55 mtc id - opposition declaration

8/14/2019 55 MTC ID - Opposition Declaration

1/10


2/10

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 10

I 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my letter of September

2 13,2007 to Eugene Lee which served as a transmittal letter for Defendants' supplemental initial

3 disclosures. The letter contains my written representation to Plaintiffthat the Defendants' will

4 make all County employees available upon request and will accept service of all process and

5 notices on behalf of the Defendants' and County employees. The addresses and telephone

6 numbers that the Defendants' disclosed are the individual employees' actual addresses and

7 telephone numbers.

3. Since September 13, numerous writings, copies n t - ' c vh i rh are attached to

9 Declaration as Exhibt B, I have repeatedly confirmed these representations and expanded them to

10 include also providing Plaintiff with updated contact information on any employees who leave

11 I County employment during the pendeney ofthis ease_ The Defendants remain committed to12 -providing Plaintiff access to employees wants upon request.

13 4. My standard hourly rate is $350 per hour. I have spent approximately twelve

14 hours preparing opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel and corresponding with Plaintiffs

IS counsel in an attempt to resolve it.

16

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

18

19 Executed this 12'D day of October, 2007, Sacramento. California.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser

Mark A. Wasser

2 DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER INOPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPE


3/10


EXHIBIT A. Letter from Defendant's attorney to Plaintiffs attorney transmittingsupplemental initial disclosures, dated September 13, 2007


4/10


September 13,2007

Law Offices of MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suire 1100Sacramento, California 95814

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

FIRST CLASS H A r u ~

Eugene LeeOffices of Eugene

555West Street, Suite

31

n1'16""'0, California 9001 1 0

Re: Jadwin v. County o f Kern, et

DearMr. Lee:

We have revised the witness list we enclosed as part of our initial disclosure sothat it describes the subjects of information the various witnesses are believed to have inmore detaiL When our ovm investigation is complete, we may know more about thewitnesses' knowledge but these descriptions fairly summarize what we presently know.

We deleted the names of witnesses for whomwe

have no specific subject information,even so seems contrary to Dr. Jadwin's interests. My intent in giving youthe names the first was to be inclusive but, i f you want less, we give youless. I have aiways subscribed to the view that i t is better to have a witnesses' nameto not have it but I have no interest in convincing you of that. Your suggestion that ourinitial disclosure was deficient or that we "acknowledge" the baseless position you havetaken does not warrant further comment.

We are not providing home addresses for any persons who are employed by theCounty. Unlike Dixon v. Certainteed Corporation, which you cite, the County has notand will not resist making its employees available to you for deposition or informal

interview. As I have told you from the outset, (I believe I first represented this to you inMarch) I will accept service of all papers on behalf of the Defendants and all Countyemployees and will make arrangements to produce any employees you want. Thus,employment addresses afford you complete access to all employees.

Also, because of Dr. Jadwin's threatening and intimidating behavior towards hisco-workers at Kern Medical Center, many employees are afraid of him and are unwillingto let him know where they live.

Admitted to Practice in California an d Nevada


5/10

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 55 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 5 of 10Eugene LeeSeptember 13, 2007Page 2

Even though Dr. Jadwin knows the street address ofKem Medical Center, havingworked there for several years (and having referred to it as simply "KMC" in his own

witness list) we have included it for you.

Finally, we are providing a copy of a memorandum of coverage with the CSACExcess Insurance Authority. It was not included in our first disclosure because theCounty had not been able to verify its coverage. As you will note, County has a $2million selfinsured retention before any insurance is available.

Very Truly Yours,

cc: Karen BarnesJoan Herrington


6/10


EXHIBIT B. Meet and Confer Correspondence


7/10


Mark Wasser

from:

Sent:

To:

Gene,

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasseLcom]

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 53 0 PM

'[email protected]'

RE: Jadwln/KC: Initial Disclosures

You love to threaten motions and sanctions. ! do not respond to threats,

Rule 29 states the parties "may" stipulate, If you actually want to stipulate, then propose somethln9 we haveactually agreed to. I have never worked with a lawyer who finds disagreement everywhere. The fact is, we are Incomplete agreement on this Issue as far as I can determine. You want witnesses and I have promised to providethem. What is the Issue? Why are we even meeting and conferring on an issue about which there Is nodisagreement. I do not understand.

As far as your latest threat, what do you propose sanctions for? That we have agreed to produce witnesses?am truly lost as to what the issue is.

Mark


8/10


Mark Wasser

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]

Sent: September 19, 2007 4:54 PM

To: '[email protected]'

SUbject: RE: Jadwin/KG: initial Disciosures

Gene,

You may characterize things however you want. OUf has been and remains consistent. The County willproduce any employees Dr. Jadwin wants and will keep you advised of contact information on former employees.That is i t

That has been our position since you and i first spoke on the telephone over 6 months ago.

It has never changed. You want to embeilish our representation with additional terms we have not agreed to andblame me for rejecting them.

That Is contentiousness.

Mark


9/10


From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]

Sent: Wednesday. September 19, 2007 3:42 PM


Ce: 'Joan Herrington'

RE: Jadwln/KC: Initial Disclosures

Gene,

When I say you are contentious, this would be an example.

I am not agreeing to your stipulation. if i was, i would sign it. I am representing to you that the County will makeavailable to you, upon reasonable request to me. any employee and that we will keep you current on contactInformation for former employees.

That's It.

Mark


10/10


Mark Wasser

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, September 20,2007 11:48 AM


Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Initial Disclosures

Gene,

First, here is the address for The Camden Group, David Culberson's employer: The Camden Group, 100 N,Sepulveda Blvd" Ste, 600, EI Segundo, California 90245,

I have been told that David Culberson Is in Minnesota on an assignment but have not verified I t

Second, I assumed you understood that the witness list we served with the supplemental disclosures was a newlist that replaced the previous list I f you were not clear about that, this should clarify I t Why else would wesend a new list? I do not understand your confusion or why that would be an Issue, I am not reserving theInitial disclosures, We covered that yesterday or the day before, I forget

I am lost on this one, You say you are "entitled to contact Information for all witnesses", Weagree 100% and we gave you contact information on all witnesses, We even accompanied that with our writtenrepresentation that we will make all employees available to you on request We have fully complied with both thespirit and letter of all rules and offered the additional courtesy of providing contact information for any employeesthat may leave County employment during the pendency of this case, How you can extract a dispute from this isbeyond me, No rule requires that all agreements between counsel be reduced to stipulation, In my 30+ years offederal court practice, no opposing attorney has ever suggested they must be, Rule 29 clearly states that theparties "may" prepare stipulations, Having said that, I am not adverse to stipulations but I am not willing to signthe one you sent beoause It goes beyond what we have discussed and would impose time limits that I findunreasonable, It is also one-sided. The Plaintiff is not the only party who will need discovery, Our agreement isfine the way It Is, If you believe It must be reduced to a stipulation, then you will have to explain why and we willhave to discuss the terms, I am open to that but don't send me documents and tell me to sign them by such-andsuch date on threat of sanctions,

You opened your e-mail with a request that I "leave the personal Insults out of our Interactions" but proceed toaccuse me of "piaying hardbaii", being "abusive" and being "ridiculous" (among other things) In an overall tonethat Is snotty and condescending, If you want the tone of our communications to improve, it will requirereciprocity, Your communications invariably come from a position of take-it-or-ieave-it that is arrogant andunhelpful, Lighten up, What will you do when we get to issues that actually matter?

If you can tell me how we have failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1), please do so, Otherwise, Isuggest we move on to the next issue, whatever that will be, This is the most extreme case of form oversubstance I have encountered in memory,

Mark

55 mtc id - opposition declaration

Documents