181 P Objection to D Memo re EPA Shorten MPO

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

Document 181

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 1 of 2

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, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: elee@LOEL.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PRATE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EXPERT DEPOSITIONS (Doc. 180) Date Action Filed: Discovery Cut-off: Date Set for Trial: January 6, 2007 August 18, 2008 December 2, 2008

12 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM (DOC. 180)

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

Document 181

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 stated:

Plaintiff hereby objects to Defendants’ Memorandum filed in response to Plaintiff’s ex parte application to shorten time on his motion for protective order re: expert depositions. The Court’s minute order of today, ordering Defendants to submit the foregoing memorandum

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application for an order shortening time (Doc 176) re a motion for a protective order. Defendants are directed to file a response to the request for an order shortening time only, no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 1, 2008. (Doc. 179)(emphasis added). Defendants accuse Plaintiff of gamesmanship, yet their very memorandum itself represents an act of

8 gamesmanship. The Court had ordered Defendants to respond only to Plaintiff’s request for an order 9 shortening time. Instead, Defendants used the opportunity to make numerous unsupported accusations 10 that were unrelated to the issue to which they were directed by the Court: shortening time. 11 Plaintiff requests this Court disregard and strike all of Defendants’ memorandum that follows 12 after page 1 (wherein Defendants state they do not oppose Plaintiff’s ex parte application). It is 13 unfortunate Defendants did not see fit to respond to Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer regarding the 14 request to shorten time in the first place – this needless motion litigation could have been avoided 15 entirely. 16 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 Dated: August 1, 2008 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By:__________________________________________ Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM (DOC. 180)

1


				
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.