97 KC Mx Protective Order ROG2

Document Sample
97 KC Mx Protective Order ROG2 Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 97

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

2 3 4
5

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

6 7 8 9 10

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

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

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

11

13 14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT CALIFORNIA

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

) )

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

) DEFENDANTS' ) AND MOTION FOR A ) ORDER RE: FURTHER
) ) 2008 ) Date: April 9:30 a.m, ) ) Place: u.s. Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8 )

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

TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 28, 2008 at 9:30 a,m, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in the courtroom of the above-referenced Court at 1300 18 Street, Bakersfield, California, Defendants will, and hereby do, move the Court for a protective order protecting Defendants from having to respond to further interrogatories from Plaintiff.
-1DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF
th

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

Document 97

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 2 of 2

The motion will be made on the grounds that, although the Joint Scheduling Order grants 2 3 4 5 6 7 Plaintiff "relief' from the 25-interrogatory limitation in Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has thus far promulgated 91 "interrogatories" with 124 discrete subparts, for a total of 2! 5 interrogatories. Nothing about this case warrants so many interrogatories. has rejected Defendants' attempts to negotiate a reasonable limit on interrogatories and contends he can c0l1tnme to promulgate interrogatories Wlth01Jt limitation. Because PlaLintiit's latest set interrogatories requests mtorrnatlon that is almost
pnln'p,

1

Hie IeVaJlt to the

the case.

8

9
10 this
L uelenaams

success

an alt(1mjJt to fP,n IVPI

11

a

12
13

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

15 16
17

Mark

Wasser et

18
19

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

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

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

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

]4

15 16 17 ) Case : 1:07-cv-00026-0WW) ) MEMORANDUM ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN DEFENDANTS' My,..n,,,, ) SUPPORT ) RE: )
)

]8
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 et Defendants.

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

) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 ) Trial Date: December 3, 2008 ------------) Defendants submit this memorandum in support of their motion for a protective order rei further interrogatories by Plaintiff. Defendants will supplement this memorandum by filing a joint statement re discovery disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 on or before April 23, 2008.
·1·
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

1 2 3 4 5

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to "make any order which justice requires to protect a party" from "undue burden or expense".

i
i (9th

The Ninth Circuit has written that District Courts have "extensive control" over the discovery process. United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System. Inc.• 666 Fed.2d 364. 369 1982).

6

§
Ninth Circuit noted that a court may be as inventive as the necessities to carry out Feller;ll Rules
";";He'"

at p. case require

7
8 9
10

a
wrlitf'"

court Dr

sllpIHallO:ll. to serve not more

iIltelTOj.;atori.es on

11

Ischeduling order as granting him the right to serve unlimited interrogatories that range far field
from any issues 15 16 17 18 19 215, More significant than the number of interrogatories, however, is the scope of On March 25,
"H'UiU

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

but

those efforts

unsuccessful. Defendants have already responded to 47 interrogatories Rule 33, count as 72 interrogatories. interrogatories
~VH"OUHe of

',en·en a second set

20
21 22 23 24

information that Plaintiff is requesting. For example, in the latest set, Plaintiff seeks extensive information about the renewal, non-renewal and length of employment contracts with several physicians at Kern Medical Center - none of whom worked with Plaintiff; extensive information about specific patient files; extensive information about the peer review of other physicians ostensibly related to patient files Plaintiff identifies; extensive information regarding Kern

26 27 28

Medical Center policies for reporting and processing claims of physician impairment, substance abuse, cognitive function disorder and emotional disorder; information about "diagnostic errors"; and information on the number of cases per day processed by various pathologists in the Kern
·2·
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

I

Medical Center pathology department. Defendants are unable to comprehend any connection between these interrogatories and any issues in this case. Defendants have already responded to extensive discovery. They have produced 26,000 pages of documents and they have provided extertSI'ie responses to Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories. meet and confc:r p'rocesl3, Defendants offered to respond to addrtrOl1a1 interrogatories in return an agreement establishing the number interrogatories
rPiPV,lm

2
3 4

5
6

7
8 9

serve.
For all to rel;pcmd to seclond set

10

1 ."","

LL

13

14

15
16 17

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

18
19 20 21 22

23
24

25
26

27
28
~3-

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

I 2 3 4 5

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser(i1lmarkwasseLcom

Bernard C. Barmann, Sf. , KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Chief Denulv 6 'Mark 1115 Floor 7 Bakersfield, Phone: (661 8 (661) 000-301jj E-mail: mn'al1()lls:'tYco.kel 9 10
11

13
]4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 16
7

) Case
)

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

Plaintiff

) DECLARATION ) IN SUPPORT nFj~Fl'lDA.N ) MOTION TTy'vn
Ii'

]8

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

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

el Defendants.

) )

) ) ) )
)

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

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

I,

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

facts in this declaration are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and I can testify competently to them if called as a witness.
·1·
DECLARATION OF MARK A WASSER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: FURTHER INTERROGATORIES BY PLAINTIFF

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10

2.

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

effort to resolve this dispute. Defendants have offered to respond to additional relevant interrogatories return for an agreement establishing the number of interrogatories Plaintiff can
pn!prl";n

serve. Defendants have offered to All

other proposals on how best to resolve

Issue.

Defendants proposals have been rej ected.

3.

Defendants

prepare and lorwBrrl to the same on or before

statement re 23,2008 pursuant to

discovery disagl'eeJment and Local L

foregoing is true

correct

11
12
J3
A. Wasser

J5

16 17
18

9 20
21

22 23 24 25

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


				
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.