104 mpo perez depo - dfj declaration re joint statement

8/14/2019 104 MPO Perez Depo - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement

1/43

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ 1

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

28

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299

Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

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

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATIONOF DEFENDANTS COUNSEL TOPREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINTSTATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPELDEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ

Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom

1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

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

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

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forthbelow and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

2. On February 28, 2008, Plaintiff conducted the deposition in Bakersfield, CA, of PatriciaPerez, an employee in the HR department at Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by

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

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 104 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 13


2/43


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

28

behavior, including speaking objections, witness coaching, responding on deponents behalf to questions

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

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

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

depositions, plaintiffs attorney fees and costs associated with the adjourned depositon and this motion,

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

3. Briefing regarding Plaintiffs above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft JointStatement, attached hereto as Attachment A.

4. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendantscounsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On

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

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

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

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

Statement which I had prepared.

5. In my rush, I unintentionally included the draft Declaration of Inability to SecureCooperation of Defendants Counsel which I had prepared ahead of time and was future-dated to April

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

counsels refusal to cooperate that were both misleading and false, defense counsel makes much ado

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

the accidentally included document.

6. I sent the draft joint statement to Defendant by both mail and fax a full week prior totoday in the expectation that he would review it and provide comments to me via email. Most of

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

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

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

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



3/43


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

28

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

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

7. Despite Defendants accusations to the contrary (Doc. 102, 3:21-26), I did not know thatdefense counsel was unavailable to accept service of filings and documents on April 17 and 18 and

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

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

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

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

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

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

would have.

8. Defendant insinuates that I have acted improperly in not providing the depositionvideotape to him (Doc. 102, 2:20-3:2). I attempted to videotape the deposition myself, rather than hiring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. As for Defendants accusations against me which make heavy use of adjectives such assarcastic, abusive, intimidating, hostile, and repetitious and accuse me of badgering,

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

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

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

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

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



4/43


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

28

Defendants penchant for engaging in long colloquoys and improper speaking objections on the record

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

10. In any event, had I engaged in anything close to the misconduct Defendant accuses meof, his only proper recourse would have been to adjourn the deposition and seek a motion for protective

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

engaged in.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: April 23, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant



5/43


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

28

ATTACHMENT A



6/43

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OFPATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING MONETARY 1

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

28




Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERYDISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL DEPOSITION OF PATRICIAPEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, ANDSEEKING MONETARY SANCTIONS


1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CADate Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008



7/43


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

28

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

advance of the April 28, 2008 hearing on plaintiffs motion to compel reconvening of the deposition of

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

been characteristic at depositions thus far) at future depositions, plaintiffs attorney fees and costs

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

proper and just.

I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES DISCOVERY CONFERENCESOn February 28, 2008, plaintiff conducted the deposition in Bakersfield, CA, of Patricia Perez,

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

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

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

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

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

deposition were on the record for only 93 minutes.

Plaintiffs counsel twice attempted to meet and confer in good faith with Defendant at the

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

refused, continuing to engage in this behavior despite plaintiffs counsels requests to stop.

II. A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTESPlaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center

(KMC) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this

Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him

for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues and regulatory violations at KMC. As a

result, Plaintiff was forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic clinical

depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff

pathologist for unavailability and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.

On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home



8/43


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

28

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

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

simply let the contract run out. On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiffs employment

contract.

Plaintiffs Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave

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

procedural due process.

Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiffs tenure as a pathologist at Kern

Medical Center. Plaintiffs relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point

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

environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.

III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUEA. Defense Counsels Conduct at the Deposition Was Obstructive

1. Plaintiffs PositionRule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

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 otheraspect of the deposition--must be noted on the record, but the examination stillproceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be statedconcisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct adeponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce alimitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). [emphasisadded].

Counsel may not use speaking objections to coach the deponent. For instance, counsel may

not interrupt mid-question to ask for a clarification, or in the course of objecting attempt to suggest

answers or warn the witness. SeeHall v. Clifton Precision,Inc. (E.D. Penn. 1993) 150 FRD 525, 530.Rule 30(c)(2) renders relevancy objections meaningless in most depositions. The deponent

must even answer questions calling for blatantly irrelevant information subject to the objection. FRCP

30(c)(2);International Union of Elec., Radio & Machinery Workers, AFLCIO v. Westinghouse Elec.

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



9/43


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

28

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

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

p.m.), defense counsel interposed no less than 33 obstructing statements. Defendants 33 statements

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

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

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

proper objection of any kind.

Defense counsel coached the deponent to give misleading answers. When plaintiffs counsel

asked Ms. Perez for her estimate of how many people were in KMCs payroll department, she answered

she didnt know (Ms. Perez later testified that she is a member of KMCs 6-person payroll department).

Plaintiffs counsel then asked her for her estimate. Deponent began to answer, My estimate , but

Defendant immediately cut her off and insisted: If she doesnt know, she doesnt know. Ms. Perez,

having been told how to answer by Defendant, then changed her answer to I dont know. Perez

Deposition, 28:23 29:14. When plaintiffs counsel asked again for deponents estimate, before

deponent could answer, Defendant interjected: She cant do that. She doesnt know. Move on.

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

there are in KMCs payroll department. Perez Deposition, 29:16 30:13. None of Defendants

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

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

As Defendant well knew, his assertion that She cant do that. She doesnt know was wrong

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

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

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

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

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

In the payroll department we have an employee named Bobbi Gains. We have ArmidaSmith. We have April Smith. Myself. Angela Conger. And Christine Tetimas.Perez Deposition, 88:9-12.

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



10/43


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

28

plaintiffs line of questioning that had impeached Ms. Perez:

Well, we could debate what it has to do with the lawsuit, counsel. You might explain tous what the size of the human resources office has to do with Dr. Jadwins claims, butwere not even going there because I know you cant.So were going to spend a lot of

time. Ask her how big the building is. Ask her. I mean, take your time.Perez Deposition, 86:19-87:2.

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

answer. Defendants statements therefore had no proper purpose other than to frustrate plaintiffs

examination of the witness.

Defendants coaching of the witness continued. When plaintiffs counsel later asked Ms. Perez

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

Defendant immediately interjected If she doesnt remember, thats the answer. [emphasis added].

Ms. Perez, having been told what the answer was, then said: I cant recall unfortunately. Perez

Deposition, 67:3-24.

Plaintiffs counsel several times asked defense counsel to stop obstructing the deposition. Mark,

youre not even objecting. Stop with the speaking objections, please. Okay. If youve got an

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

When Plaintiffs counsel then asked Ms. Perez whether to her knowledge or understanding it

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

plaintiffs leave of absence request form in 2006, the deponent answered It could have been one of

those. Defendant then suggested a further response to the witness: she didnt work there then. Ms.

Perez followed suit, saying, I didnt. Defendant then continued putting words in the witnesss mouth,

stating: She said it could have been, but she doesnt know. Perez Deposition, 90:10-20. Ms. Perez

never said that she doesnt know. None of Defendants statements on the record were stating

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

intended to coach the deponent how specifically to respond to plaintiffs questions and to frustrate

plaintiffs examination of the witness.

Plaintiffs counsel asked defense counsel one last time to stop coaching the witness and

obstructing the deposition, stating Mark, Im going to have to stop this depo if you continue with this.

What objections are you stating, Mark? Youre not even stating any objections. Defense counsel



11/43


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

28

responded Your questions dont make sense an improper objection and later Ill object the way I

want.

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

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

stated:

Well, Mark, then we're going to adjourn this deposition right now because you areinterfering, and you are coaching, and you're making improper speaking objections, andI will adjourn this right now.Perez Deposition, 91:10-14.

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

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

record or making personal attacks on plaintiffs counsel, never once stated at Ms. Perezs deposition that

plaintiffs counsel was acting inappropriately. In any case, defendants proper recourse would have been

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

help by obstructing plaintiffs questioning and coaching the witness.

Because Defendants conduct has frustrated a fair examination and unreasonably prolonged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

depositions thus far) at future depositions, plaintiffs attorney fees and costs associated with the

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



12/43


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

28

1. Defendants Position[INSERT HERE]

IV.

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 11241125.

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

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

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

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

Defense counsels conduct at plaintiffs deposition of Ms. Perez was obstructing and effectively

frustrated plaintiffs examination of the deponent. Plaintiff seeks to reconvene the deposition of Ms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and just. In total, Plaintiff seeks sanctions of at least $4,718.76.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April __, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER



13/43


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

28

By:__________________________________________Mark A. Wasser,Attorney for DefendantsCOUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWINHARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER

ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,AND WILLIAM ROY

Dated: April___, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By:__________________________________________Eugene D. LeeAttorney for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.



14/43


15/43

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: DEPOSITION OFPATRICIA PEREZ 1

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

28




Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


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



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

EXHIBIT 1: Excerpted pages from Transcript of Plaintiffs Deposition of Patricia Perez on

February 28, 2008

EXHIBIT 2: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 104-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 29


16/43


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

28

EXHIBIT 1:

Excerpted pages from Transcript of Plaintiffs Deposition of

Patricia Perez on February 28, 2008



17/43


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



18/43

28

11:29:20 1 Q. Who other than yourself would have the best

11:29:23 2 recollection about DFJ1157?

11:29:28 3 MR. WASSER: You're asking her to guess who

11:29:30 4 else knows what?

11:29:31 5 BY MR. LEE:

11:29:31 6 Q. I'm asking you who, to your knowledge, would

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. I couldn't tell you who.

11:29:41 10 Q. Okay. Name the individuals who would have

11:29:46 11 handled DFJ1157.

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 A. I put it in a little bin for payroll. I

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

11:30:20 23 Q. How many people were in payroll in 2006?

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

11:30:28 25 Q. Was it a hundred people?

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



19/43

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 Q. What's your estimate of how many people were

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

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 Q. So sitting here now as of today you can't

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

11:30:55 18 payroll department?

11:30:55 19 MR. WASSER: Counsel, that's ridiculous.

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

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 THE WITNESS: I can give you an answer if

11:31:04 25 you just want an answer.

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



20/43

30

11:31:04 1 BY MR. LEE:

11:31:05 2 Q. No, I don't want an answer. I want your

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

11:31:08 4 MR. WASSER: She can't do that. She doesn't

11:31:12 5 know. Move on.

11:31:12 6 THE WITNESS: I don't handle the staffing.

11:31:14 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 A. My understanding is it gets processed. It

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

11:31:50 23 signature.

11:31:51 24 Q. Who's the department head?

11:31:54 25 A. Of what department?

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



21/43

36

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

11:37:59 2 Exhibit 241.

11:38:00 3 Would you just take a moment to review it,

11:38:01 4 please.

11:38:11 5 A. Okay.

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 Q. Okay. Now earlier you were just testifying

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 Q. Okay. So is DFJ726 the type of form that

11:38:46 16 you were referring to?

11:38:47 17 A. Yes.

11:38:47 18 Q. Okay. Do you -- have you seen DFJ726

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

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



22/43

37

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 Q. Okay. So now having refreshed your

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

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 THE WITNESS: There's no dates on 4.

11:39:54 16 BY MR. LEE:

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



23/43

67

13:38:46 1 county employee?

13:38:48 2 A. Yes.

13:38:48 3 Q. Okay. If you had to estimate -- well, I'm

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 How many times have you had to calculate the

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

13:39:05 9 A. Not often.

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

13:39:24 15 the answer.

13:39:24 16 THE WITNESS: My best estimate.

13:39:26 17 BY MR. LEE:

13:39:26 18 Q. Would it be under a hundred, a hundred and

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

13:39:31 20 A. I can't recall unfortunately.

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

13:39:37 22 But anyway, it wasn't all that often.

13:39:42 23 Correct?

13:39:42 24 A. Correct.

13:39:43 25 Q. Okay. So in Dr. Jadwin's case with regard

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



24/43

81

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 A. Looking at the time sheet to make sure

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

13:57:04 22 Q. Okay. So is someone teaching you how to do

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

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



25/43

82

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

13:57:13 2 A. They let me know you need to make sure that

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 MR. WASSER: What part of that is hard to

13:57:23 6 figure out?

13:57:23 7 MR. LEE: Well, I'm just saying, she said

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

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

13:57:26 10 MR. LEE: So I'm trying to figure out how

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

13:57:29 12 MR. WASSER: Look at the time sheet, is

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 Q. Okay. So the training is not exactly what

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 Q. Okay. You said you were physically

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

13:57:52 21 A. Yes.

13:57:53 22 Q. So where were you physically located before

13:57:56 23 that?

13:57:57 24 A. At another desk.

13:58:00 25 Q. Okay. Where was this other desk?

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



26/43

84

13:59:07 1 Medical Center?

13:59:08 2 A. We're south of Mary Kay Shell, Building

13:59:11 3 Number 14.

13:59:12 4 Q. Okay. Is your HR department located in a

13:59:15 5 trailer?

13:59:15 6 A. Yes.

13:59:16 7 Q. It is. Okay. Does this trailer on the Kern

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 Q. Now earlier I asked you how big the payroll

13:59:26 12 department was.

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

13:59:29 14 Q. And you couldn't give me any estimate.

13:59:32 15 Okay.

13:59:32 16 MR. WASSER: You asked her how many people

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 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you now, how many

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


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

13:59:43 24 Q. Yes.

13:59:44 25 A. There is six of us.

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



27/43

86

14:00:57 1 Q. Correct? Okay. So who is responsible for

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

14:01:02 3 payroll department?

14:01:02 4 A. I'm sorry, rephrase that.

14:01:10 5 Q. Ms. Perez, we're going to be here all day

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

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

14:01:20 12 doing her best.

14:01:20 13 MR. LEE: Well, Mark, I'm asking very simple

14:01:22 14 questions.

14:01:22 15 THE WITNESS: You're asking me how big is a

14:01:26 16 building.

14:01:26 17 MR. LEE: What's unreasonable about that,

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: So we're going to spend a lot

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



28/43

87

14:01:41 1 of time. Ask her how big the building is. Ask her.

14:01:42 2 I mean, take your time.

14:01:43 3 MR. LEE: Mark, first of all, yeah, actually

14:01:46 4 I do have a purpose for it, but that's all right. I

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

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



29/43

88

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

14:02:20 2 for county employees?

14:02:21 3 MR. WASSER: She's answered it. She's told

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 7 BY MR. LEE:

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 Q. Okay. That's not the question I asked,

14:02:47 14 Ms. Perez.

14:02:48 15 MR. WASSER: You just asked for names,

14:02:50 16 counsel.

14:02:50 17 MR. LEE: No, I said I want the names --

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

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



30/43

89

14:02:59 1 Q. I'm going to ask you again. Okay.

14:03:01 2 Please state the names of the people in the

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 MR. WASSER: You just asked her who was

14:03:18 10 responsible.

14:03:18 11 BY MR. LEE:

14:03:18 12 Q. I said who typically processes leave of

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 --

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 Q. Okay. So, I'm sorry, you said -- say their

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

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



31/43

90

14:03:43 1 BY MR. LEE:

14:03:43 2 Q. Okay. So three members of the payroll


14:03:46 4 A. Yes.

14:03:49 5 Q. Okay. Now those three people, based upon

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 Q. According to your knowledge or understanding

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

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 MR. WASSER: She said it could have been,

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

14:04:30 21 MR. LEE: If you don't know, Ms. Perez, just

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

14:04:33 23 MR. WASSER: Well, then you follow up and

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

14:04:34 25

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595



32/43

91

14:04:35 1 MR. LEE: Mark, I'm going to have to stop

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

14:04:38 3 What objections are you stating, Mark?

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

14:04:42 5 MR. WASSER: Your questions don't make

14:04:44 6 sense.

14:04:44 7 MR. LEE: So fine, Mark. Say vague and

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

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. We're off

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

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



33/43

92

14:05:08 1 MR. LEE: No, we're off the record.

2 (2:06 p.m.)

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



34/43

10 I fo r t h on th e f i r s t page he reof .

8 I was by me duly sworn; t h a t sa id depos i t i on was t aken

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595

w r t A ~Dar l inda R. Thomason, CSR No. 13094Dated t h i s 17th day o f March, 2008, a t Fresno ,

I f u r t h e r ce r t i f y t h a t I am ne i t h e r counse l fo r

That upon th e t ak ing o f th e depos i t i on , th e

t r a n s c r i p t of the t e s t imony given by th e w itn ess .

s t eno typy and t h e r e a f t e r t r an s c r i b ed by computer under

s s .

I , Dar l inda R. Thomason, a Cer t i f i e d Shor thand

94

COUNTY OF KERNSTATE OF CALIFORNIA

2524

22

2120 I Ca l i f o rn i a .1918 I in any way i n t e r e s t ed in the r e s u l t o r outcome t h e r eo f .

9 I Thursday , February 28, 2008, a t th e t ime and p l ace s e t

17 I nor in any way r e l a t ed to any par ty to sa id ac t i on , nor

6 I No. 13094, do hereby c e r t i f y t h a t PATRICIA VERONICA

16

7 I PEREZ, th e w itness named in th e fo rego ing depos i t i on ,

14 I my supe rv i s ion ; t h a t th e fo rego ing i s a t r ue and co r r e c t

5 1 Repor te r in th e Sta t e of Ca l i f o rn i a , ho ld ing Ce r t i f i c a t e43

12 I words of th e wi tness were wr i t t en down by me in

21


10 fo r t h on th e f i r s t page he reof .

12 words of th e wi tness were wr i t t en down by me in

WOOD & RANDALL(800) 322-4595

w r t A ~Dar l inda R. Thomason, CSR No. 13094Dated t h i s 17th day o f March, 2008, a t Fresno ,

I f u r t h e r ce r t i f y t h a t I am ne i t h e r counse l fo r

That upon th e t ak ing o f th e depos i t i on , th e

Ca l i f o rn i a .

in any way i n t e r e s t ed in the r e s u l t o r outcome t h e r eo f .

t r a n s c r i p t of the te st im o ny giv en by th e w itn ess .

s t eno typy and t h e r e a f t e r t r an s c r i b ed by computer under

s s .

I , Dar l inda R. Thomason, a Cer t i f i e d Shor thand

94

COUNTY OF KERNSTATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 Thursday , February 28, 2008, a t th e t ime and p l ace s e t

17 nor in any way r e l a t ed to any par ty to s a id ac t io n, nor

8 was by me duly sworn; t h a t sa id depos i t i on was t aken

16

7 PEREZ, th e w itness named in th e fo rego ing depos i t i on ,6 No. 13094, do hereby c e r t i f y t h a t PATRICIA VERONICA

14 my supe rv i s ion ; t h a t th e fo rego ing i s a t r ue and co r r e c t

5 Repor te r in th e Sta t e of Ca l i f o rn i a , ho ld ing Ce r t i f i c a t e4

32

1


35/43


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

28

EXHIBIT 2:

Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion



36/43

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPELDEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, ANDSEEKING MONETARY SANCTIONS 1

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

28







Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPELDEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FORPROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKINGMONETARY SANCTIONS



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

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

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts ofCalifornia and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am

counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.

2. I am making this declaration in support of plaintiffs motion to compel responses tointerrogatories. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would

competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

3. I spent 93 minutes on the record conducting plaintiffs deposition of Patricia Perez, whichwas held in Bakersfield and adjourned on February 28, 2008. I also spent approximately 4 hours driving



37/43


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

28

from Los Angeles to Bakerfield and back (2 hour drive each way), 1 hour setting up exhibits and

preparing on the morning of the deposition, and 1.8 hours the day before preparing for the deposition.

4. Plaintiff incurred the following costs associated with Ms. Perezs adjourned deposition:Reporter fee: $529.40

Reporter hotel: $179.86

Plaintiff/counsel hotel: $189.36

TOTAL: $718.76

Receipts for the above are attached hereto as Attachment A.

5. I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 5 hours researching anddrafting these moving papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA.

6. My regular rate for legal services is $400 per hour.7. My rate is consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by attorneys of similar

skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1991 and my J.D. with

honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to the New York State Bar

in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman & Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I

worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell from 1996 to 1997. After a brief

leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to active practice as the General

Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley from 1999 to 2002. From 2002

to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I

was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.

8. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiffs suit but wasultimately unsuccessful. On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California

Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded. On

February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his involvement as local

counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States



38/43


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

28

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: April 23, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant



39/43


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

28

ATTACHMENT A:

Receipts for Expenses Associated with Adjourned Deposition



40/43

INVOICEW O O D ~ R A N D A l lCert if i ed Sho rthand Reporters

A Professional Corporation(661) 3951050 TOLL FREE (BOO) 3224595

Mr. Eugene D. LeeLaw Office of Eugene Lee555 West Rfth StreetSuite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

Invoice No. Invoice Date Job No.6517 3/21/2008 2812

Job Date c.seNo.2/28/2008 1:07-CV-00026-OWW-TAG

C8seNameJadwin vs. County of Kern

PaymentTermsCOD

ORIGINAl AND 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF:_+-_c ~ E c M a r d J N i R i a J T I I ~ y I Q r . . L M . [ ) , . t Volume II

ORIGINAL AND 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF:Patricia Veronica Perez, Volume I

Hotel Olarge 179.86

417.60529.40179.86TOTAL DUE >

Thank you. Your business is appreciated. We now aa:ept Visa, MasterCard and American Express.(- ) Payments/Credits:(+) FinalKleOIarges/DebiIs:(=) New BaIaIKle:

Please detach bottom portion and return with payment.

$1,126.86

1,126.860.00$0.00

Mr. Eugene D. LeeLaw Office of Eugene Lee555 West Fifth StreetSuite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

Invoice No.Invoice DateTotal Due

65173/21/2008$ 0.00

Remit To: Wood . . Randallcertified Shorthand ReportersAProfessional Corporation423Truxtun AvenueBakersfield, CA 93301

Job No.BUIDCase No.Case Name

28121-Main1:07-CV-00026-0WW-TAGJadwin vs. County of Kern

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 104-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 26 of 29INVOICEW O O D ~ R A N D A l lCertified Sho rthand Repor ter s

A Professional Corporation(661) 3951050 TOLL FREE (BOO) 3224595

Mr. Eugene D. LeeLaw Office of Eugene Lee555 West Rfth StreetSuite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

Invoice No. Invoice Date Job No.6517 3/21/2008 2812

Job Date c.seNo.2/28/2008 1:07-CV-00026-OWW-TAG

C8seNameJadwin vs. County of Kern

PaymentTermsCOD

ORIGINAl AND 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF:_+-_c ~ E c M a r d J N i R i a J T I I ~ y I Q r . . L M . [ ) , . t Volume II

ORIGINAL AND 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF:Patricia Veronica Perez, Volume I

Hotel Olarge 179.86

417.60529.40179.86TOTAL DUE >

Thank you. Your business is appreciated. We now aa:ept Visa, MasterCard and American Express.(- ) Payments/Credits:(+) FinalKleOIarges/DebiIs:(=) New BaIaIKle:

Please detach bottom portion and return with payment.

$1,126.86

1,126.860.00$0.00

Mr. Eugene D. LeeLaw Office of Eugene Lee555 West Fifth StreetSuite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

Invoice No.Invoice DateTotal Due

65173/21/2008$ 0.00

Remit To: Wood . . Randallcertified Shorthand ReportersAProfessional Corporation423Truxtun AvenueBakersfield, CA 93301

Job No.BUIDCase No.Case Name

28121-Main1:07-CV-00026-0WW-TAGJadwin vs. County of Kern


41/43


04/17/2008 01:04 8182451405 JADWIN PAGE 02(

!r.i;> If'd . J ; ; : : , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ' - ~ ' - ~ ' ~ ' ' ' - - ~ . ' ~ " '-,.~ : 1 ~ ; r 3 H ~ ; 3 1 ~ t ! 1 r N :Ridg-a eif.\ C ~ J ~ ~ ~ : d ; d ; : ) GA g",; ::,lQ? - ' i I i J 2 ~ S' I " ",1-'/':;:\ ,f : : : ' I . ) l j 0 / l i n \ i ( ) i ( : : ~ ; : . '\ h,Ii 1)79730

55Sfl1 'I CliO

Roo:r: ;\10,Dopa I"\:ute User :i[l

?OCE;::::,AR

: L t ; . : d : E , ~i : 3 D ! I ~ ' : ' s T; , ~ j ~ ~

R e s t . 2 1 1 r a ~ t ~ ~ : : c d

';1051G9000.00:

:10.2512.7[i

1)2-'2G..OH,:f}2-2$-(IH 1,1/);;'

C2-2(5-{)5 169.00,IJZ-26-'Oil.02-25-0502-2'1 ~ O ? 3

:531e5, Tf:D(1 ~ e s t B I J I " a , n t ;:'Dot

(J_Dl)

2.49

2.492.'19

j!3.00

'109000.08

;10,28

0'2-2l-08.

:02-27 -06

1J2-2l-m',

' ( ' l ' ~ i ~ , , ~ i { , : l ~ ; ' I ; \ ; : : " ~ ' f ~ , C : ~ 1" > : " ' l \ ' ~ ~ , ~ ' ~ j ; ) , ; ' n GC;:Il'i"'l'P"iJi T : , - \ , , ' l : ( ( I ~ I " ~ /\11;';;,

: m J w " W 8 1 ' ; ~ ) h ~ " ~ ; : ~ " ' , ~ ~ ' 5 : : : n ,- ; - ' ~ k , ! , , ; H l C " ' c C ' : 1 6 ~ ~ ' i ; < ~ . : i ~ I f F ~ i ' i 1=,:'.';;:


42/43


04/17/2008 01:04 8182451405 JADWIN PAGE 03

r - - - - - ~ , " , " " . , . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' , . ~ ' - . ~ " , ~ - " " ~ , ~ - , _ . _ . , .. , - - - - - . _ - - - - ~ ~ " " , . ~ . , . _ - , , .. ,. ",--' ,.... ' ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ "!Chl,.IL:;;; j ; , : ; I I ' , ~ \ '

H : ; J , ~ : 'Ir.:,..' h;;-) 3 ~ 1 , ~ : : ' , ~C0n .,'Gntk'll , : , ~ , ~ : \ t ( ' : : 1 '

I.';[i'; T n m h P ~ "\'1":'.3 i : ~ i i , ~ ~ . : ' 3 f . j ~ ~ ( i l , Cp:, g : 3 , J : J ' ~

~ r ' / : f . r f i T ; , ; ' I ' . ' . : ' ; 1'*1("1) ; ' ' < ~ 3 ~ 4 2 Q r ~ ~ ' ~ I : ; ' I ~ e ' p J . 2 ~ : j " . ; ; ~ r ;, : I " ~ ~ ' ; ' : ! ' .l'i0 ti ; ~ ~ ( , Y ~ ; ' l I ~ b ,S 1,. ',:::,:=,: ~ i ; e J : . ' . : l . (';'0 \ " I ~ '


43/43

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby declare:I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party

to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business

address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPELDEPOSITION OF PATRICIA PEREZ, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SEEKING

MONETARY

on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:

Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy

BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.

Executed on April 17, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

Eugene D. Lee


104 mpo perez depo - dfj declaration re joint statement

Documents