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.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG (213) 992-3299 TELEPHONE (213) 596-0487 FACSIMILE EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ. PRINCIPAL Document 89 Filed 01/24/2008 Page 1 of 2 ELEE@LOEL.COM E-MAIL WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE L A W E U G E N E O F F I C E L E E O F 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010 JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ. OF COUNSEL January 24, 2008 VIA CM/ECF & E-MAIL U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 1200 Truxtun Ave Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: 100011.001 Discovery Dispute in Followup to Motion to Compel Hearing of 1/14/08 Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW/TAG) To the Honorable Court: I am attorney of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in the above-captioned matter. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 82) was heard by the Court in Bakersfield on January 14, 2008 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. After Plaintiff narrowed and clarified certain of its requests for production, set one, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding Defendants’ ability to produce responsive documents and to notify the Court of the outcome by no later than Wednesday, January 23, 2008. Fortunately, the parties were able to agree on the actual production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. However, they could not agree on the wording and substance of the two stipulations and orders which the Court had ordered the parties to prepare and file. The issues in dispute regarding the two stipulations are laid out in the declarations filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 87) and Defendants (Docs. 86 and 88) and they are as follows: 1. Whether or not Defendants had indeed withdrawn objections to Request No. 40 at the motion hearing; 2. Whether or not the purposes of the two stipulations as agreed upon at the hearing were: a. To affirm that Defendants’ disclosure of Dr. Royce Johnson’s personnel file in response to Request No. 40 does not represent a waiver by Defendants of objections to producing other person’s personnel files; AND that Defendants were not waiving or withdrawing objections to production of such personnel file; and b. To subject Plaintiff to a protective order regarding confidential patient medical information contained in unredacted Product Chart Copy (PCC)-related documents to be produced at KMC’s offices for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying (by a bonded copy service) in response to Request No. 57. Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 89 Filed 01/24/2008 Page 2 of 2 We respectfully request an ex parte telephonic hearing before the Court to resolve this dispute in recollections as to what had or had not been ordered by the Court and agreed to by the parties at the motion hearing of January 14, 2008. Very truly yours, EUGENE D. LEE 2
Pages to are hidden for
"89 Ex Parte Letter re Discovery Disputes"Please download to view full document