184 D Mpo Depos-Rog3 - P Opp

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 33
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
11 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN
v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
12 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
13 Date: August 6, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
14 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
15
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
16 Discovery Cut-off: August 18, 2008
Date Set for Trial: December 2, 2008
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee in opposition to Defendants’ motion for
2 protective order.
3 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
4 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
5 California and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
6 California. I am the attorney representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.
7 2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.’s Motion to
8 Compel Depositions & Request for Sanctions. The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if
9 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in this
10 declaration.
11 3. After business hours at 5:07 p.m. on July 31, 2008, the day before the filing deadline for
12 Defendants’ joint statement, defense counsel faxed to my office a draft of the joint statement. Defense
13 counsel did not call me or otherwise attempt to reach me. Thus, by the time the fax arrived, my business
14 hours were already over and I had already left for the day. This morning, because of a prior
15 appointment, I did not see or know of the fax until 1:00 p.m. today. I also noticed that one of the three
16 pages was missing. Defendants’ incomplete fax, transmitted after business hours the day before the
17 filing deadline can not in any way constitute a good faith meet and confer effort. Plaintiff contends that
18 Defendants have not satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 37-251. A true and correct copy of the fax
19 is attached as Exhibit 4.
20 4. As they have done in nearly every motion in this action, Defendants advance numerous
21 untrue statements.
22 5. “The parties had an agreement that Plaintiff would not serve any more interrogatories
23 after Defendants responded to Plaintiff s second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation of that
24 agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiff s unreasonable discovery demands.”
25 This is not true. There is no such agreement. Had there been one, Defendants would have
26 violated it since they went ahead and filed a motion for protective order against Plaintiff’s second set of
27 interrogatories anyway (Doc. 97). This Court heard and denied that motion and Defendants were then
28 obligated to respond to the second set. No agreements were necessary.
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1

1 6. “Plaintiff has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-off but Defendants are
2 unwilling to do so.”
3 This is not true. Plaintiff never asked for a waiver of the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff challenges
4 Defendants to substantiate this false claim.
5 7. “Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of
6 depositions and interrogatories Plaintiff has taken and served.”
7 Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff is being abusive in attempting to depose the party
8 Defendants (of which there are 8), their retained experts and their consultants (of which there are 5), or a
9 handful of key witnesses named by Defendants themselves in their discovery responses, is absurd.
10 However, Defendants have done more than merely advocate a position; they have gone ahead and
11 granted themselves a stay on all of Plaintiff’s depositions in the absence of a court order and before even
12 filing a motion for protective order. To date, Defendants have not produced a single deponent in
13 response to the 17 deposition subpoenas which Plaintiff reasonably and properly noticed on July 3,
14 2008. With discovery due to close on August 18, 2008, Defendants’ bad faith conduct has materially
15 prejudiced Plaintiff.
16 8. “The proposed amendment adds at least two new theories of recovery against the County.
17 It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to . . .” [fax cut off after this point].
18 The motion for leave to file the second amended complaint is not at issue in this motion. Plaintiff
19 has already filed a regularly-noticed motion regarding that matter (Doc. 161). Plaintiff has a due process
20 right to review Defendants’ arguments at length in a proper written opposition to that motion, as well as
21 an opportunity to then respond to Defendants’ arguments in a written reply. Defendants’ attempt to
22 hijack Plaintiff’s motion to amend and prematurely litigate it in this forum represents an attempt to deny
23 Plaintiff due process.
24 Moreover, the only new issue raised by the proposed amendments is the naming of Defendant
25 County of Kern as an additional defendant in Plaintiff’s due process claim pursuant to Monell v Dept. of
26 Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658. The Monell analysis revolves around whether or not the individual
27 Defendants acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a longstanding practice or custom
28 of the County of Kern in violating Plaintiff’s due process rights. Plaintiff challenges Defendants to

1 explain what additional discovery they could possibly hope to obtain from Plaintiff in regard to this
2 issue.
3 9. “The depositions Plaintiff has taken to date have failed to elicit any relevant evidence
4 regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose witnesses who
5 have only the most marginal and remote connection to the case.”
6 Plaintiff’s past depositions are not at issue in this motion. Defendants failed to timely file any
7 motions for protective order and therefore waived any argument about them.
8 Moreover, Plaintiff’s past depositions have been exceedingly probative. For instance, Plaintiff’s
9 experts have cited to them extensively in their Rule 26 reports. And Defendants agreed. They refrained
10 from filing a single motion for protective order regarding the depositions. Defendants recognized the
11 probative value of the depositions then and, despite their current protestations, they do now.
12 10. “Plaintiff’s interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded almost
13 no information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have focused
14 on medical procedures that appear to have nothing to do with any of Plaintiff’s claims.”
15 Plaintiff’s past interrogatories are not at issue in this motion. Defendants failed to timely file any
16 motions for protective order and therefore waived any argument about them.
17 Moreover, Plaintiff’s interrogatories have been exceedingly probative. And this Court agreed.
18 When Plaintiff had filed a motion to compel Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s past interrogatories
19 (Doc. 96), this Court not only ordered Defendants to respond, but imposed sanctions on Defendants
20 (Doc. 113). And Defendants themselves agreed. They refrained from filing a single motion for
21 protective order regarding the past interrogatories, other than the one that the Court denied. Defendants
22 recognized the probative value of the interrogatories then and, despite their current protestations, they do
23 now.
24 11. “It is the wasteful nature of Plaintiff’s discovery that requires intervention from the Court
25 more so than the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories. But, under any standard, the sheer
26 number is unreasonable. Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories.”
27 There are no less than 8 party defendants and 11 causes of action in this litigation. Almost
28 30,000 pages of documents have been produced in discovery. The parties have retained 4 experts each,

1 for a total of 8 experts. Defendants deposed Plaintiff Dr. Jadwin for 4 days and Defendants’ forensic
2 psychiatrist examined and tested Dr. Jadwin for 3 days. This is not a typical action. An action this large
3 and complicated requires extensive written discovery. Restricting Plaintiff’s right to written discovery
4 would prejudice Plaintiff and prevent a fair resolution of this action on the merits.
5 Moreover, there has been nothing wasteful about Plaintiff’s discovery efforts. The only thing
6 wasteful in this action has been Defendants’ unceasing and unabated obstruction of discovery and
7 disregard of signed stipulations that has gone unchecked. It is as if Defendants are subject to a separate
8 set of rules than Plaintiff.
9 12. Defendants have made numerous additional untrue statements at various other times that
10 Plaintiff seeks to address here:
11 13. Defendants have claimed that, on June 30, 2008, Plaintiff announced his intentions to
12 take upwards of 25 depositions in the approximately 30 working days left before the discovery cut-off.
13 Defendants later claimed that Plaintiff is requesting upwards of 40 depositions. Neither statement is
14 true. Plaintiff has noticed 17 depositions. Later, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of 2 defense experts:
15 Robert Burchuk, M.D., and Thomas McAfee, M.D. The combined total is 19. Defendants attempt to
16 mislead the Court.
17 14. Defendants have claimed that, on July 25, 2008, Plaintiff informed Defendants that
18 Plaintiff’s experts were not available for deposition before the discovery cut-of on August 18.
19 Defendants have also claimed the first set of dates [of availability] Plaintiff provided were in mid-July
20 when Defendants’ counsel was in depositions and trial in Orange County Superior Court and the second
21 set of dates were during the week of August 25, 2008, more than a week after the discovery cut-off.
22 Neither statement is true.
23 15. The first set of dates of availability provided by Plaintiff were not all in mid-July. In
24 emails dated June 26, June 30 and July 1, Plaintiff informed Defendants of the following dates of
25 availability:
26 Dr. Reading: July 11, 18
27 Ms. Rizzardi: July 7-11, 14-16
28 Dr. Weiss: August 1-9

1 Ms. Levison: July 14

2 16. True and correct copies of the emails are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3 17. Only one expert cited a date of availability that was in mid-July: Ms. Levison. Ironically,
4 defense counsel later stated that he could depose Ms. Levison on July 14. In an email dated July 1,
5 which belies defense counsel’s claim that he was unavailable for all of mid-July, he stated:
6 I have a deposition in another case on July 11 and a pretrial conference in that same case
on July 18. So, those dates do not work for me. If we postpone the July 14 hearing on
7 the motion to transfer then I can do Levison on the 14th. (See Exh. 1)(emphasis
added).
8
18. Despite committing to July 14 to depose Ms. Levison, Defendants never noticed her
9
deposition. Plaintiff had assumed defense counsel could be taken at his word; Ms. Levison therefore
10
rearranged her schedule to make herself available for deposition on July 14. Ultimately, Defendants did
11
not bother to show up or even cancel the deposition ahead of time, inconveniencing Ms. Levison and
12
Plaintiff. Defendants never bothered to notice or cancel the other depositions either.
13
19. Defendants then requested a second set of dates of availability for Plaintiff’s experts. In
14
emails dated July 21 and 30, Plaintiff provided the following dates, which were before the discovery cut-
15
off:
16
Dr. Reading: August 4, 6, 7
17
Ms. Rizzardi: August 1, 5-8, 12, 13
18
Ms. Levison: August 15
19
20. True and correct copies of the emails are attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
20
21. Only Dr. Weiss was unavailable until late August due to a trip out of town. In short, none
21
of these dates (other than Dr. Weiss) were “during the week of August 25”, after the discovery cut-off.
22
22. In an email dated July 22, 2008, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would set
23
Rizzardi for deposition on August 5 and Reading for August 6. See Exh. 2.
24
23. Then on July 25, Defendants abruptly changed their minds and without further notice
25
decided to set the depositions of Dr. Reading and Ms. Rizzardi for August 12 and 14, respectively.
26
These are dates on which they are unavailable, as Plaintiff had previously informed Defendants. Plaintiff
27
has filed a motion for protective order regarding these depositions that seeks sanctions (Doc. 175).
28

1 24. True and correct copies of the depositions subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
2 25. It is with great reluctance that Plaintiff charges defense counsel with being a
3 demonstrable and habitual liar. However, defense counsel has engaged in a pattern of lying to the Court
4 in nearly every motion in this action that begs for redress. Lying and zealous advocacy are not the same
5 thing. Plaintiff urges the Court to take appropriate measures against defense counsel for his repeated
6 breaches of his duties as an officer of the Court.
7
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
9 that the foregoing is true and correct.
10
Executed on: August 1, 2008
11
12 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
13 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

2
3 EXHIBIT 1. Emails between parties, dated June 26, 30 and July 1 of 2008
4 EXHIBIT 2. Emails between parties, dated July 22 and 30 of 2008
5 EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ expert deposition subpoenas
6 EXHIBIT 4. Defendants’ fax of July 31, 2008
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 EXHIBIT 1
26 Emails between parties, dated June 26, 30 and July 1 of 2008
27
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:21 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: Levison deposition
Mark,

Ms. Levison is available to be deposed on July 14. Let me know if that works for you.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

1
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:56 PM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: Dr. Reading

Mark,

I just got off the phone with Dr. Reading. He’s available on July 11 and 18. Please let me know what works for you. It may
make sense for you to create a master calendar with the tentative depo dates of all deponents for Plaintiff and
Defendant, since most of the deponents are on your side.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:31 PM
Subject: Depositions
Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged
Mark,

I asked you for dates of availability to depose your experts last Monday. One week later, I’ve received one date from you
‐‐ July 7 ‐‐ for Dr. Burchuk, and nothing more. After I explained I’m not available on July 7, I didn’t back heard from you.
It shouldn’t take this long to give me dates of availability for your experts. I will go ahead and notice their depositions
today since my attempt to work the dates out with you has failed.

It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to cooperate with me on something as simple as scheduling expert depos, but it
comes as no surprise given your conduct in this action to date.

I have heard back from Ms. Rizzardi. She is available to be deposed all of next week, from 7/7 to 7/11, and also on 7/14
to 7/16. At this point, I’m still trying to reach Dr. Weiss, who was traveling last I heard. I hope to hear back from him
soon though. I’ve already supplied you dates for Dr. Reading and Ms. Levison but haven’t heard back from you.

Also, Plaintiff would like to depose:

Supervisor Ray Watson (4 hours)
Supervisor Barbara Patrick (4 hours)
Peter Bryan (full day)
David Culberson (4 hours)
Irwin Harris (full day)
Scott Ragland (4 hours)
Jennifer Abraham (4 hours)
Royce Johnson (4 hours)
Joseph Mansour (4 hours)
Maureen Martin (4 hours)
Albert McBride (4 hours)
Philip Dutt (full day)
Savita Shertudke (4 hours)
Sandra Chester (4 hours)
Toni Smith (4 hours)
Karen Barnes (full day)
Arlene Ramos Aninion (4 hours)

If it would ease scheduling conflicts for Defendants, Plaintiff is willing to waive the stipulation to having depos only on
T/W/Th and is willing to consider any day of the week.

Please let me know no later than Wednesday where things stand regarding the foregoing. Time is running short and
Plaintiff cannot wait a week for Defendants to come back to Plaintiff with nothing more than a single date for a single
deponent.

Sincerely,
1
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: Dr. Reading
Mark,

Weiss said he’s available first week of August. You now have dates of availability on all of Plaintiff’s experts.

I still need to hear dates from you on the non‐expert depos and Dr. Allen. I suggest we handle everything at once.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Dr. Reading

Gene,
Sarkisian is available July 23 and 24. We can set Burchuk for after his return from vacation. He returns on July 27. I am
in trial July 29 to July 31 but will be available after that. I have not yet heard from Allen but will keep following up.
I have a deposition in another case on July 11 and a pretrial conference in that same case on July 18. So, those dates do
not work for me. If we postpone the July 14 hearing on the motion to transfer then I can do Levison on the 14th.
So, we have possible dates for Sarkisian, Levison and Burchuk. We still need dates for Reading, Weiss and Allen.
Mark
1
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 EXHIBIT 2
26 Emails between parties, dated July 22 and 30 of 2008
27
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Expert depos
Gene,
Let’s set Rizzardi for August 5 and Reading for August 6. We have Burchuk on August 4.
Sarkisian is available August 13. Bourkidis is available August 14. McAfee is out of the office on vacation until August 18.
That leaves Weiss and Levinson. We can fit them in.
Let me know if that works for you.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:55 PM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: RE: Expert depos
Mark,

No other expert depos have been set. We’ve noticed Dr. Burchuk for Aug. 4. We’re still waiting on dates for the other
defense experts. Your asst mentioned I was aware Dr. Burchuk was on vacation. I don’t know where that came from.

Dr. Reading has given me the following dates: August 4, 6, 7

Ms. Rizzardi has said: August 1, 5‐8, 12, 13.

Ms. Levison will get back to me in the next few days. She has other client appts she is juggling at the moment.

I’m still waiting for Dr. Weiss to get back to me.

The calendars for the above experts will fill up quickly – so you need to get back to me quickly if you want any of them.
We still need to work out compensation for Ms. Levison’s time due to her canceled depo.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

1
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:13 PM
Subject: Expert Depos
Mark,

Thank you for your faxed expert deposition subpoenas. I’ve reviewed them and checked with Plaintiff’s experts. None of
the deposition dates you selected fell on the dates of availability I had previously sent you not once, but twice. Despite
your disgraceful lack of professionalism and regard for the busy schedules of others, I have gone ahead and asked
Plaintiff’s experts to try to accommodate the deposition dates you selected. Unfortunately, only Ms. Levison has
indicated she is available on the date you set for her deposition. None of Plaintiff’s other experts are available on the
dates you unilaterally chose.

This email (and the many prior emails I have sent you regarding expert deposition scheduling) constitutes Plaintiff’s
attempt to meet and confer with Defendants on scheduling of depositions of Plaintiff’s experts prior to Plaintiff’s filing a
motion for protective order. Plaintiff will file the motion tomorrow. Please let me know whether Defendants are willing
to stipulate to shortening time on the motion. Unlike Defendants, Plaintiff does not intend to “stay” the expert
depositions in the absence of a court order.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1
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 EXHIBIT 3
26 Defendants’ expert deposition subpoenas
27
28
Jul
Jul 29
29 08 09:41 a
08 09:41 Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400
400 Capitol
Capitol Mall, Suite 2640
Sacramento,
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Office
Office 916-444-6400
Fax:
Fax: 916-444-6405
916-444-6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Amy Remly
Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 9 (including cover page)
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 7/29/08
Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:
D Urgent o For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Attached please find Subpoena's for Dr. Reading, Dr. Weiss, Ms. Rizzardi Pearson and Ms. Levison.
Attached Levison.
Jul 29 08 09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2

~.
~·AW~'"\( &'?i a
WhpQtlJ3 In
! 194) Sllhpaena
'l)§' 1/24)
(Hey Civil CWie
in a Civil CiC'jH
Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT OF
F. Jadwin, 0_0.,
David F, D.O., F.C.A.P.
F.CAP.
SUBPOENA 1:'1
1?'l' A CIVIL CASE
vV.
aL
Countyof Kern, et al.
Case Number;
Number: I 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
TO: PhD.
Anthony E. Reading, Ph.D.
462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445
Hills, California 90212
Beverly Hills.
o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified below to
testifY in the above case.
PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM
DATE AND TIME
@' YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testilY
@ atthe
testifY at the taking of a deposition
in the above case.
PLACE OF DEPOSITION 462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445 DATE AND TIME
Hllls, California
Beverly Hills, CaliFornia 90212 8/12/2008 10:00 am
8/1212008
Ii1" YOU ARE COMMANDED

@' COMl\1ANDED to produce and permit
pennit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at the
place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):
Your entire file on this matter.
PLACE DATEAJ\"DTIME
DATE AJ\D TIME
462 North Linden Drive, Suite 445
Beverly Hills, Calitornia
California 90212 81121200810:00
8!12/2008 10:00 am
D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
below,
PREMlm
PREMISES L_4. T_E_A_N_D_TI_~_1E
I_D_A_T_E_A_N_D_T_I"_I_E __
Any organ
orgal1ization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more oflicers,
ization 110t offkers,
directors, agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and rnay
direcwrs, or managing agel1ts, may set forth, for each person designated, the
matters on wh ich the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
which
ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATUR:::

SIGNATUR: AND TITLE
nTLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE
£0J~
d0J~ 712912008
7f2912008
ISSUI1\G OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS lIND

ISSUIKG /\ND PHONE NUMBER
Mark A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640,
2640. Sacramento, California 95814; (916)
444-6400
(See Rllle Rul~s o[C;"i]
H. Federal Rules
Rule 45, Pro~edmc, Parts.
o[Civil Pro-cedurc, Parts C & D nn n(!~t page)
I'm nm.:1
lI If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district und~t
undet case Ilumber.
number.
Jul 29 08 09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p,3
p.3
AOKH
AOHH ) '94}
mO} l'94} Subpoena in a CiYil Case
in f! Civil Ca!!e
mC},
CaseSubpma
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 20 of 33
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
7/29/2008 462 N. Linden Drive, Suite 445, Beverly Hills, CA 90212

SERVED 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013
SERVED ON (pRINT NAME) MANNER OF SERV1CE
Anthony E. Reading, Ph,D,

Ph.D. and Eugene D. Lee, UB. Mail to Eugene D. Lee
Facsimile and First Class U.S.
respectively. per Stipulation
SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) TITLE
Amy Remly Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
DECLARATION OF SERVER
ofthc United States ofAmerica thatthe

I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe that the foregoing information contained
in the Proof of Service is true and correct.
Executed on
7/29/2008
7129/2008
011
DATE
or
ADDRESS OF SERVER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814
Rule 45, Federal Rules

Rule:) of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D:
(cJ
(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUH.JECT
SUKJECT TO SUBPOENAS.
0)
(lJ A l'lU'ty responsihle for the issuance and ,m'lce
party or an attorney resp:::msihle S:~r\'ice or 8a
s.ubp-oena s:,a11 take reasonable
,ubpocna s:ull steps to flvoid
rCa30nablc !!teps Imlloslng undue burden Qr
avoid imrosing expense
or cxpcnse trial be cornmanmallo tmvel from any such place within the state in which [he
commanckLi to travel the
on a person sll~io;:et
su~j<:et to that subpoena. The court
courl (}ll beh<il I' or which the subpoena
on b~h<tlrorwhich trial
tri ar
i5 held, or
al is
..was cnforc~ lIllS
vas issued shall enforce 1I11~ Liut}'
Lluty and impose upon the pllrty
party or
Of attorney in breach
of this duly
afthis saMtion \~hich
duty an appropriate san.ction may il1clude,
whicllll1ay il,clude, but is not limited to, lost djsclosure of
(iii) requires disclosure privileged or othcrpwtected
ofprlvileged matter and
othcrprOleeled m"tter
earnings and reasonable attome}"
attomer/ss fee. no exception
exceptIon or wai"ver
waiver applies, or
(iv) subjects a person (0
to undue burden.
(2) (A) A
/i. person commanded to La produce and permit inspection and copying
of designated books, papt::rs, documenl5 or tangible things, or inspectlon
papers, document:; inspection of (B) If a !!ubpoena
subpoena
premises need not :tppear peTSon at the
appear in [JeTSon tbe place oJ'production
ofproduction or inspcction
inspection unless
tor .deposition, hearing or trial
commanded to appear !ordcpositilJn, triaL (i) require~
requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information, or
(B) Subject to paragraph (d) {2) of this rule, a person commanded to
(D) (ii) requires disclosure
disclosurc of an unrctain.ed expert's opinion {]f
unrctaincd expert'!! or
producc and permit inspection and copying may, within 14
produce J 4 days after ser\'ice
service of information not
notdescnbing specifiC evel1tsor
describing speclflc events or occurrences in dispute and resulting
tim~ specified for compliance if such time is lcs:ilhan
subpoena or before the time. less lhan 14 from tbe the request of any party, or
c"Xpert's study made not at tbe
the expert's Dr
days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpDena
,crvice, serVe SUbpoena (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer ofa party 10
offlcer of.a to
\vTitten objection to inspection
\Hltten or copying of
inspectionor any or all of the designated materials
ofany expense to travel more than 100
incur substantial expensc
in;;ur 10(0 miles to attend trial, the court
or of lhe premlses,
urthe Ifabieation is made, the party serving
premises. Ifob.iection servirJg the subpa"nashall
subpoena shall not may, to protect
protec:t a pcrson
person subject to or affected by tlle
tbe subpoena, quash or modify
im;p~ct and copy materials
enntled to in!!p~ct
be entltled except pursuant
rnatenals or inspect the premises cxcept the subpoena, OJ,or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena
s.ubpoena is issued shows a
Whl~h tlJ~
to an ordercfthc court by which the subpoena was issued. Ifobjection has been substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be othef\\ijse otherwise met
made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon nOlicenotice to the [Jerson
person cormnanded
commanded without undue hardship and assures Lhal iliat th~
the person to whom the sUbpoena is
to produce.,
produce, move at any time for an order o-rder to compel the production. Such an addresst::d
addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or
pro<luction shall prNect
order to comply production protect any person who is nol not a party or .an
an spe-cified
production only upon spe;;i lied conditions.
officer part,., from significant e~pense
onicer of na pllfty' expense resulting lrom thc the inspection
inspecticln and
copying, conunanded,
copyinb commanded, (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDlt'O
RESPDNDl"G TO SUBPOENA.
(3) (f\) all timely motion, the court by which 3a 5ubpoena

(I\) On was issued shall
5ubpoenawas (I) A per.,on
person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce
quash or modify the subpoena if it lJl~m as they
tllem th"y are kept in the usual coursc
course of busine%
business or shaU organize and label
them to correspond with the categories in the demand.
fails to allow reasonabl~
(i) fail!! reasonuble time for compliance,
requires a person who
(ii) requIres ,,,·ho is not a party or an officer of a party
parry to (2) When information
infmmation subjectto
subjeetto a subpoena
SUbpoena is wilhheld
witnheld on a claim that it is
traycllo a place more that!
travcllo thM 100 miles from [he the place ,,-here
where that person resides, is prjviIeged or 5ubjecllo
privileged subject to protection as trial preparation material::,
materials, the claim shall be
employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, subject to the expreiisly and shall be supported by a description of the natme
made expressly nature of the
prm"isions
provisions of clause (e)(c) (3) (8) (iii) of this rule,
rule. ;uch
s.uch a persor!
person may in order to documents,
docume nts, communications, th ings not produced that is sufficientto
communkati ons, or things suffici entta enable
en able the
attend demmding party to contest the clalm.
demanding claim.
Jul
Jul 29
29 08
08 09:42a
09:42a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
pA

S'AQGR mev
S'AQGR (94) Subooena
mev !! (94) Subooena in
in aa Civil
Civil CaiSQ
CaiSQ
Issued by the
EASTERN CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT OF
David f.f. Jadwin, D.O, F.C.A.P

David
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
V.
County
County of Kern, et al.
Case Number:' 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
TO:
TO: Lawrence
Lawrence M.
M. Weiss, M.D.
Divsion of
Divsion of Pathology,
Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center
1500
1500 E.
E. Duarte
Duarte Road
Duarte,
Duarte, California
California 91010
o YOU
YOU AREARE COMMANDED to appear in the Cnited States District court at the place, date, and time specified
specified below
below to
to
testifY in
testifY in the above case,
PLACE
PLACE OF
OF TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY COURTROOM
COURTROOM
DATEAl'DTIME
DATEAl'DTIME
~
~ YOU
YOU ARE
ARE COMMANDED to appear atthe place, datc, and time specified below to testifY atthe taking of
of aa deposition
deposition
in the
in the above
above case.
or DEPOSITION
PLACE or
PLACE DEPOSITION 1500 E. Duarte Road DATE AND
AND TIME
TIME
Duarte, California 91010 811312008
811312008 10:00
10:00 am
am
ri YOC ARE
YOC ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or
or objects
objects at
at the
the
piace, date,
piace, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):
Your entire
Your entire file
file on
on this matter.
PLACE
PLACE DATE AND
AND TIME
TIME
1500 E,
1500 E, Duarte Road
Duarte, California 91010
Duarte, 811312008
811312008 10:00
10:00 am
am
o YOU ARE
YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
below.
PREMISES
PREMISES I_D_A_TE_A_N_D_T_I~_lE __
Any orgaoization
Any orgaoization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more
more officers,
officers,
directors, or
directors, or managing
managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person
person designated,
designated, the
the
matters on
matters which the person will testilY. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
on which
ISSUING OFFICER'S
ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE
.
ISSUING OFFICER'S
~dCv~
OFFICER'S NA"IE.
NA"IE. ADDRESS
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
712912008
712912008
ISSUING
Mark A.
Mark A. Wasser,
Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 9581"1; (916)
(916) 444-6400
444-6400
(See Rule
(See Rule 45,
45, Federal
Federal Rules
Rules of
of Civil
Civil Procedure,
Procedure, Parts C&
Parts C & 00 on
on mxt
mxt pill;e}
pill;e}
If action
If pending in
action isis pending in district
district other
other than
than district
district of
of issuance,
issuance, slate
slate district
district under
under case
case number.
number.
MRS (24) Subpoena in 11 Cry;] CV5t

(Rex I\%DS!!bmeqainoCjvj!C?,'5t
:\0&5 (Rey
PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVrCE
DATE PLACE
7/29/2008
7129/2008 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 and
SERVED 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100.
3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013
SERVED ON (PRrKT
(PR[KT NA\-!E)
NAvrE) MA.'-JNER
MA.'lNER OF SERVfCE
SERvrCE
Lawrence M. Weiss, M.D. and Eugene D. Lee, Facsimile && First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee per
respectively. Stipulation

DECLARAnON OF SERVER
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained
of perjury 11l1derthe
7/29/2008
7f29/2008
Executed on
DATE
Amy Remly
ADDRESS OF SERVER
Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C &

& D:
PROTECTfON OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.
(c) PROTECTION
(e)
A party or an attorney
(1) A attDrney responsible for dle
the issuance and service of a
subpceml shall take
subpcenll t2ke reasonable steps 10 avoid imposing undue burden or expense
~xpense trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the stmc in which the
sLlbjcct to that subpoena. The coun on behalf of which the subpoena
on a person subject trial is held, or
was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon [he
the party or attorney In
in breach
of this duty an appropriate sanction which mOlY
may include, but is not limited to, lost (lii)
(li i) requires
re quires disclosure of
ofprivilcgcd
privileged or othe-r prol~cted matter and
other proti.':cted
earnings and reasonable attorney's fee. no exception or waiver applies.,
applies, or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
burol:rl.
(2) (A) A person commanded to produce and permItpermit inspection and copying
of designated books, papers,
rapers. documents or tangible things, or inspection of (B) If a sub[Joena
premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless
commanded to appear for depllsition,
deposition, bearing
hearing or trial. (i) requires disclosure of a trade secret Dr or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
commercinl infunnation,
infunnalion, or
Subjec-t to paragraph (0)
(B) SUbjec.t (d) (2) of this
thiS rule, a person commanded to (ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion -or Dr
prOdllCC
produce ar.d inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of
Elr.d permit inspcctlDn no! describing specific events or occurrences in elispute
information not dispute and resulting
subpoena or before the time specified for compliance ifsueh time
comphance ifsuch time is less than 14 th~ ex-pert's
from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to
(lii)
wrinen objection
written obje crion to inspection or copy ing of
copying any or all cfthe
ofany ofthe designated
desi gnated materials
material 5 incur s-ubstamial
substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court
or the premises. If
oHhe
Dr of objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not
IfobJeetion may, to protect a person subject
subjecl to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify
be entitled to inspect and copy materials or inspect the premises except pursuant the subpoena, or, if the
th" party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a
to an order ofthe court by which the subpoena was was. issued. [[objection
[fobjection has been substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otheT\'lIise
substmltial Deed [ltherwise met
made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded without undue hardship and assures that the person to ',""hom
whom the subpoena is
to produce,
produce. move at any time lLme for an order to compel the production. Such an addressed will
win be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance orDr
order to com[Jly
comply production shall protect any person ,:....ho .vho is not a party or an production only
produClion ollly upon specified conditions.
offLcer or
offL::er of a party from significant
significanl expense resulting from the inspection and
-copying
copying commanded. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDlNG
RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA.
(3) (A) On timely motion, the court

coun by which a subpoena was issued shall (I) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce
quash or modify the subpoena if \t
it k~pt in the usual course of business or shall organi~
them as they an: kept organize and label
them to correspond
-correspond with the
lhe categories in the demand.
(j) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance,
(i)
(ii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to is: \vithheld
(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is
travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be-
be
employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that,mat, subject to the expr~sly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the
made expressly
p~rson may in order to
provisions of clause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person documents, communications, or things not produ<;cd
pmdu\:-ed that is sufficient 10
to enable
enabk the
attend demanding party
pllJ1:y to contest the claim.
Jul
Jul 29
29 08
08 09:43a
09:43a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.6
p.6

5't .!-088
5't (Bey J1?4}
.!-088 (Bey J1?4} S!)boQcna
S!)boQcna jn
jn fj
fj (:jyij
(:jyij Case
Case
Issued by the
EASTERN CALIFORNIA
DISTRlCTOF
David f.f. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP

David
SUBPOENA I~ A CIVIL CASE
V.
County
County of Kern, et al.
Case Number: l 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
TO:
TO: Stephanie
Stephanie Rizzardi Pearson
Rizzardi
Rizzardi Pearson
Pearson Associates
140
140 South
South Lake Avenue, Suite 230
Pasadena,
Pasadena, California 91101
o YOU
YOU AREARE COMMANDED
COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified
specified below
below to
to
testilY
testilY in
in the
the above case.
PLACE
PLACE OF
OF TESTIMO'<Y
TESTIMO'<Y COURTROOM
COURTROOM
AND TIME
DATE AND TIME
[il"
[il" YOU
YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testilY at the taking of
ARE COMMANDED of aa deposition
deposition
in the
in above case.
the above
PLACE OF
PLACE DEPOSITION
OF DEPOSITION 140 South Lake Avenue, Suite 230 DATE AND
AND TIME
TIME
Pasacena, California 91101 8/14/200810:00 am
8/14/200810:00 am
~ YOU
~ YOU ARE C01VfMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthc following documents or
ARE C01VfMANDED or objects
objects at
at the
the
place, date,
Your entire
Your entire file
file on
on this matter.
PLACE
PLACE DATE A'iD
A'iD TIME
TIME
140 South
140 South Lake Avenue, Suite 230
Pasadena, California 9t 101
Pasadena, 8/14/2008 10:00
8/14/2008 10:00 am
am
o YOU ARE
YOU ARE COMMANDED
COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified
specified below.
below.
PREMISES
PREMISES [_D_A_T_E_A_N_D_TI_~_1E __
Any organization
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more
more officers,
officers,
directors, or managing
directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person
person designated,
designated, the
the
matters on
matters on which
which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
ISSUING OFFICER'S
ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATCRE
SIGNATCRE At>:D TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE
~.?P c'N~
7/29/2008
7/29/2008
I"SLING OFfICER'S
I"SLING OFfICER'S NAME.
NAME. ADDRESS
ADDRESS A'ID PHO"fE KUMBER
Mark A.
Mark A. Wasser,
Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95B1i; (916)
(916) 444-6400
444-6400
(See Rule
(See Rule 45,
45, Federal
Federal Rules
Rules ofCivil
ofCivil Proc:eJure.
Proc:eJure. Parts C&
Parts C &D Ollllex! p.age)
D Ollllex! p.age)
II Ifaction
If pending in
action isis pending district other
in district other than
than dislrict
dislrict of
of issuance,
issuance, state
state district
district under
under case
case number.
number.
Jul 29 08 09:43a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.l
p.7
A088
Aosa mey [{z·o SubpQena
(Rey Ji9·lJ
Case Civil C;lse
jI Ciyjl
Subpoena In a C\lse
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 24 of 33
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE
DilTE PLACE
7/29/2008
712912008 140 South Lake Ave, Suite 230, Pasadena, CA 91101
SERVED 555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013
SERVED ON (PRINT NA..!v1E)
NA!vlE) MA."lNER OF SERVICE
MA.NNER
Stephanie Rizzardi Pearson and Eugene D. Lee, Facsimile & First Class U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee per
ly.
respectiveIy,
respective Stipulation
110)/ OF SERVER
DECLARATIO)T
DECLARA
I1declare
declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmericathat
ofAmerica that the foregoing information
infonnation contained
7/29/2008
Executed on
DATE
Amy Remly
ADDRESS OF SERVER
Rule 45, Federal Rules of Ci'vil

Civil Procedure, Parts C & D:
0:
(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS
(e)
(1) re:;ponsible for the issuance and servio.:

pai'ty or an attorney responsible
(I) A pmty service of a
subpoena shall take reasonable steps to a\'cid
3\'cid imposing e~pense
imp(}sing undue burden or ex:pense uny such place within the sffitc
trial be commanded to travel from any state in ""hich
whlch the
on a person subject 10to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena
behalfofwhich trial is held, or
was issued s.hall
shall enfcrcethis duty and impose upon the party oror attorney in breach
of dnl:' an appropriate sanction which may include, but is not limited to, lost
this duty
ofthis (iii) reg ui res dis
(Ii i) requlres closure of
disclosure priyj Ieged or other protected matter and
ofpriYilegcd
carnings and reasonable attorney's fcc.
earnings no exception or waiver applies:,
applies, or
(iv) subjects Cl.
(l person to
lo undue burden.
(2) (A) ,\
A person commanded to produce and pennit Inspection
inspection and copying
books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of
dC5ignated books.
of designated (B) If a subpoena
premises
premi5es need not appear in person at the place ofproducl.ion Inspection unle5S
ofproduclion or inspection unless
commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial requires. dIsclosure
0) rec:jllire,
(I) disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or informalion, or
commercial information,
Drcommcrcial
(8) SlibJect
(B) Sllbject to paragraph (d) (2) ofthis
of this rule, a person cormnanded
commanded to (ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or
produce and permit inspection and copying may, witl1in within 14 days after service of information not describing specific events Dr oceurrences in dispute and resulting
or occurrences
subpoena or before the time specifLed for campi
specifLt:d fOJ compl iance ifsuch time is less than 14 from the cxpert"s
expert's study made not al at the request of any party,
pam, or
days after service; >erve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena
service, serve (iii) requires a person riol a party or an officer a0 fa party to-
persoll who is r10t to
wri lt~n objection
\/I'ritte:n 0 bj eGti cm to Inspection Qr copyin
copyingg of any
an} or all ofthe desi
designated
gnaled materials ineur 5ubstoUltiai expense to travel more than 100 miles to anend
incur subst,mtial attend Irial, the court
ol"lhe premises.
or Drlhe
Dr premises, If objccrion
objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not prolc~( a person subject
may, to prote<)( sllbj:,;t to or afieeted
aficcted by the subp<"lena, quash or modify
lhe subpoena,. modjfy
be entitled 10 to inspect and copy material:;
matetials or inspecl the premises except pursuant
OJ inspect subpoena, or, if the party
the slibpoena, porrty in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a
to an order ofthe court by WhlCh the subpocna
la subpoena was issued. If objection has been substantial need for the testimony Dr or material tltat
Ihat cannot be otherwise
other'.vise met
made, the tile party sen.'ing
serving the subpoena may, uponullon notice to the person commanded without undue hardship and assures that thal the person to whom the subpoena is
lo produce, move al
to at any time for an order to compel the production,
prOduction, Slich
Such an addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or
order to complycompiy production
productlOl1 shall protect any person who is i:s not a party or an production only upon specified conditions.
officer of a party from significant cxpense expense resultmg
rcsultlOg from
fwm the inspection and rmd
copying c:mmmnded,
copymg c~mm:.mded. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDrNG TO SUBPOENA.
timely motion, the court by which it~ subpoena was issued shall
(3) (A) On I1mely {l) A person respOl1ding
(I) responding to a subpoena (0 to produce documents shall produ:;e
produce
qUBsh or
qUflsh ljr mlldify the subpocna if it
subpoena ifH th<ey arc
them as they iJl'e kept in the usual course ofbllsiness
of business or shall organize and label
them to CQrres.pond
IDem cQrrespond with the categories In in the demand.
(i) fails to allow reasonable time tor compliance,
tlme 10r
(ill or .an
(li) requires u person who is not a party OJ an officer ofa
of a party to (2) When information ::;ubject
,;ubject to a subpoena is withheld on aCl claim that it is
tl1e place where that
travel to a place more than 100 miles from the tbat person resides, is subjecttD protecllon
privileged or subjectto protection as trial preparation materials, the claim
cl;um shall be
loyed or regularly transacts business in perscm, except that, subject to the
employed
emp suppQt1ed by a description of the natme
made expressly and shall be 5upported nature of the
provision'> claus~ (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person
pmvisiOni of clause pcrson may in order to documents, communications, OJ things
th ings not produced
produccd that suffi oien t to enable the
th at is sufficienl
attend contc 5t the clai
demanding party to contc5t claim.
m,

~ e,gn (Rev ](94) Subpoena in ij Civil Cnse
Issued by the
EASTERN CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT OF
David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP.

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
v.
Countyof Kern, et al.
Number:!1 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
Case Nmnber: 1:07-cv-G0026-0WW-TAG
TO: Regina Levison

Levison Search Associates
Post Office Box 1133
Dorado, California 95623
EI Dorado.
o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the place, date, and time specified below to
testify in the above case.
PLACE or
Of TESTIMONY COURTROOM
DATE AND TIME
@' YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify
[if testifY at the taking of
ofaa deposition
ill
in the above case.
DEPo~mON
PLACE OF DErO::J1TION 400 Capitol Mall.
Mall, Suite 2640 DATE AND TIME
Califomia 96814
Sacramento. California 95814 8/15/2008 10:00 am
~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe following documents or objects at the
@'
Your entire file on this matter.
PLACE
PLi\CE DATE AND TIME
TlME
400 Capitol
C;;Jpitol Mall, Suite 2640
Sacramento, California 95814 8/15/2008
8/1512008 10:00 am
o VOl: ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
VOL"
PREMISES
'ReMISES I
DATE AND TIME
------------------------
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shal1 otIicers,
shall designate one or more ollicers,
forth~ for each person designated, the
directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth,
matters on which the person 'will
will testifY.
testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
rSSUING orrICER'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEfENDANT) DATE
~4J~ 7/29/2008
712912008
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS
ADDR[SS AND PHONE ;-';UMBER
XUMBER
A. Wasser, Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, California 95814; (916)
Mark A
444-6400
·444-6400
Federnl Rules
(See Rule 45, Feder,,1 ofCi.vil
Rilles of Pruced~re, Parts.
Civil Pruccdllre, Parts C & !J pag~)
Oll next paf!c)
D Oll
11 If action is pending in district other than

thEm district of issuance, state district under case number.
Jul 29 08 09:44a
Jut Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.9
AGSR {Hcy
A08!l mey 1/94) SlIbpoena In
1:941 SllhpQena in a Cjyil Case
Ciyjl cm
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
7/29/2008 P.O. Box 1133, EI Dorado, CA 95623 and

P,O.
SERVED 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013
SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) MANNER OF SERVICE
Regina Levison and Eugene D. Lee1espectively.

Leef€spectively. C~ass U.S. Mail to Eugene D. Lee
Facsimile and First Class
per Stipulation
SERVED BY (PRJNT NAME) TITLE
DECLARAnON OF SERVER
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the 1;

ofthe 1;nited
nited States ofAmerica that the foregoing infonnation contained
Executed on 7/29/2008
DATE
Amy Remly
ADDRESS OF SERVER
400 Capitol Mall,

MaH, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814
95B14
Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & 0:

D:
(e) PROTECT[ON
(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.
(l} A party or an attorney

(1) aHorney responsible for the is.suance
issuance and servio::
service of "-a
subpoena shall take rea50nable
rea>onable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the
on a person subject to that subpoena_
subjcctto subpoena. The COtHton
cOllrton behalf ofwhich the subpoena trial is held, or
thlS duty nnd impose upon the party or attorney in breach
was issued shall enforce this
includ~, but is [lOt
of this duty an appropriate sanction which may include,
o1't11is not limited to, lost (iii) requires
requjres disclosure of privileged Or
oCprivi1e,ged or other protected matter and
earnings and reElSonable
reEISonable attorney's.
attorney', fec.
fee. no exception or waiver applies.,
applies, Dr
fJf
(iv) subject;
subjects a person 10
to undue burden.
(A:I A person commanded
(2) (Al cDrrunanded to produce and permit inspection and copying
of designated dOCLlments Or
deslgnated books, papers, dOCl.lments or tangible things.
things, or inspection
inspeclion of (6) If a subpoena
(B)
premises need not appear in person at the place ofproduction or inspection unless
conunanded
commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.
triaL co
(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other .;;:onfidential
~onfidential
research, development, commerc ill! information,
de\'e lopment, or commercial information. or
(8) Subject to paragraph (d) (2) of this rule, a person commanded w
(B) to unretaltled expert's
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretamed npert's opinion or
produce and permit inspection and copying may, WIthin within 14 days after service
SCf\iice of specific e....ents
information not describing specific:
llIfOTmation events or occurrences in dispute and resulting
subpoena Dr before the timebme specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 from the expert's study made not at lhethe request of any party, Dror
serVice, serve UpOLl the party or attorney designated in the subpoena
days after service, (iii) requires a person who is not a Darty
(IiI) [larty or an officer of a party to
writt.n objection to inspection or copying
wriLto::n c{)pyingof an)' or all ofthc designated materials
of any incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, lrial, tile eaun
the court
or of the premises
oflhc premises. [fI r objection is made, the party serving the subpoena s.hall
shall not may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify
be entitleD to insp;>::t
in51X~t and copy lDSpect the prcmises
c(lPY materials or inspect premises except pursuant the ,ubpoena,
subpoena, or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued i~sued shows
,hows a
to an order of the court by which tllcsubpoena
the subpoena was issued. [[objection
If obJection has been substantial need for
,ubstantial fDr the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met
made, the party serving Lhe subpoena may, upon notice tollie perSOfl commanded
totheperso[\ without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the rhe subpoena is
to produce, move
moye at any time tor an order to compel the production. Such an address.ed
addressed will hebe reasonably ~Ollrt may order appearance or
reasonabiy compensated, the court
order to comply production shall protect ~y my person who is not a party or an pofOductl0n
rroduction only upon specified conditions.
ofticer of a party from significant
signific.ant expense resulting from the inspection and
copying commanded. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA
(3) (A) On limely coun by

timely motion, the court hy which a subpoena s.h~l1
subpot:na was issued shall (I) A person responding subpoen~ tD
respondillg to au subpoena document~ shall produce
to produce document:::
quash or modify jf it
the subpoena ifit
ttlodiJY thlJ l1S they are kept in the usual course or
them llS business or shall organize Gnd
or husiness and label
the
themm to corrcspon
correspondd '.Vith
with the caLegories in the demand.
all 01-'': reasonable:
(i) fails to allo\-v reasonable time for compliance,
person who i,
(ii) requires aapcrson is. not a party or an officer 01
of a party to (2) When intormation subjectto
informalion subject subpoctla is withheld all
to a subpoena 011 a claim that it is
travel to a place
plaiX: more thunlUO
Lhl\Il IUO miles from the place where thal that persoll
persoLl reside:;,
resides, is priVilege;:! or 5ubjeet
pnvjlege{\ prole-etion as trinl
,ubJect to protection preparal~o[J Illateriats,
trilll preparahon daimshUlI be
materials, the c1aimshUil
employed or regularly tran~ae~
transacts business in person, cxcepl thaI, subject to the
except that, ~\-Ipparted by a description of
made expressly and shall be ~l,.Ipparted or the nature
nalure of the
provisions of claus.e
clause (c) (3) (B) (iii) of this rule, such a person
per:;;on may in order to eonununications, orlhings not produced that is
documents, connnunications,orthings sufficientto enable the
issu±ficlentto
attend demanding party to conlest claim
contest the claim.
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 EXHIBIT 4
26 Defendants’ fax of July 31, 2008
27
28
Jul 31 08 04:58p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Amy Remly
Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 6 (including cover page)
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 7/31108
Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern cc:
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
-Comments:
Attached pko!ase find the Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement Re: Defendants' Motion for a
Protective Order.
Jul
Jul 31
31 08
08 04:59p
04:59p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2
p.2
11 Eug"n" D. L"" SB# 236812

LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE
22 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeks, ell. 90013
33 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
44 E-mail: eleeriVLOELcom
55 Attorneys for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.
66 Mark A. Wasser ell. SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARKA. WASSER
77 400 Capitol Mall, Suite I 100
Sacramento, ell. 95814
88 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
Fax:
99 E-mail: mwasserrtV.markwasser.com
10
10 Bernard C. Barman, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
11
11 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 TrLlxlLlll Avenue, Fourth Floor
12
12 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
13
13 Fax: (661) 868-3805
Fax:
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
14
14
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
15
15 Jennifer Abrallanl, Scott Ragland, Tom Smith and William Roy
16
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
18 DAvlD F. JADWIK, D.O.
DAvlD Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
19
19 Plaintiff, JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY
DISAGREEM:ENT RE: DEFENDANTS'
20
20 vs. MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
21
21 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Date:
Time:
22
22 Defendants. Place: U.S, Bankruptcy Courthouse,
Bakersfield Courtroom 8
23
23
Complaint Piled: January 5, 2007
24
24 Trial Date August 26, 2008
2S
2S This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-
26
26 251 (a) in advancc of the August 6, 2008 hearing on Defendants' motion for protective order.
251
27
27
28
28
JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
I
Jul
Jul 31
31 08
08 04:59p
04:59p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3
p.3
I.
22 Statement of Diseovery Disagreement

33 Plaintiff has noticed 17 additiona~ depositions on top of the 16 he has already taken. He
44 has also indicated the desire to depose at least some of Defendants' experts and supplemental
55 experts. This will apparently lead to another 5 or 6 depositions. That would bring the total
66 number of depositions by Plaintiff to more than 40.
77 Defendants have so far responded to two sets of interrogatories, consisting of 91
88 interrogatories, and Plaintitfhas now served another set of7 interrogatories, the first
99 interrogatory of which asks Defendants to provide, among other things, all facts upon which
10
10 Defendants base their responses to 290 requests for admission. Thus, the tirst interrogatory,
11
11 alone, requires potentially 290 separate responses. Other interrogatories in the third set require
12
12 similarly compound responses.
13
13 The parties had an agreement that Plaintiff woul d not serve any interrogatories after
14
14 Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second set. These new interrogatories are in derogation of
IS
IS that agreement and represent a continuation of Plaintiffs umeasonable discowry demands.
16
16 Defendants believe there is nothing about this case that justifies the number of
17
17 depositions and interrogatories Plaintiff has taken and served. When Defendants agreed to give
18
18 Plaintiff "relief' from the limitations established in Rules 30 and 33 they did not consent to
19
19 unlimited depositions and interrogatOlies, particularly of the wasteful and useless nature Plaintiff
20
20 has purslled.
has
21
21 Further, the depositions Plaintiffwallts to take cannot be completed before the discovery
22
22 cut-off. PlaintitI has asked Defendants to waive the discovery cut-off hut Defel1dants are
23
23 unwilling to do so. Waiving the discovery cut-off effectively jeopardizes the Scheduling Order
24
24 and Defendants are unwilling to do that without action hy the Court
and
25
25 There is another, more significant issue. Plaintiff has noticed a motion to mnend his
26
26 complaint but that motion will not be heard until September 8. The proposed amendment adds at
at
27
27 least two new theories of recovery against the County. It expands Plaintiffs civil rights claim to
to
28
28
JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY D1SAGREE1VlENT
2
Jul
Jul 31
31 08
08 05:00p
05:00p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5
p.5
11 'intimidation,
'intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Plaintiff claims Defendants created a hostile work
22 environment and damaged his reputation. Defendants claim, to the extent the workplace was
33 hostile, the hostility was caused by Plaintiff and, to the extent his reputation was damaged,
44 Plaintiff
Plaintiff inflicted the damage on himself. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages for personal injury
55 and
and loss of compensation.
66 III.
77 The Contentions of the Parties.
88 The depositions Plaintiff has taken to date havc failed to elicit any relevant evidence
99 regarding
regarding his claims and have been largely a waste of time. Plaintiff has elected to depose
10
10 witncsses with only the most marginal and remote connection to the case. This wastefulness is at
at
11
11 least partly demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff has not even attempted to reconvene the two
12
12 depositions he adjourned - despite asking this Court for relief on one of them - because they were
were
13
13 both a waste of time before Plaintiff adjourned them.
14
14 Plaintiffs interrogatories to date have been similarly wasteful and have yielded little, if
15
15 any, information of relevance to issues in the case. The great majority of the interrogatories have
have
16
16 focused on medical procedures that have nothing to do with any of Plaintiffs claims.
17
17 Plaintiffs approach to discovery has been burdensome and abusive.
18
18 Under any standard, the sheer number of depositions and interrogatories is unreasonable.
19
19 Nothing about this case warrants so many depositions or interrogatories.
20
20 Plaintiff disagrees 311d believes the Defendants have no right to object to his discovery.
21
21 He believes he ean take as many depositions as he wants and serve as many interrogatories as he
22
22 wants. He reads the language in the Scheduling Order as granting him the right to unlimited
wants.
23
23 depositions and interrogatories. He believes his discovery to-dute has been valuable.
24
24 He bclicves the Defendants' objections are in bad faith and that the Defendants should
25
25 submit to the depositions hc has noticed and answer all the intelTogatories.
26
26 TV.
27
27 Conclusion.
28
28 This Court's intervention is necessary to resolve the issue.
JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGK.EEMENT
4
Jul 31 08 05:00p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.6
Respectfully submitted,
3 Dated: July _ _,2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
5 By: _
Eugene D. Lee
6 Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.
7
8 Dated: July _ _, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
9
By: _
10
Mark A. Wasser
11 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

184 D Mpo Depos-Rog3 - P Opp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

184 D Mpo Depos-Rog3 - P Opp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 33

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 2

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 3

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 4

1 Ms. Levison: July 14

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 5

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 6

1 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

That leaves Weiss and Levinson. We can fit them in.

Let me know if that works for you.

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 18 of 33

Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 9 (including cover page)

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 7/29/08

Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:

D Urgent o For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 19 of 33

DATE AND TIME

Ii1" YOU ARE COMMANDED

ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATUR:::

ISSUI1\G OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS lIND

7/29/2008 462 N. Linden Drive, Suite 445, Beverly Hills, CA 90212

SERVED ON (pRINT NAME) MANNER OF SERV1CE

Anthony E. Reading, Ph,D,

Amy Remly Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

ofthc United States ofAmerica thatthe

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule 45, Federal Rules

(3) (f\) all timely motion, the court by which 3a 5ubpoena

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 21 of 33

David f.f. Jadwin, D.O, F.C.A.P

MRS (24) Subpoena in 11 Cry;] CV5t

SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) TITLE

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C &

(3) (A) On timely motion, the court

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 23 of 33

David f.f. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP

SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) TITLE

Amy Remly Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento, CA 95814

Rule 45, Federal Rules of Ci'vil

(1) re:;ponsible for the issuance and servio.:

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 25 of 33

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.CAP.

TO: Regina Levison

DATE AND TIME

11 If action is pending in district other than

7/29/2008 P.O. Box 1133, EI Dorado, CA 95623 and

Regina Levison and Eugene D. Lee1espectively.

Amy Remly Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the 1;

400 Capitol Mall,

Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & 0:

(l} A party or an attorney

(3) (A) On limely coun by

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 184 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 28 of 33

Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 6 (including cover page)