Sei sulla pagina 1di 43

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 13

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

10

 

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:

v.

INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ

11

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

12

 

Defendants.

13

   

Date:

April 28, 2008 9:30 a.m.

14

Time:

15

Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

16

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008

17

18

Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a

19

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

 

20

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

21

1.

I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

22

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

23

2.

On February 28, 2008, Plaintiff conducted the deposition in Bakersfield, CA, of Patricia

24

Perez, an employee in the HR department at Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by

25

defendant County of Kern. The deposition commenced at 10:40 a.m. In total, the parties were on the

26

record for only 93 minutes before plaintiff was forced to adjourn the deposition prematurely at 2:06 p.m.

27

During a 68-minute period of time on the record, defense counsel Mark Wasser engaged in obstructive

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 13

1

behavior, including speaking objections, witness coaching, responding on deponent’s behalf to questions

2

asked, etc. Defendant engaged in this behavior despite repeated warnings by plaintiff’s counsel to stop.

3

Plaintiff seeks to recommence the deposition of Ms. Perez, as well as a protective order against further

4

obstructive behavior by Defendant (which has been characteristic at depositions thus far) at future

5

depositions, plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs associated with the adjourned depositon and this motion,

6

and any other remedy which the court deems proper and just.

7

3.

Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint

8

Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A.

9

4.

Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’

10

counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On

11

Thursday, April 17, 2008, I both mailed (via certified mail with return receipt requested) and faxed

12

Defendant a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement (with all exhibits attached),

13

requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in progress and remained

14

subject to change. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint

15

Statement which I had prepared.

16

5.

In my rush, I unintentionally included the draft Declaration of Inability to Secure

17

Cooperation of Defendants’ Counsel which I had prepared ahead of time and was future-dated to April

18

23 (today’s date) in the fax to defense counsel. By accusing me of making representations about defense

19

counsel’s refusal to cooperate that were “both misleading and false”, defense counsel makes much ado

20

over nothing. (Doc. 102, 3:17-20). A simple email exchange would have cleared up this confusion over

21

the accidentally included document.

22

6.

I sent the draft joint statement to Defendant by both mail and fax a full week prior to

23

today in the expectation that he would review it and provide comments to me via email. Most of

24

counsels’ communications have taken the form of writing rather than phone calls, and this meet and

25

confer over the joint statement was no exception. To date, I did not receive any response from

26

Defendant regarding the draft Joint Statement I had sent him a week ago, other than to receive electronic

27

notification that he had filed the Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re Inability to Prepare Joint Statement

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 13

1

on Discovery Dispute (Doc. 102), accusing me of failing to “attempt to discuss his proposed joint

2

statement with me”. (Doc. 102, 2:27-28).

3

7.

Despite Defendant’s accusations to the contrary (Doc. 102, 3:21-26), I did not know that

4

defense counsel was unavailable to accept service of filings and documents on April 17 and 18 and

5

never received a Notice of Unavailability to that effect. Defense counsel had told me in emails that for

6

deposition scheduling purposes only he would not be able to attend full days on April 17 and 18. He

7

never once notified me that his office, which includes his assistant Ms. Amy Remly, was not receiving

8

faxes, emails and mail during those days. I also had no knowledge of Defendant’s speech and, frankly,

9

fail to see its relevance. Presumably, Defendant was aware that the deadline to file the joint statement

10

for the instant motion to compel was today and planned his time accordingly as any responsible attorney

11

would have.

 

12

8.

Defendant insinuates that I have acted improperly in not providing the deposition

13

videotape to him (Doc. 102, 2:20-3:2). I attempted to videotape the deposition myself, rather than hiring

14

a

videographer, as a cost-saving measure. Unfortunately, I am not proficient at taping and processing

15

video. As a result, during the tape-to-hard drive transfer process, the file became “locked” and I have yet

16

to figure out how to access it. I contacted www.hollywooddatarecovery.com and they informed me that

17

the ballpark estimate for the cost to repair and retrieve the file could be up to $1,000. I relayed this

18

information to Defendant in my email to him of April 2, 2008 (Doc. 102-4, 5) and asked how he wished

19

to proceed as Plaintiff does not view such a significant expenditure as worthwhile for its own purposes.

20

Defendant never responded and now insinuates I have somehow acted improperly.

21

9.

As for Defendant’s accusations against me which make heavy use of adjectives such as

22

“sarcastic”, “abusive”, “intimidating”, “hostile”, and “repetitious” and accuse me of “badgering”,

23

“sarcastically asking”, etc. (Doc. 102), my response is that the deposition transcript speaks for itself. The

24

transcript contains not one indication that I engaged in any inappropriate misconduct. There is not a

25

single objection from defendant that my questions were argumentative. Had I engaged in anything close

26

to the misconduct Defendant accuses me of, Defendant would have almost certainly objected and made

27

a

record of it. Defendant has never been shy about expressing himself on the record and it is in fact

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 4 of 13

1

Defendant’s penchant for engaging in long colloquoys and improper speaking objections on the record

2

that is the subject of this motion for protective order against Defendant which plaintiff presently brings.

3

10.

In any event, had I engaged in anything close to the misconduct Defendant accuses me

4

of, his only proper recourse would have been to adjourn the deposition and seek a motion for protective

5

order, as plaintiff is currently doing. The correct response is not self-help, as Defendant insinuates he

6

engaged in.

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

11

 

Executed on: April 23, 2008

12

13

14

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

15

EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 5 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ATTACHMENT A

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 13

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

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

7

400

Capitol Mall, Suite 1100

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

8

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

9

Email: mwasser@markwasser.com

10

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

11

Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor

12

Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800

13

Fax: (661) 868-3805 Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us

14

 

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

15

Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.

 

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

19

 

Plaintiff,

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY SANCTIONS

v.

20

 

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

21

 

Defendants.

 

22

 

Date:

April 28, 2008 9:30 a.m.

Time:

23

Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom

 

1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

24

 

25

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008

26

27

28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 13

1

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in

2

advance of the April 28, 2008 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel reconvening of the deposition of

3

Patricia Perez, as well as a protective order against further obstructive behavior by Defendant (which has

4

been characteristic at depositions thus far) at future depositions, plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs

5

associated with the adjourned depositon and this motion, and any other remedy which the court deems

6

proper and just.

 

7

 

I.

DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES

8

9

On February 28, 2008, plaintiff conducted the deposition in Bakersfield, CA, of Patricia Perez,

10

an employee in the HR department at Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by defendant

11

County of Kern (“Deposition”). The Deposition commenced at 11:04 a.m. However, plaintiff was forced

12

to adjourn the Deposition prematurely at 2:06 p.m. after a 68-minute time period during which defense

13

counsel Mark Wasser engaged in obstructive behavior, including speaking objections, witness coaching,

14

responding on deponent’s behalf to questions asked, etc. It should be noted that the parties at the

15

deposition were on the record for only 93 minutes.

16

Plaintiff’s counsel twice attempted to meet and confer in good faith with Defendant at the

17

Deposition, stating on the record that his conduct was obstructive and asking him to refrain. Defendant

18

refused, continuing to engage in this behavior despite plaintiff’s counsel’s requests to stop.

19

 

II.

A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES

20

21

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., 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, Plaintiff was 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

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 13

1

during working hours until May 1, 2007. Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its

2

decision to either “buy out” the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or

3

simply let the contract “run out”. On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment

4

contract.

5

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave

6

interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without

7

procedural due process.

 

8

Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern

9

Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point

10

of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work

11

environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.

12

 

III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE

13

14

A. Defense Counsel’s Conduct at the Deposition Was Obstructive

15

1.

Plaintiff’s Position

16

Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

17

An objection at the time of the examination--whether to evidence, to a party's conduct, to the officer's qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other

18

aspect of the deposition--must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated

19

concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a

20

limitation 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 of Elec., Radio & Machinery Workers, AFL–CIO v. Westinghouse Elec.

27

 

Corp. (D. DC 1981) 91 FRD 277, 278.

28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 13

1 The parties were on the record for a total of only 93 minutes before plaintiff adjourned. During

2 68 of those 93 minutes, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:05 p.m. (excluding a lunch break from 12:02 p.m. to 1:29

3 p.m.), defense counsel interposed no less than 33 obstructing statements. Defendant’s 33 statements

4 included 1 inappropriate assertion of irrelevancy, 8 statements suggesting answers to the deponent, and 2

5 statements instructing the deponent not to answer on invalid grounds. Upon reviewing the entire

6 transcript, plaintiff is unable to identify a single instance where defense counsel actually interposed a

7 proper objection of any kind.

8 Defense counsel coached the deponent to give misleading answers. When plaintiff’s counsel

9 asked Ms. Perez for her estimate of how many people were in KMC’s payroll department, she answered

10 she didn’t know (Ms. Perez later testified that she is a member of KMC’s 6-person payroll department).

11 Plaintiff’s counsel then asked her for her estimate. Deponent began to answer, “My estimate –“, but

12 Defendant immediately cut her off and insisted: “If she doesn’t know, she doesn’t know”. Ms. Perez,

13 having been told how to answer by Defendant, then changed her answer to “I don’t know.” Perez

14 Deposition, 28:23 – 29:14. When plaintiff’s counsel asked again for deponent’s estimate, before

15 deponent could answer, Defendant interjected: “She can’t do that. She doesn’t know. Move on.”

16 [emphasis added]. Ms. Perez then dutifully testified she had no basis for knowing how many people

17 there are in KMC’s payroll department. Perez Deposition, 29:16 – 30:13. None of Defendant’s

18 statements in this regard stated any objections or instructions not to answer on privilege grounds. They

19 had no proper purpose whatsoever and were intended to coach the witness how to respond.

20 As Defendant well knew, his assertion that “She can’t do that. She doesn’t know” was wrong

21 as later proven in the deposition. Ms. Perez not only was able to estimate how many people there were

22 in KMC’s payroll department, of which she is a member, she gave the exact number: six (including Ms.

23 Perez). Perez Deposition, 84:20-25. She testified that KMC’s entire HR department (including the 6-

24 person payroll department) is housed in a single trailer that sits on the KMC campus. Perez Deposition,

25 84:4-10. She also recited the names of the other five payroll employees with ease:

26 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.

27 Perez Deposition, 88:9-12.

28 Later, Defendant launched into an extended and improper harangue criticizing the relevance of

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 13

1 plaintiff’s line of questioning that had impeached Ms. Perez:

2 Well, we could debate what it has to do with the lawsuit, counsel. You might explain to us what the size of the human resources office has to do with Dr. Jadwin’s claims, but

3 we’re not even going there because I know you can’t….So we’re going to spend a lot of time. Ask her how big the building is. Ask her. I mean, take your time.

4 Perez Deposition, 86:19-87:2.

5 During this harangue, defense counsel failed to state any objections or instructions to the witness not to

6 answer. Defendant’s statements therefore had no proper purpose other than to frustrate plaintiff’s

7 examination of the witness.

8 Defendant’s coaching of the witness continued. When plaintiff’s counsel later asked Ms. Perez

9 for her estimate of how many times she has had to calculate county leave for a county employee,

10 Defendant immediately interjected “If she doesn’t remember, that’s the answer.” [emphasis added].

11 Ms. Perez, having been told what the answer was, then said: “I can’t recall unfortunately.” Perez

12 Deposition, 67:3-24.

13 Plaintiff’s counsel several times asked defense counsel to stop obstructing the deposition. “Mark,

14 you’re not even objecting…. Stop with the speaking objections, please. Okay. If you’ve got an

15 objection, just state it.” Perez Deposition, 88:18-22. Defendant ignored the requests, however.

16 When Plaintiff’s counsel then asked Ms. Perez whether to her knowledge or understanding it

17 would have been one of three certain members of the payroll department who would have processed

18 plaintiff’s leave of absence request form in 2006, the deponent answered “It could have been one of

19 those.” Defendant then suggested a further response to the witness: “she didn’t work there then.” Ms.

20 Perez followed suit, saying, “I didn’t.” Defendant then continued putting words in the witness’s mouth,

21 stating: “She said it could have been, but she doesn’t know.” Perez Deposition, 90:10-20. Ms. Perez

22 never said that “she doesn’t know”. None of Defendant’s statements on the record were stating

23 objections or instructions not to answer on privilege grounds. They had no proper purpose and were

24 intended to coach the deponent how specifically to respond to plaintiff’s questions and to frustrate

25 plaintiff’s examination of the witness.

26 Plaintiff’s counsel asked defense counsel one last time to stop coaching the witness and

27 obstructing the deposition, stating “Mark, I’m going to have to stop this depo if you continue with this.

28 What objections are you stating, Mark? You’re not even stating any objections.” Defense counsel

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 11 of 13

1

responded “Your questions don’t make sense” –an improper objection – and later “I’ll object the way I

2

want.”

3

Frustrated by Defendant from conducting an orderly deposition of Ms. Perez, Plaintiff was

4

forced to adjourn the deposition to bring this motion. Perez Deposition, 91:1-9. Plaintiff’s counsel

5

stated:

6

Well, Mark, then we're going to adjourn this deposition right now because you are interfering, and you are coaching, and you're making improper speaking objections, and

7

I will adjourn this right now. Perez Deposition, 91:10-14.

8

 

Defendants will no doubt allege some imagined misconduct by Plaintiff so as to justify their own

9

 

conduct. But, Defendant, who has not thus far in this action been shy about expressing himself on the

10

 

record or making personal attacks on plaintiff’s counsel, never once stated at Ms. Perez’s deposition that

11

 

plaintiff’s counsel was acting inappropriately. In any case, defendants’ proper recourse would have been

12

 

to suspend the deposition and seek a protective order under Rule 30(d)(3)(A), not to engage in “self-

13

 

help” by obstructing plaintiff’s questioning and coaching the witness.

14

 

Because Defendant’s conduct has frustrated a “fair examination” and unreasonably prolonged

15

 

the examination, plaintiff requests that this Court impose an “appropriate sanction” on the persons

16

 

responsible. FRCP 30(d)(2); see Van Pilsum v. Iowa State Univ. of Science & Technology (S.D. Iowa

17

 

1993) 152 FRD 179, 180. Such sanctions may include costs resulting from the obstructive tactics,

18

 

including the opposing party's attorney fees and expenses in adjourning the deposition, obtaining a court

19

 

order, etc. FRCP 30(d)(2); Adv. Comm. Notes to 1993 Amendments to former FRCP 30(d)(3).

20

 

Plaintiff is an individual who can ill afford to bear the costs of defendant’s obstructive tactics at

21

 

depositions and filing the inevitable motions that follow. By comparison, defendant County of Kern has

22

 

ample resources at its disposal to obstruct plaintiff’s discovery in this action, and has done so,

23

 

prejudicing plaintiff significantly.

24

 

Plaintiff asks this Court for an order reconvening the deposition of Patricia Perez, as well as a

25

 

protective order against further obstructive behavior by Defendant (which has been characteristic at

26

 

depositions thus far) at future depositions, plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs associated with the

27

 

adjourned depositon and this motion, and any other remedy which the court deems proper and just.

28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 12 of 13

1

1.

Defendants’ Position

 

2

[INSERT HERE]

 

3

 

IV.

CONCLUSION

4

5

The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including

6

reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the

7

motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v.

8

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125.

9

Moreover, sanctions to be imposed on party who has obstructed a deposition may include costs

10

resulting from the obstructive tactics, including the opposing party's attorney fees and expenses in

11

adjourning the deposition, obtaining a court order, etc. FRCP 30(d)(2); Adv. Comm. Notes to 1993

12

Amendments to former FRCP 30(d)(3).

 

13

Defense counsel’s conduct at plaintiff’s deposition of Ms. Perez was obstructing and effectively

14

frustrated plaintiff’s examination of the deponent. Plaintiff seeks to reconvene the deposition of Ms.

15

Perez. Plaintiff further seeks a protective order against further obstructive behavior by Defendant (which

16

has been characteristic at many of the depositions thus far) at future depositions. Plaintiff further seeks

17

attorney fees in the amount of $4,000 in consideration of 10 of the hours which plaintiff has spent in

18

connection with the adjourned deposition and in connection with meeting and conferring and preparing

19

this motion and anticipates spending attending the hearing on this motion. Plaintiff further seeks

20

reimbursement of the $529.40 the reporter fee and $179.86 reporter hotel charge as well as the $189.36

21

hotel charges for plaintiff. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this court deems proper

22

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

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 13 of 13

1

By:

2

Mark A. Wasser, Attorney for Defendants

3

COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER

4

ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH, AND WILLIAM ROY

5

 

Dated: April

,

2008

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

6

7

 

By:

8

Eugene D. Lee

9

Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 29

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

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

7

400

Capitol Mall, Suite 1100

Sacramento, CA 95814

8

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

9

Email: mwasser@markwasser.com

10

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

11

Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor

12

Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800

13

Fax: (661) 868-3805 Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us

14

 

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

15

Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.

 

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

19

 

Plaintiff,

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:

v.

DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re:

20

 

DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

21

Date:

April 28, 2008 9:30 a.m.

 

Defendants.

Time:

22

 

Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

23

24

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 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 STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT 1:

27

Excerpted pages from Transcript of Plaintiff’s Deposition of

28

Patricia Perez on February 28, 2008

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: DEPOSITION OF

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

)Volume I

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

 

)

COUNTY OF KERN; et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

OF

PATRICIA VERONICA PEREZ

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Bakersfield, California

Reported by: Darlinda R. Thomason, CSR No. 13094

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

28

Page 4 of 29

11:29:20 1

11:29:23 2 recollection about DFJ1157?

11:29:28 3

11:29:30 4 else knows what?

11:29:31 5 BY MR. LEE:

11:29:31 6

11:29:34 7 have a better understanding or better recollection

11:29:37 8 about DFJ1157 other than yourself?

11:29:40 9 A.

11:29:41 10

11:29:46 11 handled DFJ1157.

Q. Who other than yourself would have the best

MR. WASSER: You're asking her to guess who

Q. I'm asking you who, to your knowledge, would

I couldn't tell you who.

Okay. Name the individuals who would have

Q.

11:29:48 12

A.

I can't do that because I don't know.

11:29:52 13

Q.

Okay. Well, typically if a form came to

11:29:56 14 you, who would the form -- after you determined

11:29:59 15 whether the form has been completed or if it's

11:30:02 16 correct, what happens next?

11:30:03 17

A.

I forward it over to payroll.

11:30:06 18

Q.

Okay. And is there a particular person in

11:30:09 19 payroll you would normally forward the request for a

11:30:12 20 leave of absence to?

11:30:13 21

11:30:16 22 don't know who handles it afterwards.

11:30:20 23

11:30:27 24 A. I don't remember.

11:30:28 25

A.

I put it in a little bin for payroll.

I

Q. How many people were in payroll in 2006?

Q.

Was it a hundred people? WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

29

Page 5 of 29

11:30:31 1

A.

No.

11:30:32 2

Q.

Was it one million people?

11:30:33 3 A. No.

11:30:35 4

11:30:38 5 in the payroll department in 2006?

Q.

What's your estimate of how many people were

11:30:40 6

A.

My estimate --

11:30:41 7

MR. WASSER:

If she doesn't know, she

11:30:43 8 doesn't know.

11:30:44 9

MR. LEE: If you don't know, don't answer.

11:30:45 10

MR. WASSER:

She already did. She told you

11:30:48 11 she didn't know.

11:30:48 12

MR. LEE: I'm asking for her estimate, Mark.

11:30:50 13

MR. WASSER: She told you she didn't know.

11:30:50 14

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

11:30:51 15 BY MR. LEE:

11:30:51 16

11:30:51 17 tell me whether there's one million people in the

11:30:55 18 payroll department?

11:30:55 19

11:30:57 20 She's not going to respond to that question.

Q.

So sitting here now as of today you can't

MR. WASSER: Counsel, that's ridiculous.

11:31:00 21

MR. LEE: I'm asking for an estimate, Mark.

11:31:01 22

MR. WASSER:

No, not on none of those terms.

11:31:02 23 That's a ridiculous question.

11:31:02 24

11:31:04 25 you just want an answer. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

THE WITNESS:

I can give you an answer if

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

30

Page 6 of 29

11:31:04

11:31:05 2

11:31:08 3 estimate, your best estimate.

11:31:08 4

11:31:12 5 know.

11:31:12 6

11:31:14

1 BY MR. LEE:

Q.

No, I don't want an answer.

MR. WASSER:

I want your

She can't do that. She doesn't

Move on.

THE WITNESS: I don't handle the staffing.

7 BY MR. LEE:

11:31:15 8

Q.

Okay. So you have no basis for knowing.

11:31:17 9

Is that correct?

11:31:17 10

A. For the staffing in payroll?

11:31:19 11

Q. No, how many people there are in the payroll

11:31:21 12 department.

11:31:21 13

A.

No.

11:31:24 14

Q.

Okay. Who do you believe would know how

11:31:27 15 many people there are in the payroll department?

11:31:29 16

A.

The supervisor of payroll.

11:31:30 17

Q.

And who's that?

11:31:32 18

A.

Renita Nunn.

11:31:33 19

Q.

Okay. So after the leave of absence form

11:31:38 20 goes to the payroll department, what happens next?

11:31:41 21

11:31:45 22 goes for the department head recommendation's

11:31:50 23 signature.

A.

My understanding is it gets processed. It

11:31:51 24

Q. Who's the department head?

11:31:54 25

A. Of what department? WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

11:37:54 1 a document that's been tabbed and marked as

11:37:59 2 Exhibit 241.

11:38:00 3

11:38:01 4 please.

11:38:11 5 A. Okay.

Would you just take a moment to review it,

36

Page 7 of 29

11:38:14 6

Q.

Okay.

If you know, what is DFJ726?

11:38:17 7

A.

That is -- it looks like David Jadwin's

11:38:23 8 certification of health care provider.

11:38:26 9

11:38:29 10 that the supporting documentation needed for DFJ1157

11:38:34 11 as check boxed as intermittent employee would require

11:38:38 12 some kind of doctor's note or certification.

11:38:41 13 Is that correct?

11:38:41 14 A. Yes.

11:38:41 15

11:38:46 16 you were referring to?

11:38:47 17 A. Yes.

11:38:47 18

11:38:53 19 before? Do you recall?

Q.

Okay.

Now earlier you were just testifying

Q.

Okay.

So is DFJ726 the type of form that

Q.

Okay.

Do you -- have you seen DFJ726

11:38:54 20

A. I can't remember.

11:39:02 21

Q.

Okay.

Well, take a look at the dates on

11:39:05 22 there and see if it can refresh your recollection. I

11:39:09 23 would call your attention to that date on Item 3 of

11:39:13 24 DFJ726, which states March 16, '06, as well as the

11:39:16 25 date in Item 2, which states December 16, '05. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

37

Page 8 of 29

11:39:19 1

A.

Yes.

11:39:20 2

Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection

11:39:23 3 at all?

11:39:23 4 A. Yes.

11:39:24 5

11:39:27 6 recollection, what do you believe DFJ726 is?

Q. Okay. So now having refreshed your

11:39:30 7

A.

I'm sorry, say that again.

11:39:33 8

Q. Okay. Having reviewed DFJ726 and looking

11:39:37 9 particularly at the dates on Items 2 and 4.

11:39:40 10

A. Uh-huh.

11:39:41 11

Q. What do you believe DFJ726 is?

11:39:46 12

A.

Items 2 and 4?

11:39:48 13

MR. WASSER: She's already told you it's a

11:39:50 14 supporting documentation. What are you asking her?

11:39:53 15

11:39:54 16 BY MR. LEE:

THE WITNESS: There's no dates on 4.

11:39:55 17

Q.

I'm sorry, I meant 2 and 3.

11:39:58 18

A. What was your question again? I'm sorry.

11:40:00 19

Q. Okay. What do you believe the relationship

11:40:04 20 is, if any, between DFJ726 and DFJ1157?

11:40:11 21

A. I believe they belong together.

11:40:12 22

Q.

Okay.

So in other words, if somebody or if

11:40:18 23 you were to receive DFJ1157 plus DFJ726, would you

11:40:25 24 consider that to be a complete leave request form

11:40:29 25 package?

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

67

Page 9 of 29

13:38:46 1 county employee?

13:38:48 2 A. Yes.

13:38:48 3

13:38:51 4 going to ask you to estimate how many times you've

13:38:53 5 done that in the past say -- or actually during the

13:38:57 6 tenure of your employment at KMC.

13:39:00 7

13:39:02 8 county leave for a county employee?

13:39:05 9 A. Not often.

Q.

Okay.

If you had to estimate -- well, I'm

How many times have you had to calculate the

13:39:07 10

Q.

Would you say it would be under 10?

13:39:10 11

A.

I couldn't tell you. I don't remember.

13:39:18 12

Q.

Well, Ms. Perez, we are entitled to your

13:39:21 13 best estimate.

13:39:22 14

13:39:24 15 the answer.

13:39:24 16

13:39:26 17 BY MR. LEE:

13:39:26 18

13:39:29 19 fifty, ten times a year?

13:39:31 20

Q.

MR. WASSER: If she doesn't remember, that's

THE WITNESS: My best estimate.

Would it be under a hundred, a hundred and

A. I can't recall unfortunately.

13:39:31 21 Q. That's okay. That's fine.

13:39:37 22

13:39:42 23 Correct?

13:39:42 24 A. Correct.

13:39:43 25

But anyway, it wasn't all that often.

Q.

Okay. So in Dr. Jadwin's case with regard WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

81

Page 10 of 29

13:56:21 1

A. Supervisors' signatures.

13:56:23 2

Q. Okay. What else?

13:56:23 3

A. That's it.

13:56:25 4

Q. Okay. When you say you're being trained to

13:56:30 5 detect supervisors' signatures on time sheets, what

13:56:34 6 does that training consist of?

13:56:38 7

A. Say that again.

13:56:40 8

Q. Okay. You said earlier you're being

13:56:42 9 trained.

13:56:43 10

A.

Yes.

13:56:43 11

Q. To detect completeness of time sheets.

13:56:47 12

A.

Yes.

13:56:47 13

Q.

Okay. And then you said that what that

13:56:49 14 means is that you're looking to see if there's a

13:56:52 15 supervisor's signature on every time sheet.

13:56:54 16

A.

Yes.

13:56:55 17

Q.

So I'm asking you, when you say you're being

13:56:57 18 trained to do that, what does that training consist

13:57:00 19 of?

13:57:00 20

13:57:02 21 there's a supervisor's signature.

13:57:04 22

13:57:07 23 that? Is someone training you how to do that?

A.

Q.

Looking at the time sheet to make sure

Okay.

So is someone teaching you how to do

13:57:09 24

A.

Yes.

13:57:10 25

Q.

Okay.

So I guess what I'm asking is, how WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

82

Page 11 of 29

13:57:11 1 did that person train you to do that?

13:57:13 2

13:57:16 3 there is a supervisor's signature on the time sheets

13:57:19 4 and that's it.

13:57:20 5

13:57:23 6 figure out?

13:57:23 7

13:57:25 8 she's being trained to do that.

13:57:25 9 MR. WASSER: Right.

13:57:26 10

13:57:28 11 much training is required to do that.

13:57:29 12

13:57:32 13 there a signature on it. Well, that's pretty easy.

13:57:35 14 BY MR. LEE:

13:57:35 15

13:57:37 16 you would call substantial then. Correct? It's just

13:57:40 17 pretty much what you just said. Right?

13:57:43 18 A. Right.

13:57:43 19

13:57:50 20 relocated into the payroll department?

13:57:52 21 A. Yes.

13:57:53 22

13:57:56 23 that?

A.

They let me know you need to make sure that

MR. WASSER:

MR. LEE:

What part of that is hard to

Well, I'm just saying, she said

MR. LEE:

So I'm trying to figure out how

Look at the time sheet, is

MR. WASSER:

Q.

Okay. So the training is not exactly what

Q. Okay. You said you were physically

Q. So where were you physically located before

13:57:57 24

A. At another desk.

13:58:00 25

Q.

Okay. Where was this other desk? WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

84

Page 12 of 29

13:59:07 1 Medical Center?

13:59:08 2

13:59:11 3 Number 14.

13:59:12 4

13:59:15 5 trailer?

13:59:15 6 A. Yes.

13:59:16 7

13:59:20 8 Medical Center campus contain the entire HR

13:59:22 9 department?

13:59:23 10 A. Yes.

13:59:24 11

13:59:26 12 department was.

13:59:28 13 A. Uh-huh.

13:59:29 14

13:59:32 15 Okay.

13:59:32 16

13:59:37 17 worked in payroll. That's the question you asked

13:59:38 18 her.

13:59:38 19 BY MR. LEE:

13:59:38 20

13:59:41 21 people would you estimate are in the payroll

13:59:43 22 department?

13:59:43 23 A. At this time?

13:59:43 24 Q. Yes.

13:59:44 25

A. We're south of Mary Kay Shell, Building

Q.

Okay. Is your HR department located in a

Q.

It is.

Okay. Does this trailer on the Kern

Q. Now earlier I asked you how big the payroll

Q. And you couldn't give me any estimate.

MR. WASSER: You asked her how many people

Q.

Okay.

I'm going to ask you now, how many

A.

There is six of us. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

14:00:57 1

14:00:59 2 processing leave of absence request forms in the

14:01:02 3 payroll department?

14:01:02 4 A.

14:01:10 5 Q.

Q.

Correct? Okay. So who is responsible for

I'm sorry, rephrase that.

Ms. Perez, we're going to be here all day

86

Page 13 of 29

14:01:12

6 just so you know.

I mean, I'm happy to do it, but

14:01:16

7 your depo. is going to have to be a lot longer than

14:01:20 8 necessary if we can't get some kind of simple

14:01:20 9 answers.

14:01:20 10

14:01:20 11 questions, counsel. Don't blame Ms. Perez. She's

14:01:20 12 doing her best.

14:01:20 13

14:01:22 14 questions.

14:01:22 15

14:01:26 16 building.

14:01:26 17

14:01:27 18 Ms. Perez?

14:01:28 19 MR. WASSER: Well, we could debate what it

14:01:32 20 has to do with the lawsuit, counsel. You might

14:01:34 21 explain to us what the size of the human resources

14:01:38 22 office has to do with Dr. Jadwin's claims, but we're

14:01:39 23 not even going there because I know you can't.

14:01:39 24 MR. LEE: No, that's not true, Mark.

14:01:40 25

MR. WASSER: Well, you've got to ask better

MR. LEE: Well, Mark, I'm asking very simple

THE WITNESS: You're asking me how big is a

MR. LEE: What's unreasonable about that,

MR. WASSER:

So we're going to spend a lot WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

87

Page 14 of 29

14:01:41 1 of time.

14:01:42

14:01:43 3

14:01:46

14:01:50 5 won't reveal it to you, Mark.

Ask her how big the building is. Ask her.

Mark, first of all, yeah, actually

I

2 I mean, take your time.

MR. LEE:

4 I do have a purpose for it, but that's all right.

14:01:53 6

MR. WASSER: Good.

14:01:53 7

MR. LEE:

Yeah.

14:01:53 8

MR. WASSER: Don't reveal it. What's your

14:01:54 9 question now.

14:01:55 10 BY MR. LEE:

14:01:55 11

Q.

Ms. Perez, I'm going to ask you one more

14:01:55 12 time.

14:01:55 13

A.

Yes.

14:01:55 14

Q.

It's a simple question. Okay.

14:02:00 15

Who in the payroll department is responsible

14:02:02 16 for processing leave of absence request forms?

14:02:04 17

A.

The payroll department.

14:02:06 18

Q.

I said who.

14:02:07 19

A.

There's not a direct person responsible.

14:02:09 20

MR. WASSER:

She's told you that I think

14:02:11 21 this is the third time.

14:02:12 22

MR. LEE:

No, there's got --

14:02:13 23

MR. WASSER: No, there doesn't have to be.

14:02:15 24 BY MR. LEE:

14:02:15 25

Q. Okay. Who typically in the payroll WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

14:02:18 1 department processes leave of absence request forms

14:02:20 2 for county employees?

14:02:21 3

14:02:24 4 you they're put in a binder and the binder is

14:02:27 5 processed by whoever is available. Now that's the

14:02:30 6 answer.

14:02:30

MR. WASSER: She's answered it. She's told

7 BY MR. LEE:

88

Page 15 of 29

14:02:30 8

Q.

Okay. I'd like the names of those people.

14:02:33 9

A. In the payroll department we have an

14:02:35 10 employee named Bobbi Gains. We have Armida Smith.

14:02:39 11 We have April Smith. Myself. Angela Conger. And

14:02:44 12 Christine Tetimas.

14:02:46 13

14:02:47 14 Ms. Perez.

14:02:48 15

14:02:50 16 counsel.

14:02:50 17

14:02:51 18 Mark, you're not even objecting.

Q.

Okay. That's not the question I asked,

MR. WASSER: You just asked for names,

MR. LEE:

No, I said I want the names --

14:02:53 19

MR. WASSER: You just asked for names.

14:02:54 20

MR. LEE: Stop with the speaking objections,

14:02:57 21 please. Okay. If you've got an objection, just

14:02:58 22 state it.

14:02:58 23 BY MR. LEE:

14:02:58 24

Q.

Ms. Perez.

14:02:58 25

A.

Yes.

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

89

Page 16 of 29

14:02:59 1 Q.

14:03:01 2

14:03:03 3 payroll department who typically process leave of

14:03:07 4 absence request forms for county employees.

14:03:09 5 A. There are deadlines and no one is

14:03:13 6 responsible, but yet we all are.

14:03:16 7 Q. Ms. Perez, I'm not asking who is

14:03:18 8 responsible.

14:03:18 9

14:03:18 10 responsible.

14:03:18 11 BY MR. LEE:

14:03:18 12

14:03:22 13 absence request forms in the payroll department. Who

14:03:25 14 typically does it. Just name the names, Ms. Perez.

14:03:25 15 A. It would be Armida Smith --

I'm going to ask you again. Okay.

Please state the names of the people in the

MR. WASSER: You just asked her who was

Q. I said who typically processes leave of

14:03:28 16

Q. It's not very difficult. There's six names.

14:03:28 17

MR. WASSER:

You want to stop ask --

14:03:31 18

THE WITNESS: Christine Tetimas, April

14:03:33 19 Smith.

14:03:33 20 BY MR. LEE:

14:03:33 21

14:03:37 22 names again because your counsel --

Okay.

Q.

So, I'm sorry, you said -- say their

14:03:37 23

MR. WASSER: You were talking counsel.

14:03:38 24

THE WITNESS: Christine Tetimas, April

14:03:33 25 Smith, and Armida Smith. WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

90

Page 17 of 29

14:03:43 1 BY MR. LEE:

14:03:43 2

14:03:46 3 department?

14:03:46 4 A. Yes.

14:03:49 5

14:03:59 6 your recollection and your understanding, would it

14:04:00 7 have been one of those three people who processed

14:04:04 8 Dr. Jadwin's leave of absence request forms in 2006?

14:04:07 9 A. Say that again.

14:04:09 10

14:04:11 11 who it have been those three people in the payroll

14:04:14 12 department who would have processed Dr. Jadwin's

14:04:17 13 leave of absence request forms in 2006?

14:04:20 14 A. It could have been one of those.

14:04:21 15

14:04:23 16 THE WITNESS: I didn't.

14:04:24 17 MR. LEE: Well, I was asking to her

14:04:26 18 knowledge, Mark.

14:04:27 19

14:04:29 20 but she doesn't know.

14:04:30 21

14:04:32 22 say you don't know.

14:04:33 23

14:04:33 24 persist that she's supposed to know something.

14:04:34 25

MR. WASSER: Well, then you follow up and

Q.

Okay. So three members of the payroll

Q. Okay. Now those three people, based upon

Q. According to your knowledge or understanding

MR. WASSER: She didn't work there then.

MR. WASSER: She said it could have been,

MR. LEE:

If you don't know, Ms. Perez, just

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

14:04:35 1

14:04:36 2 this depo. if you continue with this.

14:04:38 3

14:04:40 4 You're not even stating any objections.

14:04:42 5

14:04:44 6 sense.

14:04:44 7

14:04:46 8 ambiguous and then leave it at that.

MR. LEE:

Mark, I'm going to have to stop

What objections are you stating, Mark?

MR. WASSER: Your questions don't make

MR. LEE:

So fine, Mark.

Say vague and

91

Page 18 of 29

14:04:48 9

MR. WASSER: I'll object the way I want.

14:04:50 10

MR. LEE:

Well, Mark, then we're going to

14:04:51 11 adjourn this deposition right now because you are

14:04:51 12 interfering, and you are coaching, and you're making

14:04:52 13 improper speaking objections, and I will adjourn this

14:04:55 14 right now.

14:04:55 15

MR. WASSER: Whatever you want.

14:04:57 16

MR. LEE: Okay. Let's adjourn.

14:04:57 17

MR. WASSER: Ask your next question.

14:04:58 18

MR. LEE:

No, no. We're going to adjourn

14:04:58 19 and I'm going to do a motion to compel.

14:05:02 20 the record at 2:06 p.m.

We're off

14:05:04 21

Mark, are we off the record?

14:05:05 22

MR. WASSER: It's your deposition, counsel.

14:05:07 23 We're here.

14:05:07 24

14:05:07 25

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

14:05:08 1

MR. LEE:

2 (2:06 p.m.)

No, we're off the record.

3

--ooOoo--

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

WOOD & RANDALL (800) 322-4595

92

Page 19 of 29

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

Document 104-2

Filed 04/23/2008

94 94

Page 20 of 29

1 1

2 2

STATE STATE

OF OF

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

COUNTY COUNTY

OF OF

KERN KERN

ss. ss.

3 3

4 4

5 5

 

I, I,

Darlinda Darlinda

R. R.

Thomason, Thomason,

a a

Certified Certified

Shorthand Shorthand

1 Reporter Reporter

in in

the the

State State

of of

California, California,

holding holding

Certificate Certificate

6

6

I

No. No.

13094, 13094,

do do

hereby hereby

certify certify

that that

PATRICIA PATRICIA

VERONICA VERONICA

7 7

I PEREZ, PEREZ, the the witness witness named named in in the the foregoing foregoing deposition, deposition,

8

8

I

was was

by by

me me

9

9 I Thursday,

Thursday,

duly duly

sworn; sworn;

February February

28, 28,

that that

said said

2008, 2008,

at at

deposition deposition

was was

taken taken

the the

time time

and and

place place

set set

10

10

I forth forth

on on

the the

first first

page page

hereof. hereof.

 

That That

upon upon

the the

taking taking

of of

the the

deposition, deposition,

the the

12

12

I words words

of of

the the

witness witness

were were

written written

down down

by by

me me

in in

stenotypy stenotypy

and and

thereafter thereafter

transcribed transcribed

by by

computer computer

under under

14

14

16 16

17

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

I

I

I

my my

supervision; supervision;

that that

the the

foregoing foregoing

is is

a a

true true

and and

correct correct

transcript transcript

of of

the the

testimony testimony

given given

by by

the the

witness. witness.

I further certify that I am neither counsel for

counsel for

I further certify that

I

am

neither

nor nor

in in

any any

way way

related related

to to

any any

party party

to to

said said

action, action,

nor nor

in in

any any

way way

interested interested

in in

the the

result result

or or

outcome outcome

thereof. thereof.

 

Dated Dated

this this

17th 17th

day day

of of

March, March,

2008, 2008,

at at

Fresno, Fresno,

I California. California.

wrtA£~ wrtA£~

Darlinda Darlinda

R. R.

Thomason, Thomason,

CSR CSR

No. No.

13094 13094

w w

a a

D D

I I

N N

I I

x x

WOOD WOOD

& & RANDALL RANDALL

(800) (800)

322-4595 322-4595

w w a a D D I I N N I I x x WOOD WOOD