Docstoc

141 Request for Recon - KC Opp

Document Sample
141 Request for Recon - KC Opp Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 141

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 6) 444-6400 444-6405

21 22

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

23
24 25 26 27 28 Defendants respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Teresa Goldner's Order of May 9, 2008 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses (the "Order"). In so far as is relevant here, the Magistrate Judge found that some of Plaintiffs discovery requests put into issue the privacy rights of third parties. See, e.g., Order at pp. 4-5. Drawing
-1DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Document 141

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2
3

from precedents that suggest it is appropriate to balance the competing interests of privacy and disclosure (See, e.g., Ragge v. MeA Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604, n.3 (C.D. Cal. parties to meet
IS

4

amJronriate to

5

case.

5.

erroneous

Plaiinti1Ts mOltlOn

strrmlate to a mutually ac:ce[,tab'le

not consume

an

bal;,mcmg test. 21 22 23 24 25 26

IS

no basis for reconsideration and Plaintiff s motion should be denied. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 23,2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:

27
28

lsi Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

-2DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


				
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.