58 mx protective order - declarations

8/14/2019 58 Mx Protective Order - Declarations

1/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 20

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento. CA 95814

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

4 E-mail: [email protected]

5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor

7 Bakersfield. CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800

8 Fax: (661) 868-3805I E-mail: [email protected]

9

10 Attorneys for Defendan ts County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Smithland

12 ::

I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:

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

The statements in this declaration are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and I can

testify competently to them if called as a witness.

DECLARATION O F M AR K A. WASSER

IN SUPPORT OF M O TI ON F O RPROTECTIVE ORDER RE :EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSES

Date: November 5, 2007Time: 9:30 a.m. (date cleared by CRD)Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse,Bakersfield Courtroom 8

Date Act ion Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

~ Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

)

))))))

~)))

- - - - - - - - - - - - )

18 vs.

13

19 COUNTY OF KERN, et ai.,

20 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff,

14

15

16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDE

RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE


2/20


1 2. As is more fully explained in the declarations of Jennifer Abraham; Michelle

2 Burris; Jane Thornton; Denise Long and Toni Smith filed herewith, they object to disclosing

3 their home addresses to Plaintiff, David Jadwin, on grounds o f personal safety and privacy. I

4 believe that, if asked, other County employees would submit similar declarations.

5 3. Defendants' have disclosed the individual work addresses and telephone numbers

6 for all County employees who have been initially identified as witnesses this action.

7

8I

9 I

10

addition, Defendants have promised to make all employees available to Plaintiff upon request to

Defendarlts' counsel, have committed to provide PleLinliffwith upGalea contact infanna:tiOJJ, if

known, for any employees who leave County employment during this case and to accept service

of all process and notices on behalf o f the employees. These representations have all been in

! I writing and have been made multiple times. are repeated here. Copies12 IIcorrespondence eontains representations are attached to movmg papers.13 4. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy o f my letter of September 27, 2007 to

14 Plaintiffs counsel offering to meet and confer on the substance o f this motion. Although

15 additional correspondence was exchanged, no resolution was arrived at and PlaintifT s position

16 actually became more extreme as the meet-and-confer process continued. See, for example,

17 Eugene Lee's letter o f October 5, 2007. Copies o f all meet and confer letters are attached hereto

18 as Exhibit 1. On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff served a request for production on Defendants that

19 also seeks employee home addresses. It is apparent that Plaintiff remains aggressive pursuit 0

20 employee home addresses despite full disclosure o f contact addresses far all employees and

21 Defendants' assurances that all employees will be made available and despite Plaintiff s

22 representations to the contrary during the meet-and-confer process.

23 II I

24 II I

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 III


REI EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE


3/20


1 5. My standard hourly rate is $350.00 per hour. I have spent approximately sixteen

2 hours meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs counsel and preparing this motion and supporting

3 papers.

4 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

5

6 Executed this 12'h day of October, 2007, in Sacramento, California.

7

8

9

10

1 d

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mark A. Wasser


RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE


4/20


EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letters between Defendant'sattorney and Plaintiffs attorney


5/20


September 27, 2007

Law Offices ofMARK A WASSER400 Capitol Mali, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405D1wasser@marh:wasser.com

Eugene LeeLaw Offices of Lee

555 West Street Suite 31nULg"" ; ' , Calif;onlia 9001 0

Re.' Jadwin v. County o f Kern, et

Dear Mr. Lee:

We are filing a motion for a protective order on the home address issue. SeveralCounty employees object to disclosure of their home addresses to Dr. Jadwin on groundsof personal safety. Since all are available at their work addresses, which have beenprovided to you, there is no reason to disclose their home addresses.

Remaining ever-optimistic that you might want to discuss this issue reasonably, Ioffer another opportunity to meet and confer on From the tenor of your movingpapers, I assume you will refuse. However, if you have any interest in discussingissue further before we file our motion, let me know.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A Wasser

cc: Mark Nations (via first class mail)Karen Barnes (via first class mail)Joan Herrington (via first class mail)

Admined (0 Practice in California and Nevada


6/20


( Z 1 3 ) 9 9 Z - : 3 2 9 9

T E L E P H O N E

A W

E U GO F F I C E

E N E L

F

E

E L E E @ L O E L . G O ME-MAIL

( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7

F A C S I M I L E

EUGENE D LEE, ESQPRINCTPAL

55 5 W E S T F I F T H S T R E E T , S U I T E 3 1 0 0

L O S A N G E L E S , C A L l F " O R N 1 A 9 0 0 1 3 - 1 0 1 0

October 1, 2007

W W W . L O E L . O O M

W E B S I T E

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQOF COUNSEL

VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL

WasserLaw Offices of Mark Wasser400 Capitol Mall Ste 11 00Sacramento, 95814

100011.001

Re: Motion for Protective OrderJadwin I County of Kern, et (USDC EDCA No, 1:07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

I am of your You state asmotion the allegation County employees object todisclosure of their home addresses to Dr. Jadwin on grounds of personal safety"

Plaintiffrequests an offer of proof Who are these objecting employees? What specifically arethey afraid of? On what do they base these alleged fears? In other words, demonstrate that this isnot just the latest example ofthe County's attempt to blame the victim for their own illegalactions,

Plaintiffhas a right to investigate, informally contact and serve documents on the witnesses, AsPlaintiffhas repeatedly explained, witnesses' availability at work is not the only relevanteonsideration

Defendants have orally "represented" that they are willing to accept service on behalf of its"current employees" and to produce them as needed, In exchange, Plaintiff has stated itswillingness to forego disclosure of their home contact information, However, Plaintiffhasseveral concerns about relying on Defendants' oral representations,

First, what happens when current Kern County employees quit or are terminated beforedeposition or trial? Plaintiff needs to ensure that it receives their home contact information in atimely manner. The written stipulation which Plaintiffhas proposed, attached hereto, addressesthis issue,

Second, the case of KMC Interim CEO David Culberson - whom Defendants later informedPlaintiff was not an employee but an independent contractor - highlights the ambiguity ofDefendants' "representation", Which of the witnesses listed on Defendants' "Supplemental"Initial Disclosures are employees of Kern County as opposed to independent contractors? Thewritten stipulation which Plaintiffhas proposed, attached hereto, addresses this issue.


7/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 7 of 20,

Finally, FRCP Rule 29 and USDC EDCA Local Rule 83-143 require that Plaintiff andDefendants enter into a written stipulation when varying discovery procedures. Defendants'representation that they will accept service on behalf of certain witnesses represents a variance ofdiscovery procedures. Plaintiff is willing to enter into a stipulation with Defendants but hasrequested that the stipulation be memorialized in writing. Defendants have refused.

Plaintiff and Defendants appear to agree in principle. What is the basis for Defendants' refusal tonegotiate a written stipulation, a copy of which is attached hereto? Both Plaintiff's motion tocompel Defendants' proposed motion for protective order could been avoided hadDefendants been willing to do so.

tOr"wrlrii to

co: Joan Herrington, Esq.enc: Proposed Stipulation


8/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 8 of 20 I LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100

Los Angeles, CA900133 Phone: (213) 992-3299

Fax: (213) 596-04874 email: [email protected]

12

8

14

13

Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENTLAW OFFICE5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614

ele;phcme: (510) 530-4078I (510) 530-4725I jh@baelocomIOf Counsel to LAW Ay m r . p OF

, for " " m U H

10 i F11 I A. Wasser CAOFFICES lVL"'''''

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

9

7

6

5

15 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

16 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy

1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor17 Bilkersfield, 9330 I'Phone: (661) 868-3800

18 Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

19Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer

20 Abraham, Scott Ragland,Toni Smith, and Will iam Roy.

21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23 FRESNO DIVISION

24 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No.1 :07-cv-00026 OWW TA G

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff,v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et a!.,

Defendants.

STIPULATION RE HOME CONTACTINFORMATION OF DISCLOSED KERNCOUNTY EMPLOYEES.

Complaint Filed: January 5, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAGSTIPULATION RE ADDRESSES OF DISCLOSED WITNESSES 1


9/20


In order to avoid Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures that comply with Rule 26, as

well as Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiffand Defendants hereby stipulate that:I

1. Defendants shall within 10 days of signing ofthis Stipulation and Order by the Court Idisclose to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. the last known home address and phone I

number (or if not known, the last known address and phone number) of any and all 1

.

1

2

3

4

5

6

individuals ar e not employees of Defendant

of Kern Defendants

7 as Wlme"t" 111 i\mended or Supplemental Disclosures.

8

9

Independent contractors,

employees.

as no t deemed to be

within 10 of signing StipUlation Order byI I dJsclosc to Plaintiff known

Disclosures.

3. Defendants shall disclose to PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O. the last known home

number of any and all former employees of Defendant County of Kern that

Defendants list as witnesses in their Initial and any Amended or Supplemental

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Iaddress and phone number of any and all current employees of Defendant County ofl

Kern that Defendants as witnesses in their Initial and any Amended or ISupplemental Disclosures within five days of an y termination emPloymen1

with the County of Kern, or such shorter time as is reasonably necessary so as to

permit Plaintiff to compel their attendance at depositions andlor trial.

4. Defense counsel shall accept service by facsimile of Plaintiff's deposition subpoenas

and Rule 45 subpoenas on behal f of any and all current employees of Defendant

County o f Kern, and Defendant County of Kern shall take all necessary steps to

compel compliance with either or both of these.

USDC, ED Case No.1 :07-cv-00026 OWW TAGSTIPULATION RE ADDRESSES OF DISCLOSED WITNESSES 2


10/20


The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing therefore;

IS SO ORDERED

STATES

ORDER

AttorneyCOUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRY AN,HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFERABRAHA1\1, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI e n , n ~ n

WILLIAM ROY

Eugene D. LeeAttorney for PlaintiffDAVID F JADWIN, D.O

By:_-=---, . , , ..---- ' ,- :-:=-_---, .-=-,-;- _ _The Honorable Theresa A GoldnerUnited States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October _ ' 2007

Dated: O ct o be r_ , 2007

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13I

14II

5 II16

II17 III,18

I19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

USDC, ED Case No. l:07-cv-00026 OWW TAGSTIPULATION RE ADDRESSES OF DISCLOSED WITNESSES 3


11/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 11 of 20 Law Offices of

MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento" California 95814

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: [email protected]

October I, 2007

ACSIl',Ul,E & FIRST

Eugene LeeOffices of Eugene Lee

Fifth Suite 3ILos California 1010

Re: Jadwin v. County o f Kern, et al.

Dear Mr. Lee:

This is in response to your letter this morning.

The Defendants' representations to yon regarding acceptance of service on behalfof ali parties and County employees and making employees available to you on requesthave not been "oraL" You and I have had no oral communications for months. ourrepresentations, indeed, ail our communications to you on this topic and ail other topicsfor the past few months have been, and still are, written. Hence, the statements in yourletter about oral representations are false. I will not spend any time referring you to themany writings in which I have made the representations. They will be provided to theCourt in our motion and you have them.

Neither Rule 29 nor Local Rule 83-143 "require" a stipulation. Rule 29 states thatparties may by written stipulation provide that depositions "may be taken before any

person, at any time and place, upon any notice, and in any manner. . .

" and "modifyother procedures governing or limitations placed on discovery" except for certainenumerated rules that do not apply to our circumstances. As you know, the word "may"is discretionary, not mandatory. Thus, your statement that Rule 29 requires a stipulationis false. Local Rule 83-143 imposes certain requirements on the form of stipulations andrequires that stipulations be approved by the Court but does not "require" stipulations.Thus, your statement that it does is also false. Further, even i f Rule 29 did apply, we arenot proposing to change any of the things Rule 29 addresses. We are not proposing to

Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada


12/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 12 of 20Eugene LeeOctober I, 2007Page 2

vary any terms of discovery. Neither Rule 29 nor Local Rule 83- 143 have anyapplication. As foreign as it may be to your style of practice, we are simply proposing anaccommodation to make it easier for you to contact County employees by offering to

make them available. I t really is that simple.

So you are clear, let me write, again, what I have written previously: I will acceptservice of all process and notices on behalf of all parties and all County employees and,further, will make all parties and employees available to you upon request. I will provideyou with all known contact information on any employees who leave CountyemlD!


13/20


0: narK wasser e ~ I o - q q q - ~

. ,H U E : LdH ur r 1\ilI vr [ ' ~ R iLtro

2 1 ; 3 ) 992-3299

T E L E P H O N EL A W O F F I C E

E U G E N E LO F

E EE L E E @ L O E L . C O M

E - M A I L

( 2 1 : 3 ) 5 9 6 ' 0 4 8 7

F A C S I M i L E

EUGENE D, LEE, ESQPRINCIPAL

Vl A FACSIMILE

Mark WasserLaw Offices of Mark Wasser400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100Sacramento, 95814

55 5 W E S T F IF T H S TR E E T , S U I T E 3 1 0 0

L O S A N G E L E S, C A LI F O R N I A 9 0 0 1 : 3 - 1 0 1 0

October 2, 2007

W W W . L O E L . C O M

W E B S I T E

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQOF COUNSEL

10001 LOOI

Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective OrderJadwin I County of Kern, et aL (USDC EDCA No. 1:07,cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear My.

! am in ree,eipt faxed letter of October 1 , " ~ ' - " " "

In response to Plaintiff 's request for an offer of proof, the Fax mentions the existence of 5witness declarations. Defendants have a duty to share the declarations with Plaintiffas part oftheir good faith meet and confer. [Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanio Power Co., 151 F.R.D. 118,120 (D. Nev. 1993)). Plaintiffrequests access to these declarations in order to detenninewhether there is a genuine need to withhold the witnesses' home contact info. I f Plaintiff isconvinced of such a need, then Plaintiffmay concede th e point and Defendants' motion forprotective order will then become unnecessary. However, Plaintiffcannot and will not rely onyour "representations" regarding these declarations.

Defenlda:nts have rejected the of negotiating a written stating "I am notopposed to stipulations but I do not bel ieve one is necessary here and I no t sign 'take,it-orleave-it' stipulations sent with threats an d deadlines." Plaintiffhas always been willing tonegotiate the written stipulation with Defendants. Plaintiff even emailed th e MS Word file toDefendants so a s t o facilitate any revisions which Defendants might have wished to propose. Todate, Defendants have refused.

In addition, unlike Defendants, Plaintiffbelieves a written stipulation is necessary. Defendantsmade the following "representation" i n t he fax of October 1:

I will accept service of all process and notices o n b eha lf of all parties and allCounty employees and, further, will make all parties and employees available toyou upon request I will provide you with all known contact information on anyemployees who leave County employment during th e pendency of this case. Thisis not l imited to depositions or attendance at triaL It applies to any request youhave for an employee witness, such as a reques t to meet with t he m o r conduct aninfonnal interview.


14/20


0: narK wasser e tll t l - q c + q - ~

r ~ . ,)1 .,) I'CH'OLI'OJ 1'0; . . . . ~

This "representation" is too uncertain to meet Plaintiffs needs. For instance, how soon after anemployee leaves County employment will Defendants provide Plaintiff with that employee'shome contact information? Soon enough to ensure Plaintiff can subpoena them for depositions Ortrial? Does "employees" include independent contractors (this became an issue with regard to

David Culberson)? Because of these uncertainties, Plaintiff needs to memorialize Defendants'representations in a negotiated written stipulation.

Defendants have also stated: "The stipulation you have proposed is not acceptable because it,like earlier versions you have sent, proposes terms that modifY the normal rules in ways we havenever written about or agreed to." Plaintiffwould like clarification on what you consider the"normal rules"; and Defendants are unwilling to offer any modifications to the proposed

The Fax also stated: "All our representations, indeed, all our communications to you on this topicother topics for the past few months have been, and still are, written. Hence, the

statements your letter about oral representations are false." went on to state: "Pleaseletter is not oral. I t is on the paper you are reading."

Jaliltltl is aware onhe difference between oral representations. youshould recall that, on September 19,2007, you sent me an email regarding the witness home infoissue where you wrote: "I have made consistent representations to you, since our first telephoneconversation over 6 months ago, and have stood by them." Any representations which you madeto me during that call were oral representations.

We look forward to your response. Hopefully, we can avoid the need for a motion for protectiveorder by amicably resolving this among ourselves. Please do not hesitate to contact me with anyquestions.

cc: Joan Herrington, Esq.enc: Proposed Stipulation

2


15/20


October 3 2007

Law Offices of MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramemo, Calitornia 95814

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: [email protected]

&

Eugene LeeLaw Offices of Eugene Lee

StreeL Suite 31003-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County o f Kern, et af,

Dear . Lee:

Corresponding with you could become a Ji.l!i-time job.

Vel/(w'a Power Co. v. Monsanto Povl'er Co. does not require the Defendants to"share the declarations PlaintitTas part of their good meet and confer."case requires that an "objecting part}" otTer such factual support for position as "villallow the party seeking discovery to make an informed evaluation of the claim . . .". Wehave done that. To be doubly sure we have done that, let me summarize the declarationsagain for you.

Five employees have signed declarations objecting to disclosure o f their homeaddresses to Dr. Jadwin on grounds of safety and privacy. The declarations recite thatthis case arose out of work-related issues, does not involve any o f the employees in theirpersonal or private lives, that they all believe their private lives should be kept separate

from their work careers, that they are all available at their work addresses to be contactedin connection with this case and they do not want Dr. Jadwin to know where they live.Two of the employees state that Dr. Jadwin is emotional and confrontational and onestates that Dr. Jadwin verbally assaulted her several times, physically assaulted anotherphysician at KMC and that she does not trust him.

As with your last letter, you pose a series of questions to make this appear morecomplicated than it is. We will provide contact information on departing employees

Admitted to Practice in California an d Nevada


16/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 16 of 20Eugene LeeOctober 3, 2007Page 2

when it is available. This is not a " tr ick" answer. We have no interest in concealing anyemployee and we will do our best to insure that all employees are kept available totestify, either formally or informally. I am, as usual surprised that you raise theseconcerns because I would suspect Dr. Jadwin would be the one to want employeesconcealed. Their testimony will hurt him, not the Defendants. The employees will be thesource o f information about Dr. Jadwin's behavior. They are the ones who know ho w hedrove other people out o f the Pathology DepartmenL ho w he to acted by intimidation andhostility, how he threatened his co-workers and how he created stress in the workplace.Their tes timony will be central to the case and we will do all in our power to make them

to

Your comment about m) September j 9 letter makes poinL ourrepresentations have been consistent for over 6 months. I first made them orally but theyhave been 111ade and repeated in \\Titing since then because you I no longer

Like you, \ve like to the a n r c , t p , - t i " p ordera motion to compel and a protective order seems advisable.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc: Karen Barnes (via first class 111ail)Joan Herrington (via first class mail)


17/20


O: MarK wasser ~ M l b - q q q - ~ trOll: Law u n Ic e or t . ~ l l tLt::t: r ~ / . J I V H N I ' U f II ;>J! tJIl

(Z 1 3 ) 992-3299

T E L E P H O N EL A W O F F I C E

E U G E N E LO F

E EE L E E @ L O E L . C O M

E - M A i L

( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7

F ' A C S i M 1 L E

EUGENE D, L.EE, E$QPRINCIPAL

vlA FACSIMILE

Mark WasserLaw Offices Mark Wasser400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100

CA 95814

55 5 W E S T ~ I F T HS T R E E T , S U I T E 3 1 D Q

L O S A N G E L E S , C A LI F O R N I A 9 0 0 1 3 - 1 0 1 0

October 5, 2007

W W W . L O E L C O M

W E B S I T E :

JOAN E. HERRlNGTON, ESQOF C O U N S E L

10001 LOOI

Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective OrderJadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA No, 1:07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear ML Wasser:

I am in rec:en11 of your faxed letter of October 3

According to the Fax, tbe employee-declarants state:

that tbis case arose out of work-related issues, does not involve any of theemployees in their personal or private lives, that they all believe their private livesshould be kept separate from their work careers, that they are all available atwork addresses to be contacted in connection with this case and they do not wantDc Jadwin to know where they live,

In other words, the declarants have ordinary privacy concerns,

PRCP 26(a)(I) expresses the legislature's will that parties be provided witnesses' home contactinformation notwithstanding privacy concerns, In Folsom v, Hearlland Bank, the court ruled thatdefendants have a duty to disclose the horne contact information for witnesses under FRCP26(a)(l):

The identified former and current employees directly worked on the loan betweenplaintiffs and Heartland which is the subject of this litigation [, , , ,J Suchindividuals appear likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputedfacts alleged with particularity, Fed, R, Civ, P, 26(a)(lXA) thus requires

Heartland to disclose their known addresses and telephone numbers, withoutawaiting a discovery request 'I t may not satisfy this obligation by disclosing itsbusiness address and phone number, unless it knows of no other address andnumber: Dixon v, Cerlainleed Corp" 164 F,R,D, 685, 689 (D, Kan, 1996) Rule26(a)(l)(A) contemplates disclosure of the personal address an d telephonenumber of identified individuals.1999 Us, Disl LEXlS 7814 (D, Kan, 1999)(emphasis added),


18/20


r r U l l : LOW vr r I" 'G V I U J ~ I I ' VLt;ti r ~ 1 "OJ I U / U > . I / U I ! B ;>.1, P'"

Ordinary privacy concerns do not trump Plaintiff's right to ilie witnesses' home contactinfonuation as expressed by FRCP 26(a)(1). lfyou have caselaw suggesting otherwise, pleaseprovide us such citations as part of your good faith meet and confer.

The Fax leaves a numberof

Plaintiff's questions unanswered. Defendants had stated in their faxof October I: "The stipulation you have proposed is not acceptable because it, like earlierversions you have sent, proposes tenus iliat modi!)' the normal rules in ways we have neverwritten or agreed to." Plaintiff still awaits clarification on what Defendants consider"normal rules".

Plaintiffs letter of October 1 had also asked: Which of the witnesses listed on Defendantssci'Jsures are as op:pm;ed to il1dE'pendent

contractors [and how can Plaintiffbe SUTe which are encompassed Defendants'"representations"]? Plaintiffs proposed stipulation addresses this issue.

l i " ~ ; " ' rstates "Like you, we would like to avoid the need for a protective order."like to take this base agreement one step and idea of a

written A '.\Titten would avoid the need for motion forprotective order while accomplishing the goals Plaintiff has always been, andremains, willing to negotiate a written stipulation with Defendants which completely obviates theneed for such a motion.

Plaintiffhas already on numerous occasions provided Defendants with the draft stipulation as astarting point for discussions. Please let us know if you require another copy.

We look forward to your response. Hopefully, we can avoid the need for a motion for protectiveorder by amicably resolving this among ourselves. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any

questions.

Very -frilIV y'ours.,.I . . . . N ' \

'

" , \

cc: Joan Herrington, Esq.

2


19/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 19 of 20Law Offices of

MARK A. WASSER40 0 Capirol?Y1all, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405ffi\[email protected]

October 5, 2007

Eugene LeeLaw OHices555

Los Ange:les,

&

1010

Re: e f a l.

Dear M1'. Lee:

While we both apparently want to avoid the motion for a protective order, yourmotion to compel is still pending and the letter you faxed late last night seems to take aneven less l1exible position on home addresses than your earlier correspondence,Comparing it with, for example, the e-mail and draft st ipulation you sent me onSeptember 18, it appears your position on home addresses has hardened, Then, you werefocusing on home addresses for only former employees, Now, you want home addressesfor including independent eontractors, may recall. we gave youaddress of David Culberson's County does not have his home address,01'. Roy has relocated to Alabama, To my knowledge, no one at the County knowswhere he lives. There are other examples but two suffices to make the point

I think we just disagree, You believe Rule 26 requires home addresses while webelieve it simply requires addresses that will ensure witness availability, The goal, afteralL is to contact witnesses, If the address disclosed enables that contact it should notmatter whether it is a "home" address or a business address, We have gone to somelengths to guarantee that we will make all employee witnesses available but you still findour efforts unsatisfactory, As far as a stipulation goes, I do not know what to propose,You insist on home addresses and we continue to believe we have fully satisfied Rule 26by disclosing individual business addresses and guaranteeing availability of allemployees, As I wrote several days ago, I do not understand your concern, Maybe if Idid, we could better meet i t

Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada


20/20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 58 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 20 of 20Eugene LeeOctober 5. 2007Page 2

As much as I wish it were otherwise. it appears the Court will need to provideguidance on this. I see no other resolution in sight.

Truly Yours.

cc: Karen Barnes (via first class mail)Joan Herrington (via first class mail)

58 mx protective order - declarations

Documents