Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 180 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 4

11 Mark A.
Mark A. Wasser
Wasser CA
CA SB
SB #060160
#060160
LAW
LAW OFFICES
OFFICES OF MARK A.
OF MARK A. WASSER
WASSER
22 400
400 Capitol
Capitol Mall,
Mall, Suite
Suite 2640
2640
Sacramento,
Sacramento, California
California 95814
95814
33 Phone:
Phone: (916)
(916) 444-6400
444-6400
Fax:
Fax: (916)
(916) 444-6405
444-6405
44 E-mail:
E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
mwasser@markwasser.com
55 Bernard
Bernard C.
C. Barmmill,
Barmmill, Sr.
Sr. SB
SB #060508
#060508
KERN
KERN COUNTY
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNSEL
66 Mark
Mark Nations,
Nations, Chief
Chief Deputy
Deputy SB #101838
1115
1115 Truxtun
Truxtun Avenue,
Avenue, Fourth
Fourth Floor
77 Bakersfield,
Bakersfield, California
California 93301
93301
Phone: (661)
Phone: (661) 868-3800
868-3800
88 Fax: (661)
Fax: (661) 868-3805
868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
99
10
10 Attorneys for
Attorneys for Defendants
Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan,
Peter Bryan, Irwin
Irwin Harris,
Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11
11 Jennifer Abraham,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott
Scott Ragland,
Ragland, Toni Smith
and William
and William Roy
Roy
12
12
13
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
15
16
16 DAVID F.
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
17
17 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE
18
18 vs.
vs. APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION FOR
19
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
COUNTY PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EXPERT
DEPOSITIONS
20
20 Defendants.

21
21 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: December 2, 2008
22
22
23
23 Defendants submit this memorandum in response to Plaintiff s ex parte application
application for
for an
an
24
24 order shortening time re motion for protective order re expert depositions.

25
25 Defendants do not object to shortening time for service and hearing on Plaintiffs motion
motion
26
26 and request that it be set for either August 5 or August 6, when the parties have other motions
motions
27
27 pending. Plaintiff has a motion to compel set for August 5 and Defendants have a motion for
for aa
28
28 protective order
protective order set
set for
for August 6.
August 6.
-1-
-1-

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN IN RESPONSE
RESPONSE TO
TO PLAINTIFF'S
PLAINTIFF'S EX
EX PARTE
PARTE APPLICATION
APPLICATION FOR
FOR AN
AN
ORDER SHORTENING
ORDER TIME RE:
SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR PROTECTIVE
PROTECTIVE ORDER
ORDER RE:
RE: EXPERT
EXPERT DEPOSITIONS
DEPOSITIONS
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 180 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 4

Defendants
Defendants also request that the hearings on August 5 and August 6 be consolidated on
22 whichever
whichever of those two dates is better for the Court so that all the matters, including this matter,
33 can
can be
be heard
heard at the same time.
44 Pursuant to Section XVII(1) of the Scheduling Order, the Defendants report to the Court
55 that
that itit appears
appears the schedule set forth in the Scheduling Order cannot be met. On June 30, 2008,
66 Plaintiff announced his intention to take upwards of25 depositions in the approximately 30
Plaintiff
77 working
working days left before the discovery cut-off. On July 25,2008, Plaintiff informed Defendants
88 that
that Plaintiff
Plaintiff s experts were not available for deposition before the discovery cut-off on August
99 18.
18. Although
Although Defendants offered to extend the discovery cut-off one week to accommodate
10
10 Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs experts, Plaintiff refused to stipulate to a one-week extension of discovery. Thus, it
II
II does
does not
not appear discovery can be completed before the discovery cut-off.
12
12 There
There are several additional discovery issues that require the Court's consideration.
13
13 These
These include:
include:
14
14 1.
1. In the Joint Scheduling Report, Plaintiff announced his intention to use his
15
15 attorney to operate the video camera and prepare the videotape of depositions. This has proven
attorney
16
16 unsatisfactory. Plaintiff has been unable to provide Defendants with copies of videotapes he has
unsatisfactory.
17
17 prepared and Defendants understand Plaintiff cannot access or retrieve videotapes of the
prepared
18
18 depositions he videotaped. Because Plaintiff has announced his intention to videotape
depositions
19
19 Defendants' counsel at future depositions, it is necessary that videotaped depositions be
Defendants'
20
20 conducted professionally by competent videographers who are able to prepare and maintain an
conducted
21
21 accurate videotape in accordance with Rule 30.
accurate
22
22 2. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint that is set for hearing on
23
23 September 8, 2008. The motion was initially set for hearing before Judge Wanger but was
September
24
24 transferred to the Magistrate Judge. Defendants' counsel is on vacation in Mexico from
transferred
25
25 September 6 through September 14. The vacation plans are prepaid and were scheduled long
September
26
26 before Plaintiff
before Plaintiff filed his motion. Defendants request the motion be rescheduled to either before
27
27 September 6 or after September 14.
September
28
28
-2-

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

DEFENDANTS'
ORDER SHORTENING
ORDER SHORTENING TIME
TIME RE:
RE: MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR PROTECTIVE
PROTECTIVE ORDER
ORDER RE:
RE: EXPERT
EXPERT DEPOSITIONS
DEPOSITIONS
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 180 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 4

3.
3. The extent to which the Scheduling Order needs to be amended depends on the
22 number
number of depositions Plaintiff will be permitted to take and whether Plaintiff is permitted to
33 amend
amend his
his complaint. If the Court allows him to take upwards of 40 depositions and amend his
44 complaint, as he has requested, the Scheduling Order will require substantial revision and the
complaint,
55 trial
trial date
date will need to be continued. Defendants oppose doing so but the issue presents itself. It
66 will
will be
be helpful
helpful if these issues can be addressed sooner as opposed to later.
77 4.
4. Defendants believe the parties require more assistance from the Court in
88 scheduling
scheduling matters and request the Court direct the parties in this regard. Defendants have made
99 telephone
telephone inquiry with Court staff regarding the Court's availability to assist in resolving
10
10 discovery
discovery issues but have not received a reply.
II
II Finally,
Finally, and with respect to Plaintiffs statement that he provided Defendants with
12
12 available
available dates for expert depositions "not once but twice," this is true. The first set of dates
13
13 Plaintiff provided were in mid-July when Defendants' counsel was in depositions and trial in
Plaintiff
14
14 Orange County
Orange County Superior Court and the second set of dates were during the week of August 25,
15
15 2008, more
2008, more than a week after the discovery cut-off. Defendants' offered to extend the discovery
16
16 cut-off one
cut-off one week and prepared a stipulation for that purpose but Plaintiff refused to approve it.
17
17 When itit was evident that the parties' would not resolve the scheduling issue, Defendants noticed
When
18
18 the expert
the expert depositions for dates before the discovery cut-off to prevent Plaintiff from contending
19
19 Defendants had waived the right to depose them by failing to notice the depositions timely.
Defendants
20
20 Hence, the present issue with expert depositions.
Hence,
21
21 Plaintiffs counsel is not candid with this Court about the basis for the parties' discovery
Plaintiffs
22
22 difficulties. These continuing discovery issues are the result of a complete breakdown in
difficulties.
23
23 commwlications between the parties and Plaintiffs persistent gamesmanship over every issue.
commwlications
24
24 Defendants believe the parties would benefit from more assistance from the Court in addressing
Defendants
25
25 III
III
26
26 III
III
27
27 III
III
28
28 III
III
-3-
-3-

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN IN RESPONSE
RESPONSE TO
TO PLAINTIFF'S
PLAINTIFF'S EX
EX PARTE
PARTE APPLICATION
APPLICATION FOR
FOR AN
AN
ORDER SHORTENING
ORDER SHORTENING TIME
TIME RE:
RE: MOTION
MOTION FOR
FOR PROTECTIVE
PROTECTIVE ORDER
ORDER RE:
RE: EXPERT
EXPERT DEPOSITIONS
DEPOSITIONS
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 180 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 4

I and resolving these issues ffild preventing a continuing series of discovery motions and repeated

2 revisions to the Scheduling Order.

3 Respectfully submitted,

4 Dated: August I, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

5
6 By: lsi Mark A. Wasser
Mark A. Wasser
7 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

IS
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
26
27
28
-4.

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN

ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EXPERT DEPOSITIONS