has tried to be “flexible” with Defendant in extending deadlines and narrowing request language. Plaintiff even gave technological advice on optical scanning, OCR functions, and costefficient purchase of Adobe Acrobat 8.0. In return, Defendant has made a mockery of the meet and confer process and abused Plaintiff’s good will by breaking specific commitments it had made to Plaintiff and upon which Plaintiff had relied. Defendant’s supplemental response as compared to its initial response raises new objections, contains overbroad objections, contains new refusals to produce, etc. After hours and hours expended in extensive meet and confer letters and calls, Defendant’s supplemental responses represent a step backward from Defendant’s initial responses. The parties are further apart now than they were ever before. None of this had been indicated by Defendant in prior meet and confer discussions and comes as an unpleasant surprise to Plaintiff. In fact, only four days before the final December 21 production deadline, Defendant suddenly demanded Plaintiff pay $3,765 in reimbursement of Kern County’s copy costs. If Defendant was not in receipt of such payment, Defendant stated it would not produce any documents at all on December 21. As Defendant admits, it had not previously raised this issue with Plaintiff at all. Plaintiff initially agreed to pay out of desperation, but after researching case law and upon being further informed by Defendant for the first time that “Many of the documents you have requested have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case”, Plaintiff hesitated to pay such a substantial and possibly wasteful sum. Unlike Defendant Kern County, Plaintiff is an individual and cannot easily bear such a cost. Plaintiff requested Defendant produce originals for inspection and copying at Plaintiff’s office, as had originally been requested in Plaintiff’s requests for production. Defendants refused and have suspended production.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 2

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

Document 82

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 37-251, this motion will be based on the Joint Statement to be submitted by Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN after meeting and conferring with Defendant COUNTY OF KERN in this case on or before January 9, 2008.

Respectfully submitted on December 21, 2007.

/s/ Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 992-3299 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487 Email: elee@LOEL.com /s/ Joan Herrington, SB#178988 (as authorized 12/21/07) BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Telephone: (510) 530-4078 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725 Email: jh@baelo.com Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

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

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 3


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: 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.