Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 54 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 4
1Mark
A.
WasserCASB#060160LAWOFFICESOF
MARK
A.
WASSER2400CapitolMall,Suite1100Sacramento,CA958143Phone:(916)444-6400Fax:(916)444-64054E-mail:mwasserriVmarkwasser.com5Bernard
C.
Barmann,Sr.
K E R N C O U N T Y C O L ~ S E L
6MarkNations,ChiefDeputy1115TruxtonAvenue,FourthFloor7Bakersfield,CA93301Phone:(661)868-38008Fax:(661)868-3805E-mail:mnations@co.kern.ca.us910AttorneysforDefendantsCounty
of
Kern,PeterBryan,IrwinHarris,EugeneKercher,
II
JenniferAbraham,ScottRagland,ToniSmithWilliam
I.
DEFENDANTS'HAVEFULLY
COMPLIED
WITH
RULE
26(a)(1)(A)DespitehavingbeenprovidedwithaddressesandtelephonenumbersforallCountyDefendantsrespectfullysubmitthismemoranduminoppositionto
Plaintiffs
motiontocompeL
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM
OFPOINTS
AND
AUTHORITIES
IN
OPPOSITION
TO
MOTION
TO
COMPEL
DateActionFiled:January6,2007TrialDate:August26,2008Date:November5.2007Time:9:30a.m..Place:U.S.BankruptcyCourthouse,BakersfieldCourtroom8
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT
COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
Defendants.
KERJ'II,
et
vs.DAVIDF.
JADWIN,
D.O.Plaintiff,
COUNTY
~
CaseNo.:1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
))
)
~
)
)
~
)
-------------)
12
13
14
15
16
1718
,
"
1920
21
22
23
24
25
262728
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM
OF
POfNTSANAUTHORlTIES
IN
OPPOSITIONTOMOTIONTOCOMPE
1
 
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 54 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 4
1employeeswhomaybewitnessesinthiscase
as
well
as
theDefendants'writtenrepresentations2thatallemployeeswillbemadeavailabletoPlaintiffuponrequest,thatDefendantswillprovide3PlaintiffwithcontactinformationonallemployeeswholeaveCountyemploymentduringthe4pendency
of
thiscase,andthatDefendants'counselwillacceptservice
of
allprocessandnotices5onbehalf
of
allDefendantsandemployeesandensuretheiravailability,Plaintiffassertsthat6Defendantshavefailedtosatisfytherequirements
of
Rule26(a)(l)(A).Plaintiffsassertionisso7groundlessastocallintoquestionPlaintiffsgood-faith.
8
Thestates
a
must,withoutawaitinga
<i"0nup,'U
request,provideto9otherparties"thenameand,known,theaddressandtelephonenumber
of
eachindividual
10
likelytohavediscoverableinformation...".
II
Thelist
of
individualsthatDefendantsenclosedtheirinitialdisclosuresthoroughlyandcompletelysatisfiedrequirementstheRule.Defendantsnotprovidedaddresses
13
andtelephonenumbersforeveryemployee,theyprovidedadditional,written,representations,as
14
describedabove.Acopy
of
thetransmittalletterthatcontainedDefendants'representationsin
15
thisregardisattachedtotheDeclaration
of
Mark
A.
WasserinOppositiontoMotion
to
Compel.
16
TheclearpolicybehindRule26(a)(1)(A)istoinformtheopposingparty
of
potential
17
witnessesandprovidesufficientinformationtomakethemavailable.Defendantsfullysatisfied
18
Iboththeletterandthespirit
of
theRule.Plaintiffispresentlyinpossession
of
theactual,
19
individual,addressesandtelephonenumbersforeachemployeewhoDefendantshaveinitially20identifiedasapotentialwitness.Plaintiffisalsoinpossession
of
theDefendants'written
21
promisetoprovidecontactinformationonemployeeswholeaveemploymentduringthiscase22andmakeeachandeveryemployeeavailableuponrequestandtoacceptservice
of
allprocess
23
andnoticesontheirbehalf.24Notsatisfied,Plaintiffinsistsheisentitledto"home"addressesfortheemployees.For
25
authority,Plaintiffreliesona1996DistrictCourtdecisionfromKansas,
Dixon
v.
CertainTeed26Corp.,
164F.R.D.685.(PlaintiffalsocitesMoore'sFederalPracticebutthelanguagein27Moore'sissupportedonlyby
CertainTeed
and,thus,isnotadditionalauthority.
(See6-26
28
Moore'sFederalPractice-Civil§26.22,
fn.
23).
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUMOFPOlNTS
AN
AUTHORITIES
IN
OPPOSITIONTOMOTIONTOCOMPE
2
 
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 54 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 4
1Interestingly,the
CertainTeed
courtdidnotactuallyorderdisclosure
of
"home"2addresses.Itsimplyorderedtheemployer
to
"disclosetheaddressesandtelephonenumbers
of
3itscurrentemployees."
Dixon
v.
CertainTeedCorp.,
164
F.R.D.685,693.This,
of
course,
is
4consistentwiththelanguageinRule26(a)(l)(A)whichdocsnotreference"home"addressesat5all.
It
is
doubtfulthatthe
CertainTeed
decisionbringsanyweighttobearonthisissneand,6ironically,itactuallyunderscorestheabsence
of
supportforPlaintiffsposition.7In
Certainteed,
theemployerrefused
to
provideaddressesortelephonenumbersforanyrefusedtomakeTheemployerdisclosed"itsbusiness9addressandphonenumber"
(ld.
at689)contendingthattheplaintiffcouldnotcontactthe
J
0employeesanyway
(ld.
at688)andcomplainingthatdisclosingadditionaladdresseswouldIIincreasetheemployer'sdiscoverycosts.
Id.
at
p.
687.factshereareaworldaway.theDefendantsnotonlydisclosed
13
addressesandtelephonenumbers
of
allemployees,theaddressesandtelephonenumbersthe
J
4Defendantsprovidedaretheindividualemployees'actualworkaddressesandtelephone
15
numbers-notgeneraladdressesortelephonesfortheemployer.Thosedisclosures,alone,fully
J
6satisfyRule26.ButtheDefendantsprovidedmore.TheDefendantsaccompaniedtheir
17
disclosures
of
theemployeeaddressesandtelephonenumberswithcommitments
to
provideall
18
employeesuponrequesttoacceptservice
of
allprocessandnoticesforallDefendantsand
19
employeesand
to
provideupdatedcontactinformationondepartingemployees.Byany20measure,this
is
severalstepsbeyondwhatRule26requires.
21
Onemightask,"WhydidPlaintifffilehismotion?"22Thereisanotherissue.As
is
morefullyexplainedinDefendants'motionforprotective
23
orderfiledherewith(andsetforhearingatthesametimeasthismotion),Countyemployees24object
to
disclosingtheirhomeaddresses
to
Plaintiffongrounds
of
privacyandpersonalsafety.
25
Dr.JenniferAbraham,forexample,doesnotwantPlaintifftoknowwhereshelives.She26mentionsPlaintiffsphysicalassaultonanotherphysicianatKernMedicalCenterandhisverbal27assaultsonherandexpressessafetyconcernsforherchildrenandfamily.
See
Declaration
of
28
JenniferAbrahaminSupport
of
MotionforProtectiveOrder.Otheremployeesdonotwant
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUMOFPOINTS
AN
AUTHORITIESINOPPOSITIONTOMOTIONTOCOMPE
3
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more