182 D MPO Depos-ROG3 - D Joint Stmt

Document Sample
182 D MPO Depos-ROG3 - D Joint Stmt Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 1 of 11

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barman, Sr. CA SB #060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 1115 TruxtWl Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants COW1ty of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 II 12
13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 15
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

Case No.: I :07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN LIEU OF JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

16 Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18
COUNTY OF KERN, et a!.,

19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This declaration is submitted in lieu of joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 (d) in advance of the August 6, 2008 hearing on Defendants' motion for a protective order.
I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:
1.

Date: August 6, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 2, 2008

I am counsel of record for Defendants and am familiar with this action. The facts

stated in this declaration are within my own personal knowledge and I can testify competently to
-1DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN LIEU OF JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 2 of 11

I
2

them if called as a witness.
2.

Plaintiff has noticed 17 additional depositions on top of the 16 he has already

3 4 5
6

taken. He has also indicated the desire to depose at least some of Defendants' experts and supplemental experts. This will apparently lead to another 3 or 4 depositions. That would bring the total number of depositions by Plaintiff to about 40.
3.

Defendants have so far responded to two sets of interrogatories, consisting of 91

7 8 9 10 II 12
13

interrogatories, and Plaintiff has now served a third set consisting of 7 interrogatories, the first of which asks Defendants to provide, among other things, all facts upon which Defendants base their responses to 290 requests for admission. Thus, the first interrogatory, alone, requires potentially 290 separate responses. Other interrogatories in the third set require similarly compound responses. Plaintiffs third set of interrogatories will require hundreds of responses. Further, the information requested will be of no or, at best, minimal relevance to any claim.

4.

The parties had an agreement that Plaintiff would not serve additional

14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

interrogatories after Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation of that agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiff s unreasonable discovery demands.
5.

Nothing about this case justifies the number of depositions and interrogatories

Plaintiff has taken and served. When Defendants agreed to give Plaintiff "relief' from the limitations established in Rules 30 and 33 they were merely consenting to reasonable discovery, not unlimited wasteful depositions and interrogatories. A motion for a protective order is the appropriate way to challenge this issue.
6.

The depositions Plaintiff wants to take cannot be completed before the discovery

23 24 25 26
27

cut-off. Defendants proposed extending the discovery cut-off one week to accommodate limited depositions, however, Plaintiff insisted on an indefinite extension. Extending the discovery cutoff indefinitely jeopardizes the Scheduling Order and Defendants are not only unwilling to do that, they will not do so without approval by the Court.
7.

The last deposition Plaintiff took was on April 19, 2008 when he took the

28

deposition of Dr. Marvin Kolb - whom the Defendants flew to Los Angeles from Wisconsin at
-2DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN LIEU OF JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 3 of 11

I 2 3 4 5 6

the Defendants' expense as an accommodation to Plaintiff- and which Plaintiffs counsel adjourned after about 30 minutes and has never attempted to reschedule. For over two months, Plaintiff made no efforts to proceed with any deposition discovery. Then, on June 30, Plaintiffs counsel sent me an e-mail listing 17 additional depositions he wanted to take during the remaining 6 weeks of discovery. These, as noted, were in addition to expert depositions of which there would be between 3 and 4 per side, depending on which experts were deposed.
8.

7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

Trying to fit over 25 depositions into about 30 working days is impossible under

the best of conditions. Plus, I was scheduled to prepare for and attend 9 depositions during the first weeks in July in Orange County and prepare for and attend a three-day court trial in Orange County Superior Court on July 29, 30 and 31. I was committed almost every day in July.
9.

I proposed the few July days I was available as possible dates for the depositions

Plaintiff wanted to take but Plaintiff rejected all the dates I proposed. He basically took an "all or nothing" approach to these 17 depositions by demanding they all be set according to his schedule. Plaintiff s counsel has accused the Defendants of imposing a unilateral "stay" on depositions. Defendants have not "stayed" anything. I was simply not available to attend depositions on the dates Plaintiff selected. Plaintiff never cleared any of the dates with me. 10. . Ifwe are to adhere to the Scheduling Order, there is insufficient time remaining to

18 19

take 25 more depositions. Additionally, Defendants believe Plaintiff has had more than enough opportunity to take depositions and, in fact, has taken more than a reasonable number already. 11. The depositions Plaintiff has taken to date have failed to elicit any relevant

20
21 22 23 24 25

evidence regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose witnesses with only the most marginal and remote connection to the case. This wastefulness is at least partly demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff has not even attempted to reconvene the two depositions he adjourned - despite asking this Court for relief on one of them because they were both a waste of time before Plaintiff adjourned them. 12. Plaintiff s interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded

26
27 28

little, if any, information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have focused on medical procedures that have nothing to do with any of
-3DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN LIEU OF JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 4 of 11

1 2 3 4

Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff has noticed the depositions of people Defendants do not believe have any connection with the facts of this case. Under any standard, the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories is unreasonable. Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories. 13. Defendants prepared a proposed Joint Statement Re Discovery Dispute, a copy of

5
6 7
8

which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and forwarded it to Plaintiffs counsel for review and consideration. Defendants received no reply. 14. Plaintiff has noticed a motion to amend his complaint but that motion will not be

9 10 11 12 13 14
15

heard until September 8. The proposed amendment adds at least two new theories of recovery against the County: It expands Plaintiff s civil rights claim to include the County and it adds "professional fees" to the monies Plaintiff claims were unlawfully taken from him. Defendants have completed Plaintiffs deposition and the parties have completed their disclosure of experts. Discovery closes on August 18. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs request to amend his complaint but, if is granted, it will require a reopening of the Scheduling Order and a postponement of trial.
15.

If Plaintiff is permitted to amend his complaint at this late stage of the

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

proceedings and expand his theories of recovery against the County then Defendants should be given the right to reopen discovery and inquire into the facts Plaintiff believes support his new theories. Defendants should also have the opportunity to let their experts review the new theories and supplement their previous reports to include any opinions relevant to the new theories. Defendants have had no opportunity for their economist, for example, to consider Plaintiffs new claim for "professional fees." Amendment of the complaint may require an extension of the discovery cut-off and a second modification of the expert disclosure deadlines in the Scheduling Order. It seems unavoidable that they will impact the trial date. 16. Although they are not directly related to this motion for a protective order,

Defendants believe these issues may effect this Court's consideration of the issues presented by this motion for a protective order. The additional depositions Plaintiff wants to take and the additional interrogatories he has served need to be considered in light of this bigger picture.

28
-4DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN LIEU OF JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 5 of 11

I 2 3

Defendants believe these issues should be considered together so they can be handled efficiently and comprehensively. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August I, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

4 5
6 7

By:

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

8
9 10 II 12
13
14

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

24 25

26
27

28

-5DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN LIEU OF JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 6 of 11

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 E-mail: elee@LOEL.com

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 7 of 11

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Attorneys for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barman, Sr. CA SB#060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB#101838 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni SmitH and William Roy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 21
22

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Defendants.

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Date: August 6, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, Bakersfield Courtroom 8 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 2, 2008

23 24 25 26 27 28

-1JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 8 of 11

1 2
3

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37251(a) in advance of the August 6, 2008 hearing on Defendants' motion for protective order.

I.
Statement of Discovery Disagreement

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

Plaintiff has noticed 17 additional depositions on top of the 16 he has already taken. He has also indicated the desire to depose at least some of Defendants' experts and supplemental experts. This will apparently lead to another 5 or 6 depositions. That would bring the total number of depositions by Plaintiff to more than 40. Defendants have so far responded to two sets of interrogatories, consisting of91 interrogatories, and Plaintiff has now served another set of 7 interrogatories, the first interrogatory of which asks Defendants to provide, among other things, all facts upon which Defendants base their responses to 290 requests for admission. Thus, the first interrogatory, alone, requires potentially 290 separate responses. Other interrogatories in the third set require similarly compound responses. The parties had an agreement that Plaintiff would not serve any interrogatories after Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation of that agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiffs umeasonable discovery demands. Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of depositions and interrogatories Plaintiff has taken and served. When Defendants agreed to give Plaintiff "relief' from the limitations established in Rules 30 and 33 they did not consent to unlimited depositions and interrogatories, particularly of the wasteful and useless nature Plaintiff has pursued. Further, the depositions Plaintiff wants to take cannot be completed before the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-off but Defendants are unwilling to do so. Waiving the discovery cut-off effectively jeopardizes the Scheduling Order and Defendants are unwilling to do that without action by the Court There is another, more significant issue. Plaintiff has noticed a motion to amend his complaint but that motion will not be heard until September 8. The proposed amendment adds at

-2JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 9 of 11

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

least two new theories of recovery against the County. It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to include the County and it adds "professional fees" to the monies Plaintiff claims were unlawfully taken from him. Defendants have completed Plaintiffs deposition and the parties have completed their disclosure of experts. Discovery closes on August 16. Plaintiff s amendment to his complaint, if granted, will require a reopening of the Scheduling Order. Defendants intend to file a motion to modify the Scheduling Order and will ask that it be set for hearing on September 8, so it can be considered at the same time as Plaintiffs motion to amend.
If Plaintiff is permitted to amend his complaint at this late stage of the proceedings and

expand his theories of recovery against the County then Defendants must be given the right to reopen discovery and inquire into the facts Plaintiff believes support his new theories. This will require an extension of the discovery cut-off. That may effect this Court's consideration of the deposition issue. Defendants should also have the opportunity to let their experts review the new theories and supplement their previous reports to include any opinions relevant to the new theories. Defendants have had no opportunity for their economist, for example, to consider Plaintiffs new claim for "professional fees." This will require a second modification of the expert disclosure deadlines in the Scheduling Order. The additional depositions Plaintiff wants to take and the additional interrogatories he has served need to be considered in light of this bigger picture. Defendants believe these issues should be considered together so they can be handled efficiently and comprehensively.

a
Statement of the Nature of the Case. Plaintiff s complaint alleges 11 claims for relief including violation of civil rights, deprivation of due process, retaliation, failure to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act, California Family Rights Act and defamation.

28

-3JOINT STATEMENTRE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 10 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8

The dispute arose out of Plaintiff s tenure as a pathologist at Kern Medical Center. Plaintiff s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Plaintiff claims Defendants created a hostile work environment and damaged his reputation. Defendants claim, to the extent the workplace was hostile, the hostility was caused by Plaintiff and, to the extent his reputation was damaged, Plaintiff inflicted the damage on himself. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages for personal injury and loss of compensation.
III.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28

The Contentions of the Parties.

The depositions Plaintiff has taken to date have failed to elicit any relevant evidence regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose witnesses with only the most marginal and remote connection to the case. This wastefulness is at least partly demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff has not even attempted to reconvene the two depositions he adjourned - despite asking this Court for relief on one of them - because they were both a waste of time before Plaintiff adjourned them. Plaintiff s interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded little, if any, information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have focused on medical procedures that have nothing to do with any of Plaintiff s claims. Plaintiffs approach to discovery has been burdensome and abusive. Under any standard, the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories is unreasonable. Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories. Plaintiff disagrees and believes the Defendants have no right to object to his discovery. He believes he can take as many depositions as he wants and serve as many interrogatories as he wants. He reads the language in the Scheduling Order as granting him the right to unlimited depositions and interrogatories. He believes his discovery to-date has been valuable. He believes the Defendants' objections are in bad faith and that the Defendants should submit to the depositions he has noticed and answer all the interrogatories.

-4JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

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

Document 182

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 11 of 11

1

IV.

2
3 4

Conclusion.
This Court's intervention is necessary to resolve the issue. Respectfully submitted,

5
6 Dated: July _ _, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

7
8 9 10 11
12

By:_-,-:_ Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O. Dated: July _ _, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

13 14
15 16

By:,

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

17
18

19 20
21

22
23

24

25

26
27
28

-5JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT


				
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.