101 MTC ROG1 - KC Declaration Re Joint Statement

1 Mark A.
Wasser CA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 (916) 444-6400
16) 444-6405
a.m.
U.S. "R",·... l"·nrrt,,v
Bakersfield Courtroom
21
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
22 Trial Date: December 3, 2008
23
24
I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:
25
1. I am counsel of record for the Defendants and am familiar with this case. The
26
statements in this Declaration are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and I can
27
testify competently to them if called as a witness.
28
-1-
DECLARAnON OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY

TO PREPARE JOINT STATEMENT ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
1 2. It will come as no surprise to this Court to learn that counsel for the parties do not
2 enjoy a good working relationship. The behavior of Plaintiffs counsel in preparing his papers
3 mCltlOln to cOlnpl~l 1trrth<~r responses to Plamtlt!" set
4
5 COllllsel sent me a L':J-na~~e
Uel~lar'atl(m as Exbllblt
PlaJntl1t's cOUllsel, EU12:ene
should go wll:holLlt saymg s repres(~ntaLtiOlls
17 18
21 5. At no time did Mr. Lee ever attempt to discuss his proposed joint statement with
22 me. There has been no communication between the parties about it.
23 6. Mr. Lee's proposed joint statement does not accurately reflect the status of the
24 parties' attempts to meet and confer regarding the Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs first set of
25 interrogatories. First, I sent Mr. Lee a letter on March 5 that clarified and explained the
26 Defendants' responses to several of the interrogatories. Mr. Lee has not referenced that letter in
27 his moving papers and, consequently, the responses he attributes to the Defendants are not
28 accurate. Second, as I wrote in my March 5 letter, we agreed to review, again, Plaintiff's initial
-2-

disclosures for privilege even though, as I wrote, that is a strange request. We did not find any
2 privileged documents. We remain unsure what Plaintiff wants. A copy of my March 5 letter is
3 as LJ-"'UH/H
7. resources to res:ponding to
m01tlon to cornp{:1.
second set.
15 2008,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

EXHIBIT A
10: I'Ian~ WllSser e ::lIll-q'l't-O'tt'Kl r! UlII: L<lW UH I "Ii \JI L\"~IIV LUU
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

OF LEE
2 3
20 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
21 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters set forth
22 below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
23 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants'
24 counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On
25 Thursday, April 17, 2008, I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery
26 Disagreement (with all exhibits attached), requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the
27 draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change.
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINTSTATEMENTre: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1
I I VIllI. L.....,.,. V. t .""""" ...... --J-'.- _
1 3. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the Joint :staten1ent.1
2 as AUacnme:nl is a true correct copy Joint Statement
on delendlant
amolLl0n
tonego,mg is true correct.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2
';J ., u ••• -- " ,,-- r-
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 AITACHMENT A
28
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORlES 3
rrUlll: LdW UH ILC v, L<r.1"''''' '-,1\,
re:
20 COMPEL RESPONSES
COUNTY OF KERN, et at, INTERROGATORIES
21
Defendants. Date: April 28, 2008
22 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy
23 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
24 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007

Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
25
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 1
1 statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in
2 2008 heaJrmg on Plamtltt m01Jon to cOlnp\~1 responses to mt,err'Dg::llol'les
20 pathologist for "unavailability" and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4,
21 On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home
22 during working hours until May 1, 2007. Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its
23 decision to either "buyout" the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or
24 simply let the contract "run out". On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiffs employment
25 contract.
26 Plaintiff's Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave

27 interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without
28 procedural due process.
INTERROGATORIES 2
1 Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiffs tenure as a pathologist at Kern
lVA"'''''''',,'' Center. deten,oraled to
20 Defendant's refusal to state a single fact responsive to this interrogatory despite numerous meet
21 confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules.
22 Moreover, as plaintiff has already communicated to defendant several times, contention
23 interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See
24 Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29,34; United States v.
25 Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2001) ("Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an
26 interrogatory the answer to which involves 'an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the
27 application of law to fact. '. The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of
28 'pure law' that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3).
INTERROGATORIES 3
1 Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such,
COl1tel1tlC)ll lrltf'rr{)O~t{)r''''Q were permi~;sible and KO'ice« were reQuin;d to res1PorJld to "
3
l)eienldaJ11 h,rlhD? asserts
states:
was on a vldleol:aOl;;d
State
20
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2
21
The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
22
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
23
PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
24
See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No.1 above.
25
DEFENDANT'S POSITION
26
[INSERT HERE]
27
28
INTERROGATORIES 4
I 1\l1li:. '-""" VI I I ..... '" ...... --...1-"- _
1 c. INTERROGATORY NO.3
2 State every YOU COfltel:1ld <l1,nn."rl",
s 3
20 by whom, at whose direction, etc., (ii) what physical confrontations Plaintiti allegedly
21 persons and with whom, (iv) to whom plaintiffwas "overbearing and dismissive", (v) which of
22 plaintiff's "interpersonal dealings" were "disrespectful and disagreeable", (vi) which of plaintiff's
23 "working relationships" "steadily eroded and unraveled", with whom, and what behavior by plaintiff
24 allegedly caused that.

25 Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed a
26 (4-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts
27 supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant's one paragraph response, devoid of any facts, is an
28 hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial.

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 5
1 agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has
2
states:
RESPONSE NO.
20
21 INTERROGATORY NO.5
22 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.
23 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5

The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
25 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
26 PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
27 See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No.1 above.
28 DEFENDANT'S POSITION
6
1 [INSERT HERE]
contend sunnorts
20 [INSERT HERE]
21
H. INTERROGATORY NO. 46
22
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26
23
Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state
24
in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
25
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46
26
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is
27
privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
28
INTERROGATORIES 7
r~ lULu V'11 i ./VU ,.VlJ..,.
1 PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
states:
20
I. INTERROGATORY NO. 47
21
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained YOUR FRep Rule 26 Initial
22
Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in
23
detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
24
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47
25
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is
26
privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
27
PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
28
INTERROGATORIES 8
.J'_~_--H ..'-- "--r~
See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No. 46 above.
,",VI.H'iOL an answer to an
del00S1t!<)nS or
37 states:
20
a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
21 production, or inspection. This motion may be made if ... (iii) a party fails to answer an
interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 .... For purposes of this subdivision (a), an
22 evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
23
By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,
24
defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
25
DEFENDANT'S POSITION
26
[INSERT HERE]
27
28
INTERROGATORIES 9
~:J ' 1 # ........... u • •• ........ •• __ ,.._
1 CONCLl1SION
3
was sul)stantl:ally lust1fi,~d malcing or oP1Dosmg
4
essence to ensure plamtllit
20
21
22 Dated: April_, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
23
24 By:. - . - - - . - . . , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark A. Wasser,
25 Attorney for Defendants
COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN
26 HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER
ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,
27 AND WILLIAM ROY
28
INTERROGATORIES 10
1 Dated: 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORIES 11
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812
OF LU'J!:'l"!:'
20 INTERROGATORIES
COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
21 Date: April 28, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
22 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy
1300 18th S1., Bakersfield, CA
23
24 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
25
26
27
28 I! .....J
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

re: INTERROGATORIES 1
t ; ' " , , , V V U •• II'W'_ ,._-t"-
One-
5:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 2
10: narK wasser ~ ~Ib-qqq-~
Date:
20 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
21 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters set forth
22 below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
23 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants'
24 counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On
25 Thursday, April 17, 2008, I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery
26 Disagreement (with all exhibits attached), requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the
27 draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change.
28
COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ 1
10: narK wasser e ~Ib-qqq-O~ r r UIII: Law Uff I L{; VI 1..u:l"'1<i ...""
3. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the
j-'UlID:flt:lI hereto as Atizclun,:;nt 1£ a correct copy Statement
20
Executed on: April 23, 2008
21
22
23 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
24 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
25
26
27
28
• ;] ~-,~ , - "-- r-
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ATTACHMENT A
28
DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO
20 COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA
COUNTY OF KERN, et al., PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND
21 SEEKING MONETARY SANCTIONS
Defendants.
22 Date: April 28, 2008
Time: 9:30 a.m.
23 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtlroo:m1
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
24
25 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF
PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 1
10: MarK wasser ~ ~lb-qqq-oq~ trOll!: LeIW un II,;~ ur U~11l:i LCV I ;:} LL; 1-'1.1 'U U I ,# v'U •• _.... ,..._
1 statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-25 1(a) in
2 l1e~mnlg on plamtllt's mCltl0n to conlpel recornlenmg
II. NATURE THE CASE

20
21 Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., FC.A. former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
22 ("KMC") and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this
23 Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him
24 for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues and regulatory violations at KMC. As a
25 result, Plaintiffwas forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic clinical
26 depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff
27 pathologist for 'unavailability" and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.
28 On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home
PATRlCIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 2
• OJ -_. - - - u ••• -- •• - - r--
1 during working hours until May 1,2007. Around May 1,2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its
2 deClSlC)fl to out" rernalnulg term contract to on ()c1lob~r 4,
A.
COJlci~;ely in a nOllarguluell!al;ive
deJ)on.ent not to answer necessary a privilege, to a
20 hml1ta1l10n ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). [emphasis
added].
21
Counsel may not use "speaking objections" to "coach" the deponent. For instance, counsel may
22
not interrupt mid-question to ask for a "clarification", or in the course of objecting attempt to suggest
23
answers or warn the witness. See Hall v. Clifton Precision, Inc. (E.D. Penn. 1993) 150 FRD 525,530.
24
Rule 30(c)(2) renders "relevancy" objections meaningless in most depositions. The deponent
25
must even answer questions calling for blatantly irrelevant information "subject to the objection." FRCP
26
30(c)(2); International Union ofElec., Radio & Machinery Workers, AFL----CIO v. Westinghouse Elec.
27
Corp. (D. DC 1981) 91 FRD 277, 278.
28
J;;; ..... 1'.......... ..... U • • If __ •• __ ,.._
1 space of just 68 minutes, from 11 :30 a.m. to 2:05 p.m. (excluding a lunch break from
12: :29 deten!;e C~Jurlsel mt1erpose,d no
20 as later proven in the deposition. Ms. Perez not only was able to estimate how many people there were
21 in KMC's payroll department, of which she is a member, she gave the exact number: six (including Ms.
22 Perez). Perez Deposition, 84:20-25. She testified that KMC's entire HR department (including the 6-
23 person payroll department) is housed in a single trailer that sits on the KMC campus. Perez Deposition,
24 84:4-10. She also recited the names ofthe other five payroll employees with ease:
25 In the payroll department we have an employee named Bobbi Gains. We have Armida
Smith. We have April Smith. Myself. Angela Conger. And Christine Tetimas.
26 Perez Deposition, 88:9-12.
27 Later, Mr. Wasser launched into an extended and improper harangue criticizing the relevance of
28 plaintiff's line of questioning that had impeached Ms. Perez:
10: narK wasser ~ ~Ib-qqq-~
20 stating: "She said it could have been, but she doesn't know." Perez Deposition, 90:10-20. Ms. Perez
21 never said that "she doesn't know". None of Mr. Wasser's statements on the record were stating
22 objections or instructions not to answer on privilege grounds. They had no proper purpose and were
23 intended to coach the deponent how specifically to respond to plaintiff's questions and to frustrate
24 plaintiff's examination of the witness.
25 Plaintiff's counsel asked defense counsel one last time to stop coaching the witness and
26 obstructing the deposition, stating "Mark, I'm going to have to stop this depo if you continue with this.
27 What objections are you stating, Mark? You're not even stating any objections." Defense counsel
28 responded "Your questions don't make sense" -an improper objection - and later "I'll object the way I
want."
Wasser Plamtlt1 was
3 UeY:;losltJOn, 9
Because \Vasser's corlouct examulatl,on" and unreason2lblv prolongea
P12lin1Jff IS an in "Ii '" rlH<ll can to costs

20
depositions and filing the inevitable motions that follow. By comparison, defendant County of Kern has
21
ample resources at its disposal to obstruct plaintiff's discovery in this action, and has done so,
22
prejudicing plaintiff significantly.
23
Plaintiff asks this Court for an order reconvening of the deposition of Patricia Perez, as well as a
24
protective order against further obstructive behavior by Mr. Wasser (which has been characteristic at
25
depositions thus far) at future depositions, plaintiff's attorney fees and costs associated with the
26
adjourned depositon and this motion, and any other remedy which the court deems proper and just.
27
28
JOINT STATEMENTre: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF
PATRlCIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 6
I;;} .... , ....... _.~ •• ~-- "-- r--
1 1. Defendants' Position
en·tIW~d to
6 was sut>stantl,a.lI m2lklrlg or 0plposmg
to reconvene
20 seeks reimbursement of the $529.40 the reporter fee and $179.86 reporter hotel charge as well as
21 $189.36 hotel charges for plaintiff. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this court deems
22 proper and just. In total, Plaintiff seeks sanctions of at least $4,718. 76.
23
24 Respectfully submitted,
25
26
Dated: April _' 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
27
28
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r lUll: Law un I Lv \.II '-w.l'I'''' Lvv J;} .................... ,., .. •• ~-- •• _ - r--
v.
20
COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
21 Date: April 28, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
22 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy [;omil"ocyml
1300 18th S1., Bakersfield, CA
23
24 11 --1 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
25
EXHIBIT 1: Excerpted pages from Transcript of Plaintiff's Deposition of Patricia Perez on
26
February 28,2008
27
EXHIBIT 2: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENTre: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: DEPOSITION OF
PATRICIA PEREZ 1
• J •• - - _ •• • •• - - .. - - r-
121:31 992-::3299
TEl.EPHONE
AW OFF I E o ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIl.
G ENE E E
121::3J 596-0467 555 WEST FIfTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900 1 3-1010 WEBSITE
are draft
EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 3
Mark Wasser
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:06 PM
To: 'elee@LOEL.com'
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser (aremly@markwasser.com)
Sut>jec:t: RE: Depos
understand 8:00 start to a

a.m. start time for Dr. Kolb's deposition. That is fine.
Sent: Thursday, 2008 1:06 PM

To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Sut)jec:t: RE:
FFIC OF
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992 3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - ill a i I: elel'@lLQELS.9111
We b sit e: lYWldDELG.om
B log: 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.
California Labor & Employment Law Blog
4/21/2008
Page 2 of3
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
Subject: RE: Depos
The time slots you propose for and Kolb are 10 hours TO ENSURE WE GET OUR 7 HOURS
ON THE RECORD. MANY OF PAST DEPOS HAVE BEEN CUT SHORT UNEXPECTEDLY. BREAKS
CUT TIME. DEPOS NOT GO BEYOND 7 HOURS THE RECORD.
propos;ing these Bakersfield? says available

LA.
With regard to Roy, we have called him and his lawyer several times but have not been able to confirm anything
THOUGHT YOU WERE HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. WHO IS HIS ATTORNEY? PLEASE PROVIDE ME
WITH HIS CONTACT INFO IF NEED TO SERVE THE DEPO NOTICE ON
Mark
Mark,
If that's the case, please disregard the previously proposed depo schedule for the week of April 12.
We'd now like to schedule depos as follows for April 16 to 19:
Day 1 (4/16):
8am - 2pm: Gilbert Martinez
2pm - 7pm: Vangie Gallegos
Day 2 (4/17):
8am - 6pm: William Roy
Day 3 (4/18):
8am - 6pm: Albert McBride
4/21/2008
Page 3 of3
2pm 7pm: Arlene Ramos-Aninion
Day 4 (4/19):
Sam 6pm: Marv Kolb
From:
Sent: \f\Ic,rlnt=>c,i::l\l
Lee
Cc: Assistant to Wasser
am told that Kolb is available for 9 at at at Los Anflt=>I~'<:

International This information was to have not had any direct contact with Kolb and
do not know any more. If you have questions, I will do my best to answer them.
Mark
Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
E-mail: m.wa.$.$eI@maIIs'!'ias$~L~Qm
4/21/2008
Page 1 of3
Mark Wasser

Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:40 PM
To: 'elee@LOELcom'
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser (aremly@markwasser.com); Karen Barnes (kbarnes@co.kern.ca.
Subject: RE: Depos
is available on 5. That is not one of the dates it is date he

th
has for awhile. We could take his deposition on the 15 , Gilbert Martinez and Vangie Gallegos on the 16 th , and
1
To: mV\'as~;er~~markwa~;ser
Subject: RE: Depos
F F
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - ill a i I: gI9.G@LQEJ.,<;QtI]
Web sit e: 'rYww,LOELsmu
Blog :'rYWw,CaLilllQILaw,~Qm

4/21/2008
Page 2 of3
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Depos
Gene,
propose for and Kolb are 10 hours long. Why? TO ENSURE WE GET OUR 7 HOURS
ON THE n.-r-r"\,..."n MANY OF PAST DEPOS HAVE BEEN CUT SHORT UNEXPECTEDLY. BREAKS
ALSO CUT INTO OUR TIME. DEPOS WILL NOT GO BEYOND 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD.
Bakersfield? Kolb says he is available YES. WE'LL
do not when Kolb"s can start. do

will work. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
WITH HIS CONTACT INFO IF I NEED TO SERVE THE DEPO NOTICE ON HIM.
If that's the case, please disregard the previously proposed depo schedule for the week of April 12.
We'd now like to schedule depos as follows for April 16 to 19:
Day 1 (4/16):
8am - 2pm: Gilbert Martinez
2pm 7pm: Vangie Gallegos
Day 2 (4/17):
8am 6pm: William Roy
Day 3 (4/18):
2pm - 7pm: Arlene Ramos-Aninion
4/21/2008
Page 3 of3
Day 4 (4/19):
Sam - 6pm: Marv Kolb
Sincerely,
Lee
from: Mark Wasser

Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:08 PM
To: Lee
Cc: Assistant to Mark Wasser
Sui)je(:t: Kolb
Mark
law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
E-mail: ill'lf'\,lcl$$er@markwi;lSSeLGQill
4/21/2008
Page 1 of 4
Mark Wasser

To: 'elee@LOEL.com'
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser (aremly@markwasser.com)
Sul)jec:t: RE: Depos
Arlene is available and can squeeze

We could set her for Tuesday but assume you want the whole day for Roy.
T S., S °
OS NGELES, C 90
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - ill a i I: ~t~~@lDEL,gQm
Web sit e: 't\i1\i1yJdQE.LsQm
B log: www's:;<tL<tQQxLa,y,<;ml1

To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser; Karen Barnes
4/21/2008
Page 2 of 4
Subject: RE: Depos
Gene,
Dr. Roy is available on Tuesday, April 15. That is not one of the dates you suggested but it is the only date he
has for awhile. We could take his deposition on the 15th , Gilbert Martinez and Vangie Gallegos on the 16th , and
Dr. Kolb on the 19th in Los Angeles. am not available on the 17th and 18th and neither is Dr. McBride. The best
he can do is 3 hours on the 8th We told him we need more time and he is at his schedule again. What
do you think?
Lee
FFI F
E PLOYME
555 WES 00
S
This message is sent a law and may contain information that is or confidential. received
California Labor & Employment Law 810g

To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Depos
Gene,
The time slots you propose for Roy and Kolb are 10 hours long. Why? TO ENSURE WE GET OUR 7 HOURS
ON THE RECORD. MANY OF THE PAST DEPOS HAVE BEEN CUT SHORT UNEXPECTEDLY. BREAKS
ALSO CUT INTO OUR TIME. DEPOS WILL NOT GO BEYOND 7 HOURS ON THE RECORD.
4/21/2008
Page 3 of 4
Are you proposing these for the Holiday Inn in Bakersfield? Kolb says he is only available in LA YES. WE'LL
DEPOSE KOLB IN LA
I do not know when Kolb"s flight will arrive in LAX but I will find out how early we can start. I do not know if 8:00
will work. PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
will check with the others and let you know their availability. OK.
am attending a conference in Monterey on the 17 th , 18 th and 19th but be able to adjust that a little. NEED
DAYS ON 7 - 4/19. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE.
are a
Sent: 2008
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Cc: 'Assistant to Mark Wasser'
SUlbjE!ct: Depos
Day 2 (4/17):
8am - 6pm: William Roy
Day 3 (4/18):
2pm - 7pm: Arlene Ramos-Aninion
Day 4 (4/19):
8am - 6pm: Marv Kolb
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------
4/21/2008
Page 4 of 4
AW OFFICE OF EUGENE
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E-mail: c!ee(iiiLOELcom
Web s i e :~~w~;;iQEL.Q~;;;]
Bog: w.'.Yw.CaLaborLaw.com
This message sent contain information that is DrrvIIE10€!d or confidential. received

transmission sender e-mail delete message and attachments.
Gene,
am told that Dr. Kolb is available for on 9 at 0:00 at the Hilton Hotel at Los J-lInflPlf'S
International Airport. This information was relayed to my have not had any direct contact with Kolb and
do not know any more. If you have questions, I will do my best to answer them.
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
E-mail: mw,:'tsseJ@m9fKW9SSeLQQill
4/2112008
EXHIBIT C
• Law Offices of
MARKA. WASSER
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
•
mwasser@markwasser.com
our tel,eptl0TIle cl)nlere:ncles

sup'plemeintal resj::>onses to Plaimtij,r
attlrm.ati'7e C1letense states

Supplemental Complaint, were furtherance peer rp'l1p"XT nlal1tltemulce
quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of
official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the
referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants had in mind
only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and
reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under
attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been
disclosed.
The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative
defenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second
Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in
mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.
Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada

Eugene Lee
Page 2
5,2008 • •
are no adlC11tJlonaJ to dis(:;los:e.
Plaintiff s attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants'

disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information
on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to
this interrogatory for that reason.
At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and
you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identify
any trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.
Interrogatorv Number 28.
It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiff narrow this
interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 3
• •
mtiern)£2ltoI"Y to
naITO\vinQ:. to recon:sldl:r our respOIlse.
new
selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no AU' ,. . ." ' .
explanation required and defendants wiH not respond further to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory Numbers 46 and 47.
Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures.

Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. You
have asked us to review Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures and let you know if we think any
documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice.
You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if
Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your
Initial Disclosures on the basis of privilege. This stiH strikes me as a strange request but I
will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know if we believe any of the documents
you disclosed are privileged.
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
4
• •
to

101 MTC ROG1 - KC Declaration Re Joint Statement

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

101 MTC ROG1 - KC Declaration Re Joint Statement

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 Mark A.

DECLARAnON OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY

5 COllllsel sent me a L':J-na~~e

PlaJntl1t's cOUllsel, EU12:ene

should go wll:holLlt saymg s repres(~ntaLtiOlls

DECLARAnON OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY

DECLARAnON OF MARK A. WASSER RE INABILITY

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

20 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

23 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants'

27 draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change.

2 as AUacnme:nl is a true correct copy Joint Statement

tonego,mg is true correct.

24 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007

26 Plaintiff's Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave

lVA"'''''''',,'' Center. deten,oraled to

24 allegedly caused that.

28 hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial.

23 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5

See "Plaintiff's Position" regarding Interrogatory No. 46 above.

essence to ensure plamtllit

22 Dated: April_, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

20 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

23 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants'

27 draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change.

j-'UlID:flt:lI hereto as Atizclun,:;nt 1£ a correct copy Statement

2 l1e~mnlg on plamtllt's mCltl0n to conlpel recornlenmg

II. NATURE THE CASE

2 deClSlC)fl to out" rernalnulg term contract to on ()c1lob~r 4,

24 plaintiff's examination of the witness.

Wasser Plamtlt1 was

Because \Vasser's corlouct examulatl,on" and unreason2lblv prolongea

P12lin1Jff IS an in "Ii '" rlH<ll can to costs

6 was sut>stantl,a.lI m2lklrlg or 0plposmg

From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]

understand 8:00 start to a

Sent: Thursday, 2008 1:06 PM

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

propos;ing these Bakersfield? says available

We'd now like to schedule depos as follows for April 16 to 19:

2pm 7pm: Arlene Ramos-Aninion

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

am told that Kolb is available for 9 at at at Los Anflt=>I~'<:

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]

is available on 5. That is not one of the dates it is date he

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

Bakersfield? Kolb says he is available YES. WE'LL

do not when Kolb"s can start. do

We'd now like to schedule depos as follows for April 16 to 19:

from: Mark Wasser

law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]

Arlene is available and can squeeze

California Labor & Employment Law Blog

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

Subject: RE: Depos

California Labor & Employment Law 810g

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

This message sent contain information that is DrrvIIE10€!d or confidential. received