37 2009 00101537 Cu Oe CTL - Roa 309 - 05 16 17 - 1510712829633

Superior Court of California
County of San Diego
Civi I
Unique ID€3309-7
CASE 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
VOLUME 11
TOTAL 11
VOLUME
C208_C3309/7 Reg_Date: 05/09/2017

DO NOT
FILE
SEE
VOLUME
SDSC ADM- 171(Rev. 7-03)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STREET ADDRESS: 330 West Broadway
MAILING ADDRESS: 330 West Broadway
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Diego, CA 92101

BRANCH NAME: Central
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (619) 450-7073
PLAINTIFF(S)/PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S) Courtney S Etnyre
DEFENDANT(SYRESPONDENT(S): Sandip Minhas et.al.
Short Title: Etnyre vs. Minhas
CASE NUMBER:
NOTICE OF HEARING
37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
Notic6 is given that the above-entitled case has been set for the reason listed below and at the location shown above. All
inquiries regarding this notice should be referred to the court listed above.
TYPE OF HEARING DATE TIME DEPT JUDGE
Settlement Conference (Civil) 06/28/2011 09:30 am C-73 Steven R. Denton
You must lodge a settlement conference brief with the settlement judge and serve it on the other parties five court days
prior to the settlement conference.
All parties, agents and counsel who are completely familiar with and have the authority to negotiate and settle the case
must personally attend the conference, Unless excused by the court for good cause. All persons involved are requifed
to participate in good faith and be prepared to settle the case.
A good faith settlement demand and offer must be exchanged in advance of the settlement conference.
Superior Court Local Rules are strictly enforced. Sanctions may be imposed in accordance with the law.
SUPCT CIV-700 (Rev. 12-06) Page: 1

NOH - NOTICE OF HEARING
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Central
330 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
SHORT TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas
CASE NUMBER:
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
37.2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of NOTICE OF HEARING was mailed
following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated below.
The certification occufred at San Diego, California on 06/23/2011. The mailing occurred at Sacramento on
06/24/2011.
6 6*-4
Clerk of the Court, by: - - A 090*ona , Deputy
MELISSA L KUCK LEONID ZILBERMAN

401 B STREET TENTH FLOOR 556 WEST 'C' ST, STE 1050
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4232 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
H P KONDRICK
3130 FOURTH.AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-5803
Page: 2
J
1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) FILE,D
Clerk of the Superior Court
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106)

PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP JUN 2 4 2011
3 401 B Street Tenth Floor
San Diego, California 92101-4232 By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700 JUN 24'11 PM03:27
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 Qualcomm Incorporated
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9
10 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT QUALCOMM

INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
12 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING

DISMISSED CLAIMS
13 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS,
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a [1 of 81
14 Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
40, inclusive,
15 Date: July 1,2011
Defendants. Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept; 70
16
Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
17 Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
Trial Date: July 1, 2011
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 -
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Dismissed
Claims
CONNAUGHTON up
. .
1 I.
INTRODUCTION
2
3 Pursuant to the Court's rulings on Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated's ("Qualcomm")
4 two motions for summary adjudication, the focus of this trial has been narrowed to Plaintiff
5 Courtney Etnyre's ("Etnyre") claims of alleged sexual battery and assault, sexual harassment and
6 intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of Minhas between
7 2005 and April 2006. Based on the rulings ofthe Court, Qualcomm seeks specifically to exclude
8 all evidence after December 31, 2006, that do not directly relate to Mr. Minhas' alleged
9 conduct or Qualcomm's investigation of that conduct. However, Qualcomm anticipates that
10 Etnyre will attempt to expand her remaining legal theories to encompass several issues and/or
11 claims that have already been summarily adjudicated in favor of Qualcomm.
12 This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(n)(1),
13 and Evidence Code sections 350,352 and 1101(a), onthe grounds that: Etnyre is precluded by
14 law from relitigating summarily adjudicated claims and facts, and any evidence of summarily
15 adjudicated claims or facts at trial would be irrelevant, improper character evidence, unduly time
16 consuming, and prejudicial, and would cause the confusion of issues and mislead the jury.
II.
17
18
ETNYRE MUST BE BARRED FROM RELITIGATING ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW
19
THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUMMARILY ADJUDICATED BY THIS COURT
20 Any attempt by Etnyre to enlarge her remaining claims to encompass-the issues she has
21 already lost at summary adjudication is prevented by California Code of Civil Procedure section
22 437c(n)(1), which provides, in pertinent part:
23 If a motion for summary adjudication is granted, at the trial ofthe

action, the cause or causes of action within the action... as to the
24 motion which has been granted shall be deemed to be established
and the action shall proceed as to the cause or causes of action . . .
25 remaining.
26 (See also Pacific Std Lge Ins. Co. v. Tower Industries, Inc (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1881, 1887.)
27 Application of this rule is mandatory. The causes of action which have been summarily
28 adjudicated "shall" be deemed established, and the trial "shall" proceed on the "remaining" causes
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence OfDismissed
SULLIVAN &
Claims
CONNAUGHTON LLP
. .
1 of action only. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(n)(1).) As the Courts ofAppeal have observed:
2 This language does not anticipate relitigation of issues which have

already been established. Indeed, if that were the case, motions for
3 partial summary judgment would be exercises in futility as attorneys
would face the prospect of endlessly rearguing an issue which they
4 already exhaustively addressed in their motions for summary
judgment.
5
(Conway v. Bughouse, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 194, 202; Cal-Vada A ircrq#, Inc v. Superior
6
Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 435, 446-447.) This is consistent with the purpose of summary
7
adjudication, which is "to dispose of one or more issues before trial so that the parties may focus
8
on the questions remaining." (Conway, supra, 105 Cal.App.3d at p. 202; Downey Sav. & Loan
9
Assn. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086.)
10
This Court made a number of rulings on Qualcomm'6 two Motions for Summary
11
Adjudication that completely dispose of the following causes of action against Qualcomm in this
12
matter 1 :
13
• Negligence
14
• Discrimination
15
• Retaliation
16
• Breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
17
• Failure to Accommodate
18
• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
19
Specifically, the remaining claims are the first (sexual battery), second (assault), and fifth
20
causes of action (intentional infliction of emotional distress), along with the sexual harassment
21
claim within the fourth cause of action. (Id.)
22
In deciding these claims against Etnyre, the Court provided the following background:
23
Plaintiff worked as a paralegal in the patent department starting in

24 May 2003. She reported to defendant Minhas from June 2003
until August 2006. Plaintiff claims she was sexually harassed and
25 assaulted by Minhas in February 2006. Plaintiff reported the
conduct to Qualcomm in April 2006 and she was transferred to
26
1 Attached to this motion as Exhibits A, B and C are the Court's minute orders dated January 21, 2011,
27
June 9, 2011 and June 14, 2011 regarding Qualcomm's Motions for Summary Adjudication.
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Dismissed 2
Claims
CONNAUGHTON LLP
t
. .
1 another manager in July 2006. Plaintiff filed a worker's

compensation claim for the sexual harassment/physical assault in
2 November 2006. She filed the first ofthree DFEH claims in
February 2007, alleging sex/gender discrimination and harassment.
3 Around this time, another supervisor, Scanlon, asked plaintiff to
join her team. Scanlon is female. Plaintiff accepted.
4
Exh. B [Emphasis added.]
5
This is the only portion of her allegations that remains relevant. From early 2007 through
6
the endofher employment in March 2010, Etnyre's claims of retaliation, failure to accommodate,
7
breach of contract, discrimination, and wrongful termination have been eliminated from the case.
8
Specifically, Etnyre's claims related to her paid administrative leave and performance
9
improvement plan in fall 2007 were dismissed. ("Plaintghas not identitied a triable issue to
10
show that thepaidleave and PIP weremotivated byhersexor gender.'5 Further,Etnyre wason
11
a medical leave from November 2007 through her return in February 2009 and her claims related
12
to failure to accommodate her during this period have been dismissed. ("Plaintifhas not shown
13
evidence that defendant did not comply with her doctor's restrictions or otherwise failed to
14
accommodate her.7 Finally, Etnyre's claims related to her termination were dismissed.
15
C'Plaintiff has not identijled a triable issue to show that her termination was based on her
16
disability sex or gender and in any event, she has not shown that her termination was a pretext
17
for any discrimination. " "Plaintiffhas not identified any admissible triable issue to show a causal
18
link between her complaints 6r discrimination and harassment and the employer 's actions.n
19
(Exh. B.)
20
Despite these rulings, Qualcomm anticipates thatftnyre will seek to relitigate several of
21
these summarily adjudicated matters at trial. The summarily adjudicated matters all pertain to
22
events that occurred in mid to late 2007 through her termination on March 12, 2010. Notably,
23
she had changed supervisors twice since the events at issue - and her supervisor was not even
24
employed by Qualcomm during the relevant period. Significantly, these events bear no relation
25
whatsoever to the claims remaining at trial, alleged sexual harassment and assault/battery, which
26
purportedly occurred in February 2006 and for which Qualcomm concluded its investigation in
27
2006. These facts and issues summarily adjudicated cannot be relitigated and, moreover, bear no
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 3
SULLIVAN &
Claims
CONNAUGHTON up
. .
1 relevance to the claims on trial.
2 Accordingly, Etnyre should be precluded from presenting evidence, witnesses or
3 testimony as to any of these issues or claims she lost at summary adjudication. Namely, anything
4 after December 31, 2006 that does not directly pertain to Minhas' conduct, or investigation of his
5 conduct, should be excluded (e.g., any evidence regarding Etnyre's performance improvement
6 plan ("PIP"), administrative leave, medical leave, application for other positions, requests for
7 accommodation such as reduced schedule, and her termination).
8 A. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Etnyre's Failed Claims is Irrelevant and Must be
9 Excluded.
10 Additionally, California Evidence Code section 350 provides that: "No evidence is
11 admissible except relevant evidence." As set forth above, this Court has already summarily
12 adjudicated the above-referenced claims pertaining to events that began in 2007, and through
13 Etnyre's tennination on March 12,2010. Accordingly, any evidence regarding these summarily
14 adjudicated claims and facts is irrelevant to the remaining claims involving alleged events in
15 2006, and should be excluded for this additional reason.
16 B. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Etnyre's Failed Claims Would be Extremely
17 Prejudicial and a Waste of Time.
18 Finally, California Evidence Code section 352 provides that the Court may exclude
19 evidence: "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the possibility that its admission
20 will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create a substantial danger of undue
21 prejudice, or of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."
22 If Etnyre is allowed to relitigate her summarily adjudicated claims it would be a waste of
23 the Court's and jury's time as this Court has already decided these matters as set forth above.
24 Indeed, after the motion for summary adjudication in this matter, the parties removed more than
25 30 witnesses from the witness list, more than 100 pages from the joint exhibit list, and shaved the
26 trial estimate in half. Unfortunately, some documents and witnesses that pertain only to these
27 claims remain. In these documents, Etnyre has attempted to provide "one-sided" accounts of the
28 issues that she had with her employer from 2007 to 2010. If she is allowed to introduce this
PAUL, PLEVIN, 4
SULLIVAN &
Claims
CONNAUGHTON up
.
1 evidence, Qualcomm must be allowed to introduce evidence of the behavior and conduct of
2 Etnyre that led Qualcomm to take any actions toward her, its response to her, and the reasons that
3 it took the actions it did. The danger of undue prejudice, waste of time, confusion of the real
4 issues, and misleading the jury is too great.
5 Qualcomm also seeks an order precluding Etnyre from mentioning the denial of summary
6 adjudication on any issue or claim. Ifthe jury were informed ofthe denial of Qualcomm's
7 motions for summary adjudication on the remaining claims, they would no doubt presume that
8 these claims have merit. This would only serve to confuse and mislead the jury on the remaining
9 claims at trial as the standard for defeating summary adjudication is simply to raise a triable issue
10 of fact, rather than to establish that the claims are valid. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c) and (f).)
11 III.
12 CONCLUSION
13 For the above reasons, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in
14 limine to exclude any testimony or evidence regarding claims summarily adjudicated against
15 plaintiff as follows: any evidence after December 31, 2006 that does not directly pertain to
16 Minhas' conduct, or investigation of his conduct, should be excluded (e.g., any evidence
17 regarding Etnyre's performance improvement plan ('TIP"), administrative leave, medical leave,
18 application for other positions, requests for accommodation such as reduced schedule, and her
19 termination). This would include any evidence concerning economic damages resulting from
20 Etnyre's administrative leave or temlination.2 Specifically, Qualcomm seeks to exclude the

21 following related exhibits, including but not limited to: Exhibits 61,70,195,199,308,312,351,
22 445,487,488,489,531,539,562,590,597,601,628,633,634,636,638,666,676,698,699,
23 700,708,721,726 and 727. Further, Qualcomm seeks to exciude the related questi6ning of the
24 following witnesses, including but not limited to: Courtney Etnyre, Michele Raymond, Diane
25
2 The loss of wage damages are not available for sexual harassment claims. (0'Hara v. Storer
26
Communications, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1101, 1122 [A hostile work environment claim only allows
for the recovery of damages that result from emotional distress].)
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 5
Motion In Liniine To Exclude Evidence Of Dismissed
SULLIVAN &
Claims
CONNAUGHTON LLP
.
1 Mack, Arlene Pollard, Dr. DeeAnn Wong, Dr. Judith Matson, Dr. Raymond Fideleo, Mary
2 Stewart Kelly Scanlan, Thomas Rouse, William Sailer, Stephen Harpster, Michelle Maybaum,
3 Melanie Carmosino and Gene Kondrad.
Dated: June 24, 2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &

5 CONNAUGHTON LLP
8 C EL
v 1¥9_ SULLIVAN
WL/r"
C./\-ME L
1SSA
LISTUG KLICK
9 EMILY J. FOX
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 6
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLp Claims
EXHIBIT A
..
1'
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 01/21/2011 TIME: 11:00:00 AM DEPT: C-70
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Randa Trapp

CLERK: Patricia Ashworth
REPORTER/ERM: Linda Burke CSR# 4263
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Scot Parriott
CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL CASE INIT. DATE: 11/02/2009

CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other employm@ht
EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil)

MOVING PARTY: Sandip Minhas
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Joinder to Motion:and-Supportihg Declarations Qualcomm
Incorporated's Motion for Summary Judgment, 11/64/2010 6
re . 5:4. .
. e'
EVENT TYPE: Summary Judgment / Summary,Adjudiciatibn (Cipl),

MOVING PARTY: Qualcomm Incorporated »„
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Moti,fof*urrimary Jlid*nt and/ob Adjudication, 11/05/2010
'4". k'.:'
APPEARANCES -,R*St P' * 41 s

H Kondrick, counsel, present for Plaintliffs)/1
LEONID ZILBERMAN, counsel, D.,dabnt for DefeAddiht(69.
..:.6.
Michael C. Sullivan, specially appearing forcoOnd61.Malissa«Klick, present for Defendant(s).

The Court hears oral argumeritandtonfirms th*tentative hjling as follows:
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by defendant Qualcomm Jpcorporated is GRANTED as

to the 3ra cause of,acti6n«for negligence and DENIED as to the 401 cause of action f6r sexual
harassment. Defendaht's ubjectioii#13»is.'sustained; all other objections overruled.
Joinder by defendant Sandip Minhas is DENIED. Minhas did not file a Separate Statement. (See,
CCP § 4.370(b)(1 k Frazee ¥. Seely (2002) 95 Cal,App.4th 627, 636; Village Nurseries, L.P.. v.
Greenbaum (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 26,46-47)
The Motion for Sumrn#ry *Ijudication by Qualcomm was filed whiJe the operative pleading was the
Complaint filed November 2,2009? After the Motion was filed on November 5, 2010, plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on Decembar 10, 2010. Defendant then filed an Amended Notice, limiting the
Motion to the 3rd cause of action fof negligence and 4tn cause of action for sexual harassment. As these
allegations are essentially the same in the Cemplaint and First Amended Complaint, the court construes
the Motion, as modified by defendant, as pertaining to the First Amended Complaint.
Summary adjudication is granted as to defendant Qualcomm on the 3rd cause of action for negligence.
DATE: 01/21/2011
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: C-70
Calendar No. 27
.
CASE TITLE: Etnyfe vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37.2009-00101537-CU-OE:CTL
Plaintiffs claim for negligence based on Qualcomm's allegedly negligent retention or supervision of its
employee, defendant Minhas, is barred by workers' compensation exclusivity. (See, Coit Drapery
Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1606)
Summary adjudication is denied as to defendant Qualcomm on the 4th cause of action for sexual
harassment. There is a triable issue of fact whether plaintiffs claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
(Gov. Code § 12960(d)) The one-year period specified in Gov. Code § 12960(d) begins to run when the
administrative remedy accrues, which is the occurrence of the unlawful practice. (Holland v. Union
Pacific R. Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 940, 945) Plaintiff filed a DFEH claim on February 23, 2007
alleging she was sexually harassed on February 24,2006. (Ex. S; Undisputed Fact # 6) Thus, it appears
the claim was filed within one year of the alleged sexual harassment. However, defendant maintains that
plaintiffs deposition testimony and undisputed facts show that wrongful conduct occurred 6n February
22,2006 rather than February 24,2006, so that the administrative claim is untimely. (Undisputed Fact #
4; Defendant's Ex. A) However, there is evidence presented to showdhe administrative complaiht is
timely and sufficient evidence to create a triable issue whether thete **P*two inappropriate instances of
sexual misconduct, thus precluding summary adjudication. (0#feridant'.s/Exs.* S, Y; Declarations of
Etnyre, Kondrick and Mack-Baker) 91 0-
0**l- d'laff ,
Judge Randa«Trapp
Y{5 ':'/
DATE: 01/21/2011
MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: C-70 Calendar No. 27
EXHIBIT B
.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 06/09/2011 TIME: 02:02:00 PM DEPT: C-70
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Randa Tfapp

CLERK: Anthony Shirley
REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 11/02/2009

CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other employment
APPEARANCES
The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 05/27/2011 and having fully
considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now
rules as follows:
37-200940101537 ETNYRE v. MINHAS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by defendant Qualcomm Incorporated is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part.
Defendant's objections # 1, 2,4, 5 and 7 are sustained; all other objections overruled. Plaintiff's
objections overruled.
Defendant identified 10 issues for the court to adjudicate:
(1) 4th cause of action for sex discrimination fails because the paid leave and improvement plan are not
adverse employment actions;
(2) 4th cause of action for sex discrimination fails because plaintiff cannot demonstrate she was subject
to the paid leave and improvement plan because of her gender;
(3) 4th cause of action for retaliation fails because the paid leave and improvement plan are not adverse
employment actions:
(4) 4th cause 6f action for retaliation fajls because plaintiff cannot demonstrate she was subjected to the
paid leave and improvement plan because of any protected activity;
(5) 6th cause of action for breach of employment contract falls because plaintiff was an at-will employee;
(6) 7th cause of action for failure to accommodate fails because defendant accommodated her;
(7) 7th cause of action for gender discrimination fails because plaintiff cannot demonstrate she was
terminated because of her gender;
(8) 7th cause of action for retaliation fails because she cannot demonstrate she was terminated because
of any protected activity.
(9) 7th cause of action for disability discrimination fails because plaintiff cannot demonstrate she was
terminated because of a disability; and
DATE: 06/09/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: C-70 Calendar No.
.
CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE.CTL
(10) 8th cause of action for wrongful termination fails because plaintiff cannot demonstrate she was
terminated for an unlawful reason.
Summary adjudication is granted as to Issues #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Summary adjudication is

denied as to Issues #1 and 3. -
Plaintiffs separate statement does not conform to the format requirements contained in California Rules
of Court Rule 3.1350(f) and (h). The court expects compliance with all court rules.
Plaintiff has framed her complaint so that several causes of action are contained in one cause of action,
such as the 4th cause of action for harassment, discrimination and retaliation based on sex and gender
and the 7th cause of action for discrimination based on sex/gender/disability, retaliation, harassment,
failure to accommodate and failure to investigate and take prompt remedial action. For purposes of a
Motion f6r Summary Adjudication, the court can consider each separate theory of liability even though
contained in ohe cause of action. (Ulienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848,
1854)
Summary adjudication is granted as to the claims for discrimination based on sex and gender. As part of
her prima fade case, plaintiff must show some circumstance of a discriminatory motive for placing her on
paid administrative leave, implementing a performance improvement plan [PIP] for her and/or
terminating her. (See, Guz v. Bechtel Nat. inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354-366) Plaintiff must show there
is a nexus between defendant's conduct and her sex/gender. (Jones v. Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (2007) 152 CalApp.4th 1367, 1379-1380) Plaintiff has not shown a causal connection
between her sex/gender and these actions by her employer.
Plaintiff worked as a paralegal in the patent department starting in May 2003. She reported to defendant
Minhas from June 2003 until August 2006. Plaintiff claims she was sexually harassed and assaulted by
Minhas in February 2006. Plaintiff reported the conduct to Qualcomm in April 2006 and she was
transferred to another manager in July 2006. Plaintiff filed a workers compensation claim for the sexual
harassmenVphysical assault in November 2006. She filed the first of three DFEH claims in February
2007, alleging sex/gender discrimination and harassment. Around this time, another supervisor,
Scanlon, asked plaintiff to Join her team. Scanlon is female. Plaintiff accepted. According to Scanlon,
there were some problems with plaintiffs abusive communication style and insubordinalon. This
culminated in an incident in September 2007, during a disagreement between Scanlon and plaintiff.
According to Scanion, plaintiff threw a document on her desk and raised her voice. When asked to sit
down to discuss the issue, plaintiff refused and told her supervisor that Scanlon would have to set up a
meeting with Human Resources if she wanted to talk to plaintiff, and then walked out. After discussing
the situation with the Human Resources Specialist, also a female, who recommended the two day paid
leave and PIP, plaintiff was placed on the two day leave in September 2007 and placed on the PIP in
October 2007. Plaintiff has not identified a triable Issue to show that the paid leave and PIP were
motivated by her sex or gender. Further, as discussed below, plaintiff also has not shown that her
termination was related to her sex or gender.
Summary adjudication is granted as to plaintiffs claims for disability discrimination. Plaintiff has not
identified a triable issue of fact showing that she was terminated or retaliated against because of any
disability. (See, Deschene v. Pinole Street Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33,44).
Plaintiff was placed on disability in November 2007. Qualcomm held her position open, but pursuant to
her doctor's orders, she could not return to her former position. Plaintiff's doctor provided three notes

.
CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-200940101537-CU-OE-CTL
regarding her return to work, in May 2008, November 2008 and February 2009. All provided that she
could work 5 days a week but no more than 30 hours a week for six months, with time off for medical
appointments. She also could not work in her former department or with a previous supervisor,
defendant Minhas or anyone with a similar personality or character to his or in a hostile work
environment, with known harassers or persons perceived to be harassing. The last doctor's note expired
in August 2009. The evidence shows Qualcomm tried to work with her to find her a suitable position and
never required her to return to full time work, even after the hourly restrictions had expired. Plaintiff filed
her third complaint with the DFEH in December 2008, claiming discrimination and retaliation based on
sex and her disability. Plaihtlff returned to work in February or March 2009, and Qualcomm
accommodated her reduced schedule and restrictions. She filed this lawsuit in November 2009. Shortly
afterwards, Qualcomm discovefed she disobeyed explicit instructions and conducted an investigation.
Ultimately it found she engaged in continued Insubordination and she was terminated in March 2010.
Plaintiff has not identified a tnable issue to show that her termination was based on her disability sex or
gender and in any event, she has not shown that her termination was a pretext for any discrimination.
Summary adjudication is granted as to plaintiffs retaliation claims. Plaintiff has not produced evidence to
show that she was subjected to the paid leave, improvement plan or eventually terminated because of
any retailatory animus. (Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52,69-70; Turner
v. The Saloon, Ltd. (7th Cir. 2010) 595 F.3d 679, 687) Plaintiff made many complaints to management
and filed three claims with the DFEH over a period of over two years. After a disagreement with her
supervisor, she was placed on leave and put on a program to Improve her performance. Her supervisor
was unaware of plaintiffs past sexual harassment complaints at the time. Evidence is presented that she
was eventually terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff did not complete assigned
responsibilities, which was confirmed by a separate investigator. Plaintiff has not identified any
admissible triable issue to show a causal link between her complaints of discrimination and harassment
and the employer's actions.
Summary adjudication Is granted as to the claim for failure to accommodate. The evidence presented
shows that defendant reasonably accommodated plaintiffs disability and engaged In the interactive
process in good faith. (See, Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 245,256; Scotch v. Art
Institute of California-Orange County, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1013-1014) Leave can be a
reasonable accommodatioh. (Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 CalApp.4th 215, 226) The
employer is not required to create a position for purposes of accommodation. (Raine v. City of Burbank
(2006) 135 CalApp.4th 1215,1224)
Defendant communicated with plaintiff regarding her medical leave and job opehings. Plaintiff was
precluded from working in her old department and did not respond to offers by defendant to show she
was qualified for other positions in other departments. Plaintiff has not shown evidence that defendant
did not comply with her doctor's restrictions or otherwise failed to accommodate her.
Summary adjudication is granted as to the claim for breach of employment contract. There is an express
at will provision in the Terms of Employment, signed by plaintiff. Plaintiff may not contradict the valid
express at will provision with evidence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination.
(Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 934,945)
Summary adjudication is granted as to the claim for Wrongful termination. Defendant produced evidence
of a non-discriminatory reason for her termination. Plaintiff has not identified a triable issue or produced
evidence to show that she was terminated in violation of a public policy. (See, Declarations of Etnyre,
Baker-Mack, Raymond, Scanlan, Rouse, Sailer, Wilson, Maybaum and Listug; Defendant's Exs. A-LL,
DATES: 06/09/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

.
CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-200940101537-CU.OE-CTL
Plaintiffs Exs. A-1, N)
Summary adjudication is denied as to the issue of adverse employment actions to support claims for sex
discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff raised a triable issue whether the paid leave and improvement
plan were adverse employment actions. She claims when she was put on the performance plan, she
was told she would not be getting a raise, bonus or stock. (Declaration of Etnyfe) This is sufficient to
create a triable issue as to whether she was subject to an adverse employment action. (See, Yanowitz v.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2006) 36 Cal.4th 1028,1052)
Rpibuff
Judge Randa Trapp
DATE: 06/09/2011
MINUTE ORDER Page 4
C
EXHIBIT C
-0
..
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 66/14/2011 TIME: 08:54:00 AM DEPT:

CLERK: Ernestina Castaneda
REPORTER/ERM: Not reported
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

APPEARANCES
There
action.
appears sdme disagreement alnong counsel as to whether any claims remain in the 4th cause of
The 4th cause of action in plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges three separate counts;
harassment, discrimination and retaliation based on gender/sex. These claims are alleged against
defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Sandip Minhas.
The court summarizes the motions brought by defendant Qualcomm and the rulings as follows:
Motion for summary adjudication as to the 4th cause of action for sexual harassment was denied on
January 21, 2011, as was defendant Minhas' joinder to the MSA;
Motion for summary adjudicati6n as to the 4th cause of action for sexual discrimination and retaliation
was granted on June 9, 2011.
Pursuant to stipulation on June 7,2011, plaintiff stipulated that she does not intend to maintain a cause
of action against Minhas for discrimination or retaliation in the 4th cause of action.
Therefore, there remains in the 4th cause of action a claim for sexual harassment against defendant
Qualcomm as well as Minhas.
IT IS SO ORDERED
\=4-111-L) Uff
l juDGE OF THE
StIPERIOR COURT
DATE: 06/14/2011
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT:
Calendar No.
D
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Central
330 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
SHORT TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas
CASE NUMBER:
37-2009-00101537-CU-OECTL
I certify that I am not a party t6 this cause. I certify that a true copy of the Minute order dated 6/14/11 was mailed
following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated below.
The mailing and this certification occurred at San Diego, California, on 06/14/2011.
S. W.;:*.2
-- Clerk of the Court, by: -E. Clitaiiada
, Deputy
CLAUDETTE G WILSON MELISSA L KLICK

WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 401 B STREET TENTH FLOOR
550 WEST C STREET # 1050 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4232
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
LEONID ZILBERMAN H P KONDRICK

550 WEST 'C' ST, STE 1050 3130 FOURTH AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-5803
ll
Fl Additional names and address attached.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page: 1

MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470)
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
JUN 24 '11 p)403:27
4
San Diego, California 92101-4232
Telephone: 619-237-5200
FILED
Clerk of bhe Superior Court
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
JUN 2 4 2011
6
Qualcomm Incorporated
By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
7
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT QUALCOMM
12 INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
v. TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED
13 EVENTS INVOLVING SEXUAL CONDUCT
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, WHERE MINHAS AND ETN'YRE WERE
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a NOT PRESENT
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
15 40, inclusive, [2 of 81
16 Defendants.
17 Date: July 1, 2011

Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: 70
18
Trial Date: July 1,2011
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
Moti6n In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Sexual
SULLIVAN &
Events
CONNAUGHTON LLP
.
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
3 Pursuant to the Court's rulings on defendant Qualcomm Incorporated' s ("Qualcomm")
4 summary adjudication motions, this trial has been narrowed to plaintiff Courtney Etnyre's
5 ("Etnyre'D claims of alleged battery and assault, sexual harassment, and intentional and negligent
6 infliction of emotional distress. As her remaining claims against Qualcomm and individual
7 defendant, Sandip Minhas ("Minhas"), are based on alleged sexual conduct, Qualcomm
8 anticipates that Etnyre will attempt to introduce evidence of irrelevant sexual events Where neither
9 she nor Minhas was present, or that are too remote in time and unrelated to be actionable, in an
10 attempt to confuse the issues, and prejudice and mislead the jury.
11 During discovery, Etnyre's counsel obtained deposition testimony from several Qualcomm
12 employees regarding two rumored/alleged instances of unwelcome sexual conduct that have
13 nothing to do with Etnyre or Minhas. Accordingly, Qualcomm seeks to exclude any evidence
14 or mention of: (1) a former Qualcomm employee's, Erin Madill, alleged inappropriate
15 behavior towards another former Qualcomm employee, Kelley O'Patry, in November 2004;
16 and (2) a Qualcomm employee's, Deborah Dean, alleged kiss of a former Qualcomm
17 employee, Tim Ellis, in 2005. Ms. O'Patry filed suit against the individual who was alleged to
18 have treated her inappropriately (an individual terminated by Qualcomm for his conduct).
19 Qualcomm was not sued by Ms. O'Patry. Significantly, as Etnyre concedes at deposition, neither
20 Etnyre nor Minhas was present for either alleged event. (Exh. A, Etnyre Depo. at 274:11-22.)
21 Additionally, Etnyre testified to an isolated event in May 2004 with a Qualcomm
22 employee, Philip Wadsworth, in which she stated that he pulled her towards his car after a work-
23 related event (but another employee escorted her away and drove her home), and for which he was
24 immediately disciplined by Qualcomm ih the form of a suspension from work and received
25 harassment training. (Exh. A, Etnyre Depo. at 166:19-169:24; Exh. B, Baker Depo. at 350:5-23;
26 355:8-24.) Accordingly, Qualcomm seeks to exclude any evidence or mention of the alleged
27 incident with Wadsworth in 2004 because this event is time-barred by Etnyre's failure to
28 exhaust her administrative remedies and the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations for
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Sexual
SULLIVAN &
Events
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 this event. This event also has no relevance to the present lawsuit, and is unrelated to the events
2 alleged in 2006 involving Minhas.
3 This motion is madepursuant to California Evidence Code sections 350,352 and 1101(a),
4 on the grounds that evidence of sexual events at which neither Etnyre nor Minhas was present, or
5 that are unrelated and too remote in time to be actionable, should be excluded as irrelevant,
6 improper character evidence, unduly time consuming and prejudicial, and because they would
7 cause confusion of issues and mislead the jury.
8 II.
9 ARGUMENT
10 A. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Sexual Events at Which Either Etnyre or Minhas

11 Was Not Present is Irrelevant and Must be Excluded.
12 California Evidence Code section 350 provides that: "No evidence is admissible except
13 relevant evidence." It is well-settled in California that to be actionable as sexual harassment, the
14 conduct at issue must actually hurt or affect the plaintiff. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp.
15 (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 609-610.) Plaintiff"must show that the harassment directed at others
16 was in her immediate work environment, and that she personally wimessed it." (Lyle v. Warner
17 Bros. Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264,285.) As pointed out by the California
18 Supreme Court, "the reason for this is obvious: ifthe plaintiff does not witness the incidents
19 involving others, those incidents cannot affect...her perception of the hostility ofthe work
20 environment." (Id.)
21 Here, Etnyre, however, did not observe any inappropriate conduct by Dearl toward Ellis.
22 (Exh. A, Etnyre Depo. at 275:10-22.) Moreover, although Ellis ultimately told Etnyre about the
23 kiss, he did not share this information until approximately one year after it occurred, well after he
24 had been transferred to a new department. (Exh. A, Etnyre Depo. at 279:20-280:2.) Etnyre
25 likewise admits that she did not witness the Madill/0'Patry incident and therefore cannot offer
26 evidence ofthese irrelevant incidents to prove her harassment claim at trial. (Exh. A, Etnyre
27 Depo. At 274:11-22.) Moreover, Etnyre's reliance on any statements that she heard from co-
28 workers regarding these incidents would likewise be inadmissible hearsay. (Evidence Code §
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
Moti6n in Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Sexual
SULLIVAN &
Events
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 1200.)
2 B. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Sexual Events at Which Either Etnyre or Minhas
3 Was Not Present Would be Extremely Prejudicial and a Waste of Time.
4 California Evidence Code section 352 provides that the Court may exclude evidence: "if
5 its probative value is substantially outweighed by the possibility that its admission will (a)
6 necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create a substantial danger ofundue prejudice, or of
7 confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."
8 Here, it would take several witnesses, and a "trial within a trial," to present evidence of
9 sexual events at which neither Etnyre nor Minhas was present. Such"mini-trials" have been held
10 to be an undue consumption of time, which renders the evidence inadmissible. (Chen v. County
11 ofOrange, 96 Cal. App. 4th 926, 951 (2002) [trial court properly excluded anecdotal testimony;
12 "To have allowed anecdotes of how [other] employees were treated would have expanded the
13 scope of the trial exponentially .... "11; Moorhouse v. Boeing Co. (E.D. Pa. 1980) 501 F.Supp. 390,
14 393 affd. (3rd Cir. 1980) 639 F.2d 774; Harpring v. Continental Oil Co. (5th Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d
15 406, 410, cert. denied (1981) 454 U.S. 89.).1
16 Further, these unrelated events must be excluded to prevent undue prejudice to
17 Qualcomm. Several courts have concluded that the use of alleged acts or comments not directed
18 atthe plaintiffis so prejudicial that such evidence is inadmissible. (See Regents OfUniv. CaL v.
19 Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1710,1714, fn.1 C[although [plaintiff] also asserts that
20 [defendant] made disparaging remarks about women to other applicants, subjected pregnant
21 residents to disparate treatment and harassed other women at various times, these incidents were
22 not directed at [plaintiff] and may not be considered"](overruled on other grounds in Mullins v.
23 Rockwell International Corp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 731, 740 and Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14
24 Cal.4th 479,499; see also Kelly-Zurian·v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 410-4il
25 [affirming grant of employer's motion in limine to exclude any evidence of any wrongful conduct
26
27
Indeed, the O'Patry/Madill incident was a trial between those two parties.
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Events
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 with anyone other than the plaintiff].)
2 C. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Sexual Events Which are Time-Barred is
3 Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial.
4 Qualcomm also anticipates that Etnyre may try to include in this trial of alleged conduct
5 by Minhas, the unrelated, and time-barred, incident in May 2004 in which employee Wadsworth
6 allegedly tried to pull Etnyre towards his car. Evidence of this event is irrelevant under Evidence
7 Code section 350 as it is not actionable as harassment, and should be excluded for this reason.
8 The timely filing of an administrative complaint is a prerequisite to filing a civil action
9 under California's Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA").(Gov. Code § 12960; Hobson v.
10 Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 631, disapproved of on other grounds.) The FEHA
11 requires that any complaint for a violation of its provisions be filed with the Department of Fair
12 Employment and Housing ("DFEH") within one year of the date upon which the alleged unlawful
13 practice occurred. (Gov. Code § 12960; Romano v. Rockwell Intl, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479,
14 492.) Allegations of conduct occurring more than one year from the date of filing are barred by
15 the statute of limitations. (Gov. Code § 12960; Cucuzza v. Cio> OfSanta Clara (2002) 104
16 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1040; Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718,
17 1724.)
18 Here, Etnyre filed a claim with the DFEH alleging sexual harassment against Minhas and
19 Qualcomm on February 23,2007. (Exh. C) Thus, her FEHA civil action can only reach back to
20 February 23,2006. As such, the alleged conduct by Wadsworth in May 2004 i5 weU outside the
21 one-year statute of limitations, and cannot be the basis for Etnyre's FEHA claim; it is also
22 unrelated to the present claims and DFEH charge. 2
23
2 To the extent that Etnyre argues the Wadsworth incident is a continuing violation ofthe Minhas
24
allegations in February 2006, the argument is specious. In order to establish a continuing Violation, a
plaintiff must show" a series of related acts, one or more of which falls within the limitations period..."
25
Green v. Los Angeles Couno, Superintendent ofSchools, (9th Cir. 1989) 883 F.2d 1472 (citation omitted).
„IT]he question boils down to whether sufficient evidence supports a determination that the alleged
26
discriminatory acts are related closely enough to constitute a continuing violation." Green, 883 F.2d at
1480-81 (9th Cir. 1989); Romano v. Rockwen Internat„ Inc, 14 Cal.4th 479,492 (1996); Gov. Code §
27
12960(d). -
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 4
SULLIVAN &
Events
CONNAUGHTON LLP
I .
1 Moreover, evidence of the time-barred Wadsworth event would also necessitate undue
2 consumption of time as to a "mini-trial" of the incident. As evidenced by the Witness List and
3 order, Etnyre intends to call the alleged harasser, Wadsworth, and related witnesses even before
4 Etnyre testifies. As discussed above, such a mini-trial on this one event that occurred well before
5 the events in question will create a substantial danger ofundue prejudice, confusing the issues,
6 and misleading the jury, in contravention of Evidence Code section 352.
7 Accordingly, Etnyre should be precluded from offering evidence of the alleged
8 Wadsworth event at trial. Otherwise, the statutory exhaustion and limitations requirements under
9 FEHA would be thwarted if this time-barred evidence was allowed.
10 III.
11 CONCLUSION
12 For all of these reasons, any evidence relating to sexual events where either Minhas or
13 Etnyre were not present, or that are too remote in time and unrelated to be actionable, should be
14 excluded. Accordingly, Qualcomm seeks to exclude any evidence or mention of: 1) a former
15 Qualcomm employee's, Erin Madill, alleged inappropriate behavior towards another former
16 Qualcomm employee, Kelley O'Patry, in November 2004; and 2) a Qualcomm employee's,
17 Deborah Dean alleged kiss of a former Qualcomm employee, Tim Ellis, in 2005; and 3) any
18 evidence or mention of the alleged incident with Wadsworth in 2004; and 4) sexual events or
- 19 conduct concerning Qualcomm employees and employees from an outside law firm, Amin &
20 Turocy (which plaintiffs counsel has indicated he does not intend to introduce). This includes,
21 but is not limited to such questioning of witnesses Janet Sana, Phil Wadsworth, Jane Baker, Lou
22 Lupin, Deborah Dean, Milan Patel, and Exhibits 95,145,147,237,238,242,287,288,289,290,
23 291, 292, 293, 669, and 671.

Dated: June 24,2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &
24
25
By: i /.. 3-/- 1
3 /IMIC}1*EL C. SULLIVAN
26
1- vIEI@SA LISTUG KLICK
27
Attefneys for Defendant
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 5
SULLIVAN &
Events
CONNAUGHTON up
4. A*
4 . f

2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) FILED
3 401 B Street Tenth Floor JUN 2 4 2011
4
Telephone: 619-237-5200 By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5 JUN 24'11 PM03:27
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG
12 KLICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION
13 IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, EVENTS INVOLVING UNRELATED
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a ALLEGED SEXUAL CONDUCT

16 Defendants.
I)ate: July 1, 2011
17 Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: 70
18 Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp

Complaint Filed: Novembef 2,2009
19 Trial Date: July i, 2011
20
21
I, Melissa J. Listug Klick, declare:
22
1. I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
23
attorneys of record for Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated in the above-entitled matter, and am
24
licensed to practice before this Court. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if
25
called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.
26
2. Attached ad Exhibit A hereto are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
27
the deposition testimony ofplaintiff Courtney Etnyre taken on March 4, 2010 and March 22, 2010
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Klick Dec ISO ofMIL to ExcludelEVidence of 1
CONNAUGHTON LLP Unrelated Alleged Sexual Conduct
*\
,
,
1 by my office.
2 3. Attached as Exhibit B hereto are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
3 the deposition testimony of Jane Mack-Baker taken on January 20, 2011 by plaintiff' s counsel.
4 4. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of Courtney Etnyre's
5 Department of Fair Employment and Housing Charge dated February 23,2007, and introduced to
6 the deposition of Courtney Etnyre as Exhibit 87.
7 5. On June 17, 2011, Plaintiff' s counsel, Paul Kondrick, and I agreed to stipulate to
8 the exclusion of all evidence regarding any sexual events or conduct concerning Qualcomm
9 employees and employees from an outside law firm, Amin & Turocy, which Qualcomm uses.
10 I declare under penalty of peliury under the laws of the State of California that the
11 foregoing is true and correct.
12 Executed on June 24, 2011, at San Diego, California.
Asa L*g
13
\\1\ 1
14
15 U
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
Klick Dec ISO of MIL to Exclude Evidence of
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP Unrelated Alleged Sexual Conduct
EXHIBIT A
ORIGINAL
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
VS·. ) Case No. 37-2009-
) 00101537-CU-OE-CTL
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, )
individually, QUALCOMM
Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation and DOES 1.through

40, inclusive,
Defendanta. )
)
VOLUME I * AY
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF COURTNEY S. ETNYRE,
plaintiff herein, noticed by Paul, Plevin,
Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP, at 401 B Street,
Tenth Floor, San Diego, California, at 9:32 a.m.,
Thursday, March 4, 2010, befere
Marc Volz, CSR 2863, RPR, CRR.
Hutchings Number 249341
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES
HEADQUARTERS:
6055 E. WASHINGON BLVD., STH FLOOR'

los ANGELES, CA 90040-2429
800.697.3210 323.888.6300
FAX: 323.888.6333 • w*w. hutchings.com

..
3/4/2010 Etnyre, Courtney Vol. 1
1 A. I went to Mr. Minhas -- we had been on a team
2 builder, our group had been on a team builder, and
3 Mr. Minhas told me that Mr. Wadsworth thought that I was
4 difficult to get along with and not a good paralegal,
5 and I needed to go talk to him and explain to him why I
6 was.so difficult to get along with.
7 Q. When was that?
8 A. That was back in 2005.
9 Q. Do you remember what month?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Sorry?
12 A. No, I don't.
13 Q. Do you know if it was the early or later part
14 of the year?
15 A. I don't know. I want to say the later part of
16 the year but I don't know.
17 Q. So what happened next?
18 A. Next with....
19 Q. You said that Mr. Minhas told you that Phil
20 Wadsworth believed that you were difficult to get along
21 with and were not a good paralegal; is that right?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. So what did you say to Mr. Minhas?
24 A. Well, he told me that I should go that
25 Mr. Wadsworth was over at Chili's and that I should go
6/22/2011 11:09 AM 166

1 over there and talk to him and so he didn't think that I
2 was a bad person, so to speak. So Milan Patel want with
3 me over to Chill's.
4 Q. And what happened at Chilils?
5 A. Pretty much everyone -- it was obvious that
6 there had been a large happy hour there and it was
7 pretty much over. Most of the people had left except
8 for Mr. Wadsworth. I don't know if someone else wos
9 there, I can't think of who was also sitting at the
10 table with Mr. Wadswort%. And at that point during_ the
11 evening Mr. Wadsworth grabbed my arm and told me that he
12 would take care of me and he was going to take me home
13 with him and that sort of thing.
14 Q. ' How long were you at Cbili ' s that night?
15 A. Maybe _an hour.
16 Q. Was it your observation that Mr. Wadsworth had

-
17 been drinking?
18 A. Yes. He tried to pull me into his car to take

·
19 me home with him.
20 Q. Did all of this happen out by the car or in
21 Chili's?
22 A. Well, just that part when we were leaving.
23 Q. Where were you you went to Chili's and you
24 went and spoke with Mr. Wadsworth, correct?
25 A. Correct.
6/22/2011 11:09 AM 167

..
1. Q . Did you sit next to him?
2 A. Not initially, no.
3 Q. Eventually were you sitting next to him?
4 A. H6 sat next to me, yes.
5 Q. Who else was present when he came and sat next
6 to you?
7 A. Milan Patel and someone else was there and I
8 don't recall who it was.
9 Q. Was Robert O'Connell there?
10 A. No, I don't think so.
11 Q. Was Tom Rouse there?
12 A. No.
13 Q. How did the discussion with Mr. Wadsworth
14 begin?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. At some point you said he grabbed your arm and
17 said he could take care of you?
18 A. .He grabbed my arm and was stroking my arm and
19 said that he would take care of me. Just that sort of
20
thing.
21 Q. What did you do?
22 A. I just kind of sat there.
23 Q. Did you get up and leave at that time?
24 A. No. After a little while Milan said
25 something and said that we needed to go, so we got
6/22/2011 11:09 AM 168

..
1 I think Milan said something to Phil that held had
2 too much to drink. We left and went to the parking lot.
3 Phil walked out as well. Milan_ of fered to drive _.Phil
4 home because he didh't think he should be driving. Phil
5 refused. And then he grabbed my arm and started pulling
6 me toward his car. And then Milan grabbed my other arm
7 and said, "Phil, she' s coming with me. " And that was
8 pretty much it. Then I left with Milan and took Milan
9 back to his car.
10 Q. Were you the one that had driven there?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Was there any reason that you didn' t .leave
13 earlier when Mr. Wadsworth began saying things that you
14 found objectionable?
15 A. It was just that gray area. Therels my -- the
16 VP in charge of my department.
17 Q. Any other reason?
18 A. That I didn't just leave?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. It's just not in my nature.
21 Q. When you say not in your nature what do you
22 mean?
23 A. He's a superior. He's a VP in charge of the
24 patent department.
25 Q. .From your perception do you have difficulty
6/22/2011.11 :09 AM 169

.
1
***
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws

4
of the State of California that the foregoing is true

5
and correct.
8
Executed at
, California,
9
on
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.
t
21
22
,,
23
24
25
228
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SEZVICES

800.697.3210
ORIGINAL
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
Plaintiff, )
)
VS. ) No. 37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, )
a Delaware corporation and DOES )
1 through 40, inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )
)
VOLUME ' II
the plaintiff herein, noticed by Paul, Plevin,
Tenth Floor, San Diego, California, at 1:04 p.m.,
on Monday, March 22, 2010, before Jeannette M.
Kinikin, CSR 11272.
HUTCHINGS=
COURT REPORTERS
HEADQUAKTERS:
6055 E. WASHINGTON BLVD., Bm FLOOR
LOS ANGELES. CA 90040-2429
800.597.3210 323.888.6300
FAT. 323.888.6333 · www.butchings corn

1 -STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
3 I, Marc Volz, CSR 2863, do hereby declare:
5 That, prior to being examined, the witness named in

6 the foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn pursuant
7 to Section 2093(b) and 2094 of the Code of Civil
8 Procedure;
10 That said deposition was taken down by me in

11 sh6*thand at the time and place therein named and
12 thereafter reduced to text under my direction.
13
14
I further declare that I have no interest in the
15 event of the action.
16
17 · I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws

1)#':{{ 1.8 of the State of California that the foregoing is true
19 and correct.
20
19th
day of
21 WITNESS my hand this
Is 2010 ,4
March
22 , .
-04 :.&39.E 15:r,R,44
fr / Ch.00 ...0. 4
..10. $
23
\S/
It i*, 24
/ 1 VA, = u ; TRANSCRIPT : p =
_-1 E E- : CERTIFICATION f 9 5
13 -31/4
M2frc Volz, CSR 263, RPR; CRR /1- :
..AO
>\1'N,5.rvit....
229 **iI
Izf 'Ale 454518,805'%
W, '613*%4
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES
j * '{.CM*'. 800.697.3210
'. + fjv '

4: 6$.
474/75
''I:#«tff»'
: I /ua<.!,A,
...U *21. V'.?../f'* :
1 the record for just a moment.
The
2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record.
3 time is 2:04.
4 (A recess is taken.)
5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We'·re back on the record. The
6 time is 2:26.
7 MR. SULLIVAN:
8 Q. Okay. Is there any reason you're unable to
9 give your best testimony?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. Did you ever personally observe any
12 inappropriate conduct by Erin Madill towards
13 Kelly O'Patry?
14 A. I'm sorry. One more time.
15 Q. Did you ever observe any inappropriate conduct
16 by Erin Madill towards Kelly O'Patry?
17 A. Firsthand?
18 Q. Yeah.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you ever observe any inappropriate conduct
21 between either of those two individuals personally?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you ever observe any inappropriate sexual
24 harassment·or other inappropriate conduct directed
25 towaFds Tim Ellis?
6/22/2011 11:11 AM 274

3/22/2010 Etriyre, Courtney Vol. 2
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What did you personally observe?
3 A. Well, just his supervisor talking about the
4 complaint against her for harassment.
5 Q. Who did you hear talk about that?
6 A. Debbie Dean, his supervisor.
7 Q. -And what did Debbie Dean say?
8 A. She was telling Mr. Minhas basically that his
9 allegations were not true.
10 Q. Okay. Did you ever observe and ·who did
11 strike that.
12 Who did Mr. Ellis allege had sexually harassed him?
13 A. Debbie Dean.
14 Q. Okay. Did you ever observe any sexual
15 harassment by Debbie Dean towards Mr. Ellis?
16 A. Other than overhearing about the complaint of
17 harassment.
18 Q. Y6ah. I'm hot I'm not asking if you heard
19 her discuss the complaint with someone else. My
20 question is,' did you ever observe any ihappropriate
21 conduct by Debbie Dean towards Tim Ellis?
22 A. N6.
23 Q. Okay. Did you ever observe any inappropriate
24 sexual conduct by Debbie Dean towards anyone?
25 A. Yes.
6/22/2011 1'1:11 AM 275

=%=1=i=E
1
***
3
I declare under penalty of perj ury under the' laws
4
of the State of California that the foregoing is tnie
5
and correct.
7 Executed at: SA, C.a 13 , California,
8 on A-pr i Le , 20/b
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
336

800.697.3210
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
3 I, Jeannette M. Kinikih, CSR 11272, do hereby
4 declare:
6 That, prior to being examined, the withe55 named in
8 to Section 2093 (b) and 2094 of the Code of Civil
9 Procedure;
10
12 shorthand at the time and place therein named and
14
15 I further declare that I have no interest in the
17
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
19 of the State of California that.the foregoing is true
20 and correct.
21 ...RN.444
22 WITNESS my hand this of'Lo day 695."' ....a

I rn l
23 t-1 0-r-lt- .-- - , 62010. 2 6 i TRANSCRIPT 1 * 3

E Y E CERTIFICATION j 9' 5
.>*:
:.A '.
24 -
- /cic-.#>fhf)_ ._ kL-A .-
...
0,- P , 0'
25 Je .-ette M. Kinikin, -Cs*-;-11272 ."#8345'Aildmi
337

800.697.3210
EXHIBIT B
WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COURTNEY ETNYRE, )
)
Applicant, )
)
VS. NO. ADJ6606365
QUALCOMM, INCORPORATED and )

CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, )
INC., )
Defendants. )
DEPOSITION of JANE BAKER
January 20, 2011
San Diego, California
(Volume 2, Pages 221-474, Inclusive)
Reported by:
Jane Bramblett, RPR, CSR No. 7574, CLR
r
.
1/20/2011 Baker, Jane Vol. 2
1 You can answer if y6u understand.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't -- I don't believe
3 that that was Courtney's concern with his behavior.
4 BY MR.. KONDRICK:
5 Q _ You didn't know that Courtney believed that the
6 nature of Mr. Wadsworth's conduct was intended as
7 romantic or a sexual advance? Is that your testimony?
8 A Yes. I did not know that,
g Q Nobody ever t.old you that?
10 A It was it wasn't characterized as that. It
11 was more unprofessional, obnoxious, unwelcomed.
12 Q . You knew, though, that Mr. Wadsworth's conduct
13 caused Courtney to feel extremely uncomfortable about
14 Mr. Wadsworth's actions, correct?
15 A Yes.
16 (Exhibit 291 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. KONDRICK:
18 Q The court reporter has marked for
19 identification as next in order, Exhibit No. 291, a memo
20 from Phil Wad- -- a memo from Lou Lupin to.Phil
21 Wadsworth, carbon copy to Jane Baker, dated June 25,
22 2004, "Re: Inappropriate Conduct."
23 Do you recall receiving this or seeing this
24 e-mail --
25 A Yes..
6/22/2011 11:15 AM 350

.
1 Q with this memo before today?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And as a matter of fact, your signature is on

4
4 the second page. You signed it on June 25, 2004, right,
5 ma'am?
6 A Correct.
7 actually,
Q The last paragraph the first
8 paragraph, the third sentence and fourth sentence reads,
9 quote -- this is to Mr. Wadsworth "You acknowledge
10 the incident did occur. You also acknowledged, and we
11 have concluded, that the conduct was inappropriate,
12 unprofessional and in violation of company policy.
13 While you have stated that your conduct was not intended
14 as a romantic or sexual advanee, the nature of the
15 conduct would certainly have left Courtney to believe
16 that."
17 So you understood, certainly, as of June 25,
18 2604, that it was the position of your company, y6ur
19 employer,.Qualcomm,'that -- that the nature of
20 Mr. Wadsworth's conduct was believed, at least by
21 Courtney, to have been intended as romantic or a sexual
22 advance, right, ma'am? By Mr. Wadsworth.
23 A It doesn't say that.
24 Q Well, Mr. Wadsworth denied or he stated that
25 his conduct was not intended to be romantic or sexual,
6/22/2011 11:15 AM 351

1 right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q But then it says, "The nature of the conduct
4 would certainly have left Courtney to believe that,"
5 right?
6 MR. SULLIVAN: Objection. The document ipeaks
7 for itself.
8 THE WITNESS: That's what the document says.
9 BY MR. KONDRICK:
10 Q And you were aware of and signed off on this
11 document indicating you understood the document, right?
12 A Correct.
13 Q What was it that Courtney was left to believe?
14 MS. CHASIN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
15 THE WITNESS: I don't know what Courtney
16 believed about it.
17 BY MR. KONDRICK:
18 Q Your memo here, the memo of which you signed
19 off on, says, "The nature of the conduct would certainly
20 have left Courtney to believe that," And "that" refers
21 to romantic or sexual advance, right, ma'am?
22 MR. SULLIVAN: Objection. The document speaks
23 for itself.
24 MS. CHASIN: Join.
25 111
6/22/2011 11:15 AM 352

1 BY MR. KONDRICK:
2 Q Doesn't it?
3 A So it says, "The .nature of the conduct would
4 certainly have left Courtney to.believe that." And I
5 think what we're trying to convey to him is that type of
6 behavior could be construed as romantic or sexual. It
7 doesnt say Courtney felt.that way. I don't know if she
8 did. We're letting him know that type. of behavior could
9 be.
10 Q It could have left Courtney to believe that
11 his, Mr. Wadsworth's, conduct was intended to be
12 romantic or sexual, correct?
13 MR. SULLIVAN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
14 Are you saying that's what the document says? In which
15 case my 6bjection is the document speaks for itself.
16 MR. KONDRICK: I'm following up on her
17 testimony, Counsel.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. I need you to repeat the
19 question, please.
20 (Last question read.)
21 THE .WITNESS : It could have.
22 BY MR. KONDRICK:
23 Q "Could haven what?
24 A As
25 THE WITNESS: Can you read the question back,
6/22/2011 11:15 AM 353

.
1 please.
2 BY MR. KONDRICK:
3 Q No. She has read it back. You've now said "It

,
4 could have."
5 A As the question was stated.
6 MR. SULLIVAN: That was that was your
7 question and answer. She answered your question.
8 THE WITNESS: So, to make sure I'm correct on
9 that, could you reread the question?
10 BY MR. KONDRICK:
11 Q Well, your the letter says or the memo
12 says, nthe nature of the conduct would certainly have
13 left Courtney to believe that." The word, quote, that,
14 close quote, refers to conduct that is either romantic
15 or a sexual advance, right, ma'am?
16 MR. SULLIVAN: Objection. The document speaks
17 for itself.
18 MS. CHASIN: Asked and answered.
19 Argumentative.
20 THE WITNESS: I think "would" or «could" could
21 be interchanged. I don't I don't know that that's
22 I don't believe that's how Courtney felt.
23 MR. KONDRICK: That's n6t what I'm asking.
24 Move to strike, nonresponsive.
25 I'm going to have the court reporter read back
6/22/2011 11:15 AM 354

1 the question. I would respectfully ask the witness to
2 respond to the question.
3 (Last question read.)
4 MR. SULLIVAN: He is just asking you what the
5 document says.
6 THE WITNESS: That's what the document says.
7 BY MR. KONDRICK:
8 Q And as a result of this investigation, it was
9 determined that Mr. Wadsworth, in addition to being put
10 on administrative leave, would go through sexual
11 harassment training with Richard Paul, a partner in the
12 law firm of Paul, Plevih & Sullivan, right, ma'am?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And the rason it was sexual harassment was
15 why?
16 MS. CHASIN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
17 BY MR. KONDRICK:
18 Q It's inarticulate. Why was the training to be
19 sexual harassment training?
20 A So that Phil would understand the behaviors
21 that could could indicate could be sexual
22 harassment or could be perceived as though he fully
23 understood his behaviors and potential ramifications so
24 there' s no question in the future about his behavior_.
25 Q Now, if I may invite youf attention to the
6/2m011 11:15 AM 355

3j
m
S
, 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that
under the laws of the State of California that
1 3 the foregoing is true and correct.
A 4
0 5 Executed on , 2011,
6 at California.
3%
7
9
h.
10
% 11 JANE BAKER
12
1%
13
14
15
i4
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
471
1 I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
2 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
3 That the foregoing proceedings were taken
4 before me at the time and place herdin set forth; that
5 any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior·to
6 testifying, were duly sworn; that a record of the
7 proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which
8 was thereafter transcribed under my direction; that the
9 foregoing transcript is a true record af the testimony
t 16 given.
11 Further, that if the foregoing pertains to the
12 original transcript of a deposition in a Federal Case,
13 before completion of the proceedings, review of the
14 transcript [ ] was [ ] was not requested.
15 I further certify I am neither financially
16 interested in the acti6n, nor a relative or employee of
17 any attorney 6r party to this action.
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed
19 my name.
20
21 Dated:
2- IL/*/1
n
U=f AA n (. f / J'\ -11-rvl BE-crt--
22
I. I .. . I I
23
( \ Jv.
1 1
24
,/ JANE BRAMBLETT, RPR
CSR No. 7574
25
EXHIBIT C
..
EXHIBIT _ 27
REPORTER K * AS, K UU
' DEPONENT F'721 YA E
*EMPLOYMENT * * DATE 7-02 6 -/a
COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER DFEH # E200607-60961-001se
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CAUFORNIA
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT EEOC # _374713169
If dual.Iled with EEOC, 0* Bm may be a#aded by Ow P,ivacy*cl of 1974.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING and EEOC
COMPLAINANTS NAME (indicate Mr. or Ms.) - - ' -
ETNYRE, COURTNEY S. *Is.)
ADDRESS - TELEPHONE NUMBER (INCLUDE AREA CODE)
2675 Fletcher Parkway,#15 ' · (619) 861-2695
COUNTY . COUNTY CODE
crry , · STATE .- - ZIP
El Ca}on,CA 92020 · · San Diego 073
NAMED ISTHE EMPLOYER. PERSON LABORORGANIZATIO·. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, OR STATE OR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAIVST ME:
NAME
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED.
ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER (INCLUDE AREA CODE)
. 5775 Morehouse Drive · · (858) 658-2616
CITY ---- ' STATE ZIP - ' --- - COUNTY COUNTY CODE
073
San Diego · CA 92121 San Diego
CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX[ES))
O RACE ® SEX O DISABILITY O RELIGION O NAPONALORIGIN/ANCESTRY O DENIAL OFFAMILY/MEDICAL LEAVE O SEXUAL ORIENTATION
O COLOR O AGE O MARITAL STATUS O MEDICAL CONDrrION Icancerorgonaticcharadens[108) O OTHER (SPECIFY)
DATE MOST RECENT OR'CONTINUING DISCRIMINATION RESPONCENT CODE
NO. OF EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS
3000 TOOK PLACE (month, day, and.yean November·16, 2006 38
THE PARTICULARS ARE:
1. On February 24,2006, I was sexdally harassed (physicafand verbal) by my supervisor in my position of

Paralegal IV, earning approximately $68,000.00 per year. I was hired In March 2003.
Il. in April 2006. I cdmplained to management about the sexual harassment. I do not believe the employer took
my complaint seriously and tothis date, has not fully investigated my allegations:as required by California,
law.
Ill. 1 believe l was discriminated when sexually harassed because of my sex (female). I base my belief as
follows:
A. On February 24, 2006, 1 was sexually harassed (physical and verbal) by my immediate supervisor, Sandip
'Mickey" Minhas, Vice PresidenUDivision Patent Counsel. In April 2006, I made several unsuccessful
attempts to transfer to another unit away from him. I was informed that Mr. Minhas would not approve the
transfer.
B. After much frustration, i complained to. Bil) Sailer, Senior Vice PresidenVLegal Counsel about the sexual
harassment anci that I was beirlg denied a request to transfer.· In July 2006, I accepted a transfer to a less
desirable position. In Nover®er 2006, I became seriously ill due to the emotional and physical affects of the
February 2006 incident and ihformed the employer.
I also want this charge filed with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
I declare under penalty of perJury under the laws of the State of C,lifprnla that the foregoing Is true and correct of mv own
knowledge except as to matters stated on my information and bellefagS as6i@,# matters I believe it to bRECEIVED
Dated 7-3*007
1,
1 CA , Fich
At -
- · L/'1 1Le6REt5OS.SIGNATURE FEBSAN
23,1007
Uti:GU
DFISH-300-01 (12/99) SD:GLO:heh DATE FILED: hbruaq 23,2002|STRIOT OFFICE

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING . STAA*'FORNIA
2
EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106)
FILE
Clerk of Vie Superior Court
3 401 B Street, Tenth Floor JUN 2 4 2011
San Diego, Califofnia 92101-4232
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-61.5-0700 JUN 24'11 PM03:28
5
6 Attorneys for Defendant

7
8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9

12 v TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED
EXTRANEOUS EVENTS
13 SANDIP ('MICKEY') MINHAS,

individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a 13 of 81
40, inclusive,
15 I)ate: July 1, 2011
Defendants. Time: 8:45 a.m.
16 Dept: 70
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
Motion In Limine To Exclude Extraneous Evidence
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Based on the discovery pursued in this matter, defendant Qualcomm Incorporated
4 ("Qualcomm") anticipates that Etnyre will seek to introduce wide-ranging evidence of alleged
5 general extraneous events at Qualcomm that did not involve Etnyre or Minhas simply to make
6 these certain individuals "look bad." Qualcomm seeks specifically to exclude all evidence of the
7 following alleged miscellaneous events where neither Minhas or Etnyre was present and had
8 nothing to do with sexual harassment, or sexual assault or battery: (1) Deborah Dean, an
9 employee in Qualcomm's legal department, allegedly called a prospective employer of Sarah
10 Kirkpatrick, a former Qualcomm employee, to report that she was crazy; (2) former Patent
11 Counsel, Associate Timothy Buckley, filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm and individual
12 defendants Thomas Rouse, Timothy Loomis, Melanie Carmosino and Mary Stewart alleging,
13 among other things, race, color and national origin discrimination, retaliation and defamation; (3)
14 that individuals in the patent department went to happy hour that the company paid for; and (4)
15 Qualcomm was involved in patent litigation in the case of Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom
16 Corporation, Case Number 05-cy-01958-B-BLM.
17 None of this proposed evidence provides any relevant information to Etnyre's elaims
18 before this Court. The alleged events do not involve Etnyre or Minhas, and Etnyre neither
19 witnessed the alleged acts nor had any specific knowledge of them, and it does not involve sexual
20 harassment or conduct. In addition, this evidence must be excluded because any limited probative
21 value it could have is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will
22 necessitate undue consumption of time, create substantial danger ofundue prejudice, confuse the
23 issues and mislead the jury.
24 II.
25 EVIDENCE REGARDING EVENTS THAT DID NOT INVOLVE
26 ETNYRE OR MINHAS IS IRRELEVANT
27 Under the California Evidence Code, no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.
28 (Evid. Code § 350.) Evidence is relevant if it has"ariy tendency in reason to prove or disprove
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
t
..
1 any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination ofthe action." (Evid. Code § 210;
2 O'Hearn v. Hillcrest Gym and Fimess Center, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.#th 491,501.) Thus,
3 evidence is only relevant if it'logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference" establishes a
4 material fact. (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310,337.)
5 Here, Etnyre has the ultimate burden of proving that she was subjected to sexual assault
6 and Sexual harassment. Evidence that other employees engaged in alleged unrelated events that
7 did not involve Etnyre or Minhas simply has no bearing on this ultimate question and is wholly
8 irrelevant to any material facts at issue. Indeed, whether Deborah Dean called one of Sarah
9 Kirkpatrick's prospective employers to report that she was crazy, whether Timothy Buckley filed
10 a lawsuit against Qualcomm and various individual defendants for assorted discrimination and
11 defamation claims, whether Qualcomm was involved in extensive patent litigation that involved
12 discovery sanctions, or whether individuals other than Etnyre or Minhas went to happy hour have
13 no tendency in reason to prove or disprove whether Etnyre was subjected to unlawful sexual
14 conduct. Indeed, these acts did not involve Etnyre or Minhas. Neither Etnyre or Minhas
15 witnessed nor had personal knowledge of the events and the events did not involve any sexual
16 conduct (or alleged misconduct). (See, e.g, Kelb'-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22
17 Cal.App.4th 397, 410-411 [affirming employer's motion in limine to exclude evidence of
18 harassment against anyone other than the plaintiffl.)
19 In short, Etnyre's proposed evidence of alleged acts by other Qualcomm employees is
20 irrelevant to the determination of whether she was subjected to unlawful treatment and is thus
21 inadmissible.
22 III.
23 IF RELEVANT AT ALL, EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED EVENTS UNRELATED TO
24 ETNYRE OR MINHAS IS INADMISSIBLE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352
25 As noted above, evidence of alleged events that did not involve Etnyre or Minhas does not
26 even meet the threshold test for relevance. However, even if this evidence is deemed relevant, it
27 should still be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because its probative value is
28 substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 of time, create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confuse the issues and mislead thejury.
2 (Evid. Code § 352.)
3 Evidence that has the potential to confuse the issues or mislead the jury is excludable
4 under Evidence Code section 352. ( Wagner v. Benson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27,36 [holding '
5 that evidence of"marginal" probative value that could easily overwhelm or confuse the jury and
6 obscure the main issues should be excluded].) The strong interest in prompt and efficient trials
7 permits the exclusion of evidence that is not relevant or significantly probative to the issue before
8 the court and will needlessly consume time. (Maricela C v. Superior Court (1998) 66
9 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1146-47; Notrica v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 911, 950
10 [holding that evidence that would "open a can of worms" should be stricken].) Evidence that is
11 likely to evoke emotional bias against a party, is unsupported by the evidence, and has very little
12 effect on the relevant issues is considered unduly prejudicial. (Morse v. Sarasy (1997) 53
13 Cal.App.4th 998,1008-1009; Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal.App,3d 768, 774.)
14 A. The Admission of Extraneous Events Would Necessitate Undue Consumption of
15 Time.
16 If Etnyre is permitted to introduce evidence of these events that did not involve her or
17 Minhas, Qualcomm will be forced to defend itself against each and every alleged incident which
18 will create numerous "mini-trials" with witnesses that are wholly unrelated to Etnyre's claims.
19 Such mini-trials have been held to be an undue consumption of time, which renders the
20 evidence inadmissible. (Harpring v. Continental Oil Co. (5th Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 406,410, cert.
21 denied (1981) 454 U.S. 89.) In Harpring, plaintiff sought to introduce evidence ofprior
22 discriminatory acts by defendant. The court excluded such testimony to avoid "trying another
23 lawsuit within the exi5ting lawsuit." (628 F.2d at 410.) Here, the alleged acts are not even ofa
24 5imilar character of the claims at issue.
25 If evidence of extraneous evidence is admitted, Qualcomm would be placed in the same
26 position here. Indeed, with respect to each incident, Qualcomm would be forced to present
27 evidence regarding, among other things, the underlying facts, Qualcomm's investigation and
28 findings, as well as each corrective action taken. These evidentiary side-trips would be extremely
PAUL, PLEVfN, 3
Motion In Limine To Exclude Extraneous' Evidence
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 time consuming. Whatever slight probative value Etnyre could scrape together from this evidence
2 is greatly outweighed by the amount oftime these side issues will consume.
3 B. Introduction of the Evidence Would Confuse and Mislead the Jury and Create
4 Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice.
5 The jury's job in this case wiil be to determine whether Etnyre was subjectedto unlawful
6 sexual battery, assault or sexual harassment. Numerous courts have concluded that the use of
7 alleged acts or comments not directed at the plaintiff and unknown by the plaintiff is so
8 prejudicial that such evidence is inadmissible. (Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22
9 Cal.App.4th 397, 410-411 [affirming grant of employer's motion in limine to exclude any
10 evidence of any wrongful conduct with anyone other than the plaintiffl.)
11 Here, even if it were true that other employees engaged in the alleged acts, evidence of
12 such conduct does not prove or disprove any issue relevant to Etnyre's lawsuit and would be so
13 confusing as to mislead the jury.
14 IV.
15 CONCLUSION
16 Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in limine to preclude any
17 testimony or other evidence regarding extraneous events unrelated to Etnyre or Minhas, including
18 any questioning or exhibits, or mention in front ofthe jUIy, to the foilowing evidence: (1)
19 Deborah Dean, an employee in Qualcomm's legal department, allegedly calling a prospective
20 employer of Sarah Kirkpatrick, a former Qualcomm employee, to report that she was crazy; (2)
21 former Patent Counsel, Associate Timothy Buckley, filing a lawsuit against Qualcomm and
22 individual defendants Thomas Rouse, Timothy Loomis, Melanie Carmosino and Mary Stewart
23 alleging, among other things, race, discrimination, retaliation and defamation; (3) individuals in
24 the patent department going to happy hour that the company paid for where Etnyre or Minhas was
25 not in attendance; and (5) Qualcomm being involved in patent litigation in the case of Qualcomm
26 Incorporated v. Broadcom Corporation, Case Number 05-cv-01958-8-BLM. This specifically
27 includes, but is not limited to Exhibits 237,238,288,670,671 and questioning on these subjects
28 to Deborah Dean, Millette Kish, Janet Sana, Jane Mack-Baker, Thomas Rouse, Melanie
PAUL, PLEVIN, 4
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 Carmosino, Mary Stewart, William Sailer, and Al Harnois.
Dated: June 24, 2011 PA PLEVIN, SUL VAN &

3 CO U
5 BY:
AN
6 ELI A LISTUG KLICK

E J. FOX
7 ttorneys for Defendant

8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 5
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON UP
.
1 MiCHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817) FILED

2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) JUN 2 4 2011
3 401 B Street, Tenth Floor By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
JUN 24'11 p403:28
5

7

8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9

12 V. TO EXCLUDE THE BLOODY CLOTHING
13 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, [4 of 81

individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a
40, inclusive, Date: July 1, 2011
15 Time: 8:45 a.m.
Defendants. Dept: 70

Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
/7 Trial Date: July. 1, 2011
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude The Bloody Clothing
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated C'Qualcomm") hereby moves to exclude Etnyre's
4 blood-stained clothing offered purportedly to demonstrate that she was menstruating during the
5 alleged rape. However, whether Etnyre was menstruating at the time of the alleged event is
6 irrelevant to Etnyre's claims and, notably, Etnyre does not even know when or how the graphic
7 blood stains to the crotch area were made. Therefore, the clothing should be excluded as
8 irrelevant and highly distracting. The blood-stained pants must also be excluded because any
9 limited probative value they may have is substantially outweighed by the probability that their
10 admission will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confuse the issues and mislead the
11 jury.
12 II.
13 THE BLOOD-STAINED PANTS ARE IRRELEVANT
14 Under the California Evidence Code, no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.
15 (Evid. Code § 350.) Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove
16 any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Evid. Code § 210;
17 O'Hearn v. Hil/crest Gym and Fimess Center, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 491, 501.) Thus,
18 evidence is only relevant if it "logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference" establishes a
19 material fact. (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337.)
20 Etnyre's blood-stained clothing fails to meet this standard. Etnyre admitted that the blood
21 on her pants is menstrual blood, rather than bleeding from the alleged rape. (Exh. A, Etnyre
22 Depo. at 942:23-943:8; Exh. B, Plaintiff, Courtney S. Etnyre's, Responses to Defendant
23 Qualcomm Incorporated's Requests for Admission ("RFA"), Set No. One, Response to RFA No.
24 25 at 10:8-14.) She has specifically admitted that the blood was caused by menstruation. (Exh.
25 A, Etnyre Depo. at 942:23-943:8.) Presumably, Etnyre wants to introduce the pants to prove that
26 she was menstruating on the night of the alleged rape. However, whether Etnyre was
27 menstruating has no bearing on her claims.
28 HI
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Motion In Limine To Exclude The Bloody Clothing 1
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 ' Moreover, even if her menstruation were somehow relevant, which Qualcomm denies,
2 Etnyre testified that she does not even know when the stains were made. (Exh. A, Etnyre Depo. at
3 946:13-21, 947:12-18, 21-24 [Q. None -- none of the stains to the pants occurred on that night; is
'4 that correct? A. I couldn't really say. Q. You don't remember ifthey did or did not occur on
5 February 22nd or 23rd, 2006? A. I couldn't tell you when the stains -- when which stain
6 appeared.])
7 III.
8 THE BLOOD-STAINED PANTS ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE
9 SECTION 352
10 The biood-stained pants do not even meet the threshold test for relevance. However, even
11 if it did, the evidence should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because its limited (if
12 any) probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create
13 substantial danger of undue prejudice, confuse the issues and mislead the jury. (Evid. Code §
14 352.)
15 Evidence that has the potential to confuse the issues or mislead the jury is excludable
16 under Evidence Code section 352. (Wagner v. Benson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27,36 [holding
17 that evidence of "marginal" probative value thai could easily overwhelm or confuse the jury and
18 obscure the main issues should be excluded].) In addition, evidence that is likely to evoke
19 emotional bias against a party, is unsupported by the evidence and has very little effect on the
20 relevant issues is considered unduly prejudicial. (Ajmco Inc. v. E*TRADE Group Inc. (2005) 135
21 Cal.App.4th 21,45; Morse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1008-1009; Burke v. Almaden
22 Vineyards, Inc. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 768, 774; Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 284,291-
23 292.)
24 If the blood-stained pants are admitted, there is a substantial risk that the jurors will be
25 misled into believing that the blood was caused by the alleged rape. In short, by coupling rape
26 allegations with blood-stained pants - a tangible, turquoise jogging suit with a gross and large
27 crotch filled apparent blood stain -jurors will almost invariably conclude that the blood stains
28 must have been caused by rape and will focus on the tangible evidence in front of them, rather
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN &
Motion In Limine To Exclude The Bloody Clothing
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 than the testimony regarding the same. Indeed, Etnyre has conceded not only that the blood is
2 menstrual, but also that the stains were caused by menstruation, not any alleged rape and that she
3 does not know whenher pants were stained. (Exh. A, Etnyre Depo. at 942:23-943:8; 946:13-21,
4 947:12-18,21-24.) Because the blood-stained pants will create a substantial risk ofundue
5 prejudice, confuse the issues and mislead the jury, all such evidence must be excluded.
6 IV.
7 CONCLUSION
8 Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in limine to exclude the
9 blood-stained pants, Exhibits 92 and 93, as well as any photographs or other images ofthe pants.
10
Dated: J.une 24, 2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &
11 CONNAUGHTON LLP
12
13
1 - ICHA]*-C,SULLIVAN
14 L,K1!ELI*0A LISTUG KLICK
*ILY J. FOX
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 3
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude The Bloody Clothing
CONNAUGHTON LLP
.
FILED
Clerk of the Superior Coun

MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) JUN 2 4 2011
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
3 401 B Street, Tenth Floor
San Diego, California 92101-4232 JUN 24 '11 0403:28
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. EINYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11

V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION
13 IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TO EXCLUDE
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, THE BLOODY CLOTHING
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a

Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through [4 of 81
15 40, inclusive,
16 Defendants. I)ate: July 1, 2011

Time: 8:45 a.m.
17 Dept: 70
19
20
21
1. I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
22
23
24
called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.
25
2. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the
26
deposition testimony of Courtney Etnyre taken on July 19, 2010 by my office.
27
111
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO of MIL to Exclude 1
CONNAUGHTON LLP The Bloody Clothing
. .
1 3. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy ofrelevant portions from
2 Plaintiff, Courtney S. Etnyre's, Responses to Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated's Requests for

3 Admission, Set No. One.
4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
6 Executed on June 24, 2011, at San Diego, California.

-1 1
7
8 ssa i g Kl
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Decl, ofMelissa Listug Klick ISO of MIL to Exclude 2
CONNAUGHTON LLP The Bloody Clothing
EXHIBIT A
.
CERTIFIED COPY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNiA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
Plaintiff,
)
VS. ) No. 37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
SANDIP ("MICKEY" ) MINHAS, )

)
Defendants. )
)
VOLUME V
the plainti f f herein, noticed by Paul, Plevin,
on Tuesday, July 20, 2010, before Jeannette M.
Kinikin, CSR 11272.
HUTCHINGS=
COURT REPORTERS
GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES C
HEADQUARTERS:
6055 E WASHINGTON BLVD., mh FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90040-2429
800.697.3210 323.888.6300
FAX: 323.888.6333 • www.hutchings.com

..
J/20/2010 Etnyre, Courtney Vol. 5
1 A. Just that, When I went back to my room,
2 everything was coming out.
3 Q. Okay. And were you wearing that T-shirt at
4 that time7
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And so that's how you think it may have gotten
7 on the T-shirt7
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was there any reason you didn't launder that
10 T-shirt7
11 A. Not that I can think of.
12 Q. Okay. Did you ever show these items of
13 clothing to anyone at Qualcomm prior to your counsel
14 bringing them to the deposition7
15 A. No. No one ever asked.
16 Q. Okay. Did you ever offer to show them to
17 anyone at Qualcomm7
18 A. No one investigated to the extent, or I would
19 even offer it.
20 Q. Okay. My question is, did you ever offer to
21 show them to anyone at Qualcomm?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. The stain that is in the crotch area of
24 the pants. directing your attention to Exhibit 23, there
25 appears_to be _two.or maybe three stains. I'm not sure
942
..
1 if that's a shadow or a stain. But the one -- the dark
2 one that's in the crotch area, was that caused bv your
3 menstruation?
4 A. I believe 56.
5 Q. And there actually appear to be two or perhaps
6 three other stains or dark spots. Were those also
7 caused by your menstruation?
8 A. I think so. ves.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Yes, because that's the back of my pants.
11 Q. This is the back7
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Were any of the pictures that you have
14 there of the front of those pants? Your counsel has
15 those right up on his screen there.
16 A. This one.
17 Q. Oh, this is the -- this is the front here on
18 Exhibit 927
19 MR. KONDRICK: I think you see the pocket, Counsel.
20 My impression is --
21 MR. SULLIVAN: Oh.
22 MR. KONDRICK: -- I thihk there's a --
23 MR. ZILBERMAN: That looks like that's the back.
24 THE WITNESS: Oh, I think that's the back.
25 MR. SULLIVAN:
943
..
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And -- and you have concluded that these stains
3 are permanent?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Why was it then that you retained
6 this - - this jogging suit with - - with these stains on
7 it7
8 A. It was just in a bag, and I threw it in the
9 back of my closet.
10 Q. Okay. Well, why was it that -- that your
11 menstruation stained these items of clothing?
12 A. I'm not sure I understand.
13 Q. Well, you obviously -- I -- I believe -- I
14 suspect that you believe that there's some connection
15 between these menstruation stains on your clothing and
16 Mr. Minhas. And I don't really understand what that
17 connection is. Is there some connection between
18 Mr. Minhas and these stained clothing items?
19 A. I don't -- I couldn't really say. It was iust,
20 I woke up in these clothes, and in my room, and somebody
21 was pounding at the door.
22 Q. Okay. So you woke up in these clothes on -- in
23 New York on Saturday morning?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You didn't have these items on in New Jersey on
946
..
1 Wedhesday night, Thursday morning, February 22nd, 23rd,
2 20067
3 A. Iim sorry. I don't --
4 Q. Did you wear this jogging suit on February 22nd
5 or 23rd, 20067
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. And then were -- did you -- any of these
8 stains, to your knowledge, occur on February 22nd or
9 23rd, 20067
10 A. Probably to the jacket, yes. I couldn't tell
11 you which ones.
12 Q. None -- none of the stains to the pants
13 occurred on that_night; is that correct7
14 A. I couldn't really say.
15 Q. You don't remember if they did or did not _occur
16 on February 22nd_or 23rd, 20067
17 A. I couldn't tell vou when the stains--_When
18 which stain appeared.
19 Q. Well --
20 A. Where.
21 Q. The big stain to the crotch area --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q did that occur in New Jersey or New York7
24 A I think it was New York.
25 Q . Okay. So that that stain well, were you
947
1
***
3
I declare under penalty of. perjury under the laws
4
of the State of California that the foregoing is true·
5 and correct.
San Diks°
7
1,
Executed at
, California,
on A13-4 23; 20\ O

8
9
1
10
11
" 12
CO
-s: ga*6
U
13
14
15
16
17
./
18
19
I imt·:..
20
az-__.
21
22
.
23
24
994
*¢4-6•.*

800.697.3210
. .
3 I, Jeannette Kinikin, CSR 11272, do hereby declare:

4

6 the foregoing deposition was by me duly swern pursuant
7 to Section 2093(b) and 2094 of the Code of Civil
8 Procedure;

13
14
I further declare that I have no interest in the
16

18 of the State of California that the foregoing is true
19 and correct.
20

4th
dffc tj 674
/-5 .:··-··a·.. 49*
22
August %.tut:
15 31 fCERTI FICATjON ;
A
TRANSCRIPT
23
24 / 6
kkMAG_ 9Y1. r ...
/ Je**lette Kinikin, CSR 11272 9* SEAL &
995

800.697.3210
EXHIBIT B
1
H. Paul Kondrick, Esq., State Bar No. 88566
H. Paul Kondrick,A.P.C.
2
3130 Fourth Avenue
3 San Diego, California 92103-5803

Telephone: (619) 291-2400
4
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
6
8
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

10
11 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL

)
12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S.
) ETNYRE'S, RESPONSES TO
13
) DEFENDANT, QUALCOMM
14 ) INCORPORATED'S REQUESTS FOR
SANDIP ('MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,) ADMISSION
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware ) [SET NO. ONE (1)1
corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,)
16
)
17 Defendants. )
)
18
Propounding Party: Defendant, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

19
20 Responding Party: Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
21 Set No.: One (1)
22
PRELIM[NARY STATEMENT
23
These responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action. Each
24
25
answer is subject to all appropriate objections, including, but not limited to objections
26 concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, admissibility, foundation, whether

27
the question(s) call for conclusions of fact assume facts not in evidence (or otherwise), which
28
would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the request or question were
-1- Responses to Qualcomm's Request for Admission

.
1 REOUEST NO. 24:
2
Admit that you claimed you were sexually harassed while employed at Howrey LLP.
3
RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 24:
4
5 To the extent that the Request seeks discovely concerning the plaintiffs sexual
6 conduct, then plaintiff objects to the Request, and refuses to respond to the Request pursuant
7
to Code Civil Procedure, §2017.220, or otherwise.
8
REOUEST NO. 25:
9
Admit that the blood depicted on Exhibit A was caused by menstruation.

10
RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 25:

11
12 While plaintiff admits that some of the blood depicted on Exhibit "A" was menstrual,
13
she denies that it was caused to penetrate plaintiffs garments because ofthat bodily function,
14
but rather, the actions of defendant MINHAS, likely caused such staining.
15
H. Paul Kondrick,
16
A Professional Corporation:
BY: 1 h
17
18 Dated: April 28, 2011

H. Paul Kendrick, Esq.
19
Attorney fbr Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
Responses to Qualcomm's Request for Admission
.
1
VERIFICATION
2
I, Courtney Etnyfe, declare:
3
I am a named defendant in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing

4
5 PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE'S, RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT, QUALCOMM
6 INCORPORATED'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS [SET NO. ONE (1)1, and know the
7
contents thereof. The same is true of my knowledge, except those matters which are therein
8
alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe the same to be true.
9
I declare under penalty of perjuty under the laws of the State of California that the
10
11
foregoing is true and correct
12 Executed this 2f day April 2011, at San Diego California. -

13 CA _>16
14 Courtney E*P 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
Responses to Qualcomm's Request for Admission
. .
1
2
H. Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
3130 Fourth Avenue
Telephone: (619) 291-2406
4
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
6
8
9

10
11 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL

)
12 Plaintiff, ) PROOF OF SERVICE
)
13
V. )
14
SANDIP ('MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,)
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation, .and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,)
16
)
17 Defendants. )
)
18
19
I, Candice E. Caufield, declare that:
20
I am, and was at the times of the service hereinafter mentioned, over the age of 18 and
21
22
not a party to the within action; I am employed in the County of San Diego, California where
23 the, service. occurs; and my business address is 3130 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, California
24
On April 28, 2011, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
25
1. PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE'S, RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT,
26 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION [SET
NO. ONE (1)]
27
28
on all interested parties to this a¢tien by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
-1-
Proof of Service
.
1 envelopes addressed as follows:

2
Michael C. Sullivan, Esq.
3 Melissa L. Klick, Esq.
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP
4 401 '13" Street, Tenth Floor
5
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: 619-237-5200
6 Fax: 619-615-0700
7 Attorneys for Defendant QUALCOMM Incorporated

8
Leonid M. Zilberman, Esq.
9 Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP
550 West "C" Street, Suite 1050
10 San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: 619-236-9600
11
Fax: 619-236-9669
12
Attorneys for Defendant, SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS

13
14 X BY U.S. MAIL: Iplaced atrue copy ina sealed envelope addressed to the parties as
15 indicated above on April 28, 2011. I am familiar with the firm's pfactice of collection and
16 processing correspondence for mailing. I personally deposited the claim in the United States
17
post office or in a mailbox, substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained
18
19
by the government of the United States, in a seated envelope, properly addressed with postage
20 paid.
21 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally gathered atrue copy ofthe above
22 documents, and gave same to our messenger service for personal delivery/service before
23
5:00 p.m. on April 28, 2011 will file the original proofofpersonal service with the Court upon
24
25 request.
26 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed

27 envelope addressed to the parties as indicated above, on April 28, 2011. I personally caused
28 .
it to be deposited with Federal Express on the same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness for
-2- Proof of Service

r
1 delivery the next business day.

2
BY FACSIMILE: By use of facsimile machine number, (619) 291-7123, I faxed a true
3
4
copy(ies) ofthe document(s) listed above to the parties, on April 28,2011, at their fax
5 numbers listed above as indicated by their names. The document(s) were/was transmitted by
6 facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. The
7 transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. A copy ofthe
8
transmission report will be attached to the proof of service indicating that the documents were
9
transmitted properly, as necessary, in the future.

10
11 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the
12 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28* day of Apbl, 2011 :
13
14 Candice E. Caufield
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Proof of Service
1 MiCHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
3 401 B Street Tenth Floor FILED
Clerk of %he Superior Couit
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200 JUN 24 2011
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5 By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
6 Qualcomm Incorporated JUN 24'11 PM03:28
7
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
V. TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT,
13 JOHANNA HUNSAKER PH.D.'S
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, TESTIMONY

15 40, inclusive,
16 Defendants. Date: July 1, 2011

Time: 8:45 a.m.
17 Dept: 70

Trial Date: July 1,2011
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To E*clude Plaintiffs Expert
Johanna Hunsaker Ph.D.
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated C'Qualcomm") moves to exclude any testimony or
4 opinions by plaintiff Courtney Etnyre's expert Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D. based on Etnyre's
5 failure to make Dr. Hunsaker available and ready for deposition or to produce documents or
6 writings related to her testimony. Indeed, on June 1, 2011, after attempting for almost three
7 months to obtain documents and testimony from Dr. Hunsaker, Qualcomm took a notice of non-
8 appearance at the third properly noticed deposition for Dr. Hunsaker and still counsel provided no
9 date (even after the close of discovery) when Dr. Hunsaker would be available and prepared to
10 testify or produce documents.
11 Since designating Dr. Hunsaker as an expert witness on December 30,2010, Etnyre has
12 failed to produce any expert declarations, reports, or records, and repeatedly has failed to make
13 Dr. Hunsaker available for a deposition. Under the clear dictates of the Code of Civil Proeedure
14 and relevant case law, Dr. Hunsaker should be excluded from presenting any opinions or
15 stestimony at trial.
16 II.
17 THIS COURT MUST EXCLUDE THE OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS WHEN
18 PROPER PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED
19 California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300 mandates that a court shaU exclude
20 from evidence the expert opinion of any witness that is offered by any party who has unreasonably
21 failed to:
22 (at) List that witness as an expert under section 2034.260.
23 (b) Submit an expert witness declaration.
24 (c) Produce reports and writings of expert witnesses under section 2034.270.
25 (d) Make that expert available for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with
26 section 2034.410).
27 (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300; see also McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th
28 56,70 [excluding expert Witness opinion at trial where experts had not given depositions];
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude Plaintiffs Expert, 1
CONNAUGHTON LLP Johanna Hunsaker Ph.D.
..
1 Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1599 [affirming decision to
2 exclude expert's opinions that were not testified to in the expert's deposition].)
3 III.
4 ETNYRE HAS UNREASONABLY FAILED TO MEET THREE OF THE FOUR
5 REQUIREMENTS UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
6 2034.300 FOR DR. HUNSAKER
7 Etnyre first designated Dr. Hunsaker as an expert witness in the field of"human resources
8 and employee relations" on December 30,2010. (Declaration of Melissa Listug Klick ("Klick
9 Decl.'5 112.) To date, Etnyre has not produced any declarations from Dr. Hunsaker, any reports or
10 writings of Dr. Hunsaker, or, for that matter, any documents whatsoever related to Dr. Hunsaker's
11 opinions in this case. Ud. 111 13,15.)1
12 On March 9, 2011, Qualcomm first contacted Etnyre's counsel to attempt to schedule Dr.
13 Hunsaker's deposition. (Klick Decl. 11 3.) When counsel provided no response, on March 31,
14 2011, Qualcomm attempted to serve Dr. Hunsaker with a records subpoena and a deposition
15 subpoena at her business address for records (to be produced April 19, 2011) and noticed her
16 deposition for May 5, 2011. (Klick Decl. 11 4; Exh. H.) Unfortunately, Qualcomm's process
17 server was informed that Dr. Hunsaker was on Sabbatical for an indefinite period of time and
18 could not be served. (Klick Decl. 114.) When informed, Etnyre's counsel agreed to accept service
19 of the subpoenas on behalf of Dr. Hunsaker. (Klick Decl. 71[ 5,6.)
20 On April 28, 2011 Qualcomm served an amended notice of Dr. Hunsaker's deposition for
21 May 25, 2011 and re-issued both the deposition and documents subpoenas (requiring production
22 onMay 10, 2011). (Klick Decl. 1 6.)
23 In attempting to obtain compliance with the records subpoena, on May 20,2011, an
24
1 After the completion ofthis motion, in the afternoon of June 23 (one week after the original motion in
limine deadline); Qualcomm received some emails from Dr. Hunsaker that indicate they include
25
transcripts she has reviewed. Qualcomm has not had an opportunity to review this information and she
has never provided her files for copying by Qualcomm's deposition officer as required by subpoena and
26
has not appeared for deposition or indicated that she is prepared. This was likely done in response to
Qualcomm's efforts to meet and confer on motions in limine. (Klick Decl. 1[ 14.)
'27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude Plaintifs Expert,
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 attorney support service hired by Qualcomm finally reached Dr. Hunsaker, only to learn that
2 Etnyre's counsel never provided the subpoena to Dr. Hunsaker, who was unaware of h¢r
3 obligation and had no records to produce. (Id. 11 9.) The refusal of Etnyre's counsel to provide
4 her expert Witness with the subpoena assuredly makes the failure to produce any documents
5 "unreasonable." (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.300.)
6 Due to Qualcomm's inability to serve Dr. Hunsaker (because of her Sabbatical) with a
7 subpoena for documents to be produced on April 19, 2011, Qualcomm was forced to cancel the
8 May 5,2011 deposition and on April 28,2011 re-noticed Dr. Hunsaker's deposition for May 25,
9 2011. Counsel for Etnyre indicated in a May 4, 2011 letter that the May 25, 2011 deposition date
10 was acceptable and that Dr. Hunsaker would appear. (Id. 11 7.) However, in a May 16, 2011
11 conference call, counsel for Etnyre reneged, stating that Dr. Hunsaker would neither produce
12 documents on May 10, 2011, nor appear for her deposition on May 25,2011. (Id. 11 8.) Etnyre's
13 counsel did not provide any alternate dates. (Id.) Qualcomm served a second amended notice of
14 deposition on May 20,2011, seeking to depose Dr. Hunsaker on June 1,2011 before the court-
15 ordered discovery cut-off of June 3, 2011 because Etnyre's counsel failed to provide any
16 alternatives. (Id. 1[ 10.) June 1,2011 cameandwent,the June 3,2011 discovery cut-off has come
17 and gone, and counsel for Etnyre still has not produced Dr. Hunsaker for deposition. (Id. lili 13,
18 15.) Counsel for Etnyre either ignored Qualcomm's requests to depose Dr. Hunsaker, or agreed
19 to them only to back out last-minute. Again, this failure to abide by the requirements of section
20 2034.300 is unreasonable.
21 As reflected by the record, Qualcomm has made repeated efforts to obtain the opinions,
22 writings, records, and deposition testimony of Dr. Hunsaker. In contravention of the requirements
23 of section 2034.300, counsel for Etnyre has frustrated all of these attempts. The discovery cut-off
24 has passed, and trial is set to commence on July 1, 2011. The failure of Etnyre's counsel to
25 provide any information on the opinions or planned testimony of Dr. Hunsaker is unreasonable
26 and extremely prejudicial: Qualcomm is entirely in the dark as to what Dr. Hunsaker wouid testify
27 to. This is precisely the scenario that section 2034.300 was intended to protect against. (See
28 Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557,566 r'[Aln important goal of section 2034 is to
PAUL, PLEVIN, 3
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude Plaintiffs Expert
Johanna Hunsaker Ph,D.
CONNAUGHTON LLP
. .
1 enable parties to properly prepare for tfial, and ' [aillowing new and unexpected testimony for the
2 first time at trial' is contrary to that purpose."l; Bonds v. Roy (1999)20 Cal.4th 140, 146-147
3 ["[T]he statutory scheme as a whole envisions timely disclosure of the general substance of an
4 expert's expected testimony so that the parties may properly prepare for trial."].) As a
5 consequence, any and all opinions and testimony of Dr. Hunsaker should be excluded.2
6 IV.
7 CONCLUSION
8 Qualcomm respectfully requests that any testimony ofDr. Johanna Hunsaker be excluded.
9 Dated: June 24, 2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &

CONNAUGHT LLP
10
.
11
12
C DESULLINAN
13 I LISTUG KLICK
Y J. FOX
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 After Mr. Kondrick agreed to accept service on behalf ofDr. Hunsaker, Etnyre's counsel raised an issue
that Dr. Hunsaker could not be deposed until after Mary Stewart had completed a third and fourth session
23
ofher deposition. Therefore, Qualcomm provided Etnyre's counsel with three dates to complete that
deposition before the scheduled May 25,2011, deposition of Dr. Hunsaker and noticed Dr. Hunsaker near
24
the end of the discovery period to ensure that both Ms. Stewart and Dr. Hunsaker could be timely
25
completed. Notably, counsel had failed to depose her on earlier dates in April when she was made
available. Then, Etnyre's counsel failed to respond to the offer to produce Ms. Stewart until Qualcomm
called to confirm the day before and was notified that Mr. Kondrick was otherwise engaged. Ms.
26
Stewart's further deposition has since been cancelled by Mr. Kondrick due to the ruling·on the motion for
27
summary adjudication. However, he will not agree to withdraw Dr. Hunsaker. (Klick Decl. 9 11.)
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 4
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude Plaintiffs Expert
CONNAUGHTON LLP
.
FILED
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) Clerk of bhe Superior Court
2 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
401 B Street, Tenth Floor JUN 2 4 2011
Telephone: 619-237-5200 By: Anthony Shirley, Depu¥
4 Facsimile: 619-615-0700
JUN 24'11 PM03:28
6

8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9
10 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG

KLICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
12 V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION
IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S
13 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, EXPERT, JOHANNA HUNSAKER PH.D.'S
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a TESTIMONY
40, inclusive, [5 of 81
15
Defendants.
16 Date: July 1, 2011
Time: 8:45 a.m.
17 Dept: 70

19
20
21 I, Melissa J. Listug Klick, declare:
22 1. I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
23 attorneys of record for Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated in the above-entitled matter, and am
24 licensed to practice before this Court. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if
25 called as a witness, Could and would testify competently thereto.
26 2. Etnyre first designated Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D as an expert witness in the field
27 of"human resources and employee relations" on December 30,2016. A true and correct copy of
28 Plaintiff s Expert Witness Designation and Accompanying Declaration of Expert Witnesses is

PAUL, PLEVIN,
Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO of MIL re 1
Hunsaker ORIGINAL
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
. .
1 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2 3. On March 9, 2011, our office contacted the office of Paul Kondrick, counsel for
3 Etnyre, to inquire about scheduling the deposition of Dr. Hunsaker. After receiving no response, I
4 sent a letter to Etnyre's counsel on March 22, 2011 suggesting several potential dates for Dr.
5 Hunsaker's deposition. A true and correct copy of my March 22, 2011 letter is attached hereto as
6 Exhibit B. Etnyre's counsel did not respond to this letter.
7 4. On March 31, 2011, our office attempted to serve a Deposition Subpoena and
8 Subpoena for the Production of Business Records on Dr. Hunsaker. The process server employed
9 by our firm to serve these subpoenas informed my office that Dr. Hunsaker was on sabbatical and
10 did not know the duration. At that time, Qualcomm also served a notice of deposition by mail on
11 all counsel setting Dr. Hunsaker's deposition for May 5,2011. A true and correct copy 6fthe
12 deposition notice and subpoenas are attached as Exhibit H.
13 5. On April 22, 2011, I sent a letter to Etnyre's counsel advising that we intended to
14 file a motion in limine to exclude any opinions by Dr. Hunsaker if we were unable to obtaih her
15 documents or deposition testimony, and again requesting dates when Dr. Hunsaker would be
16 available for a deposition. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
17 6. In response to my letter, counsel for Etnyre, Paul Kondrick, advised my office that
18 he would accept service for Dr. Hunsaker. Consequently, on April 28,2011, another Deposition
19 Subpoena and Subpoena for the Production of Business Records were served personally to Mr.
20 Kondrick, asking Dr. Hunsaker to produce her file on May 10, 2011 and to attend her deposition
2I on May 25,2011. A true and correct copy of the subpoenas is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
22 7. On May 4, 2011, I received a letter from Etnyre's counsel indicating that Dr.
23 Hunsaker would be available for her deposition on May 25, 2011. A true and correct copy of this
24 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
25 8. During a conference call on May 16, 2011, Etnyre's counsel advised me that Df.
26 Hunsaker would not be ready to produce her file on May 10,2011 or be prepared to testify on
27 May 25,2022. Etnyre's counsel did not provide alternate dates when Dr. Hunsaker would be
28 available and would be prepared to produce her file.

PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Hunsaker
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 9. On May 23,2011, I received a facsimile from AccuTech Legal Support Services
2 ("AccuTech"),a process server used by our office in this case. AccuTech informed our office that
3 they had made a telephone call to Dr. Hunsaker on May 13, 2011 and left her a voice message to
4 contact them regarding the production of records pursuant to the subpoena. Receiving no
5 response, AccuTech repeated this phone call and meisage on May 16, 17, and 18, 2011. Finally,
6 on May 20, 2011, AccuTech spoke with Dr. Hunsaker, who informed AccuTech that she had not
7 received the subpoena fof business records from Etnyre's counsel, and therefore had no records to
8 produce. A true and correct copy ofthe facsimile from AccuTech is attached hereto as Exhibit
10 10. Therefore, on May 20, 2011, my office served a second amended notice of Dr.
11 Hunsaker's deposition f6r June 1,2011, so that we could complete her deposition before the
12 discovery cut-off. We did so because we could not receive a date certain from Mr. Kondrick as to
13 When She would produce her documents or provide testimony. A true and correct copy of this
14 notice is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
15 11. In the meantime, in early April, Etnyre's counsel raised an issue that Dr. Hunsaker
16 could not be deposed until after Mary Stewart had completed her deposition. Therefore,
17 Qualcomm provided Etnyre's counsel with two dates in April (when Mr. Kondrick indicated he
18 was available) to complete that deposition. When Mr. Kendrick chose not to take Ms. Stewart's
19 deposition on those dates, Qualcomm provided alternative dates in April (two of which were
20 used) and again in May. Qualcomm did so to ensure that Ms. Stewart's deposition would be
21 timely completed before Dr. Hunsaker's deposition. Unfortunately, Etnyre's counsel failed to
22 respond to the offer to produce Ms. Stewart. Indeed, Qualcomm had to call to confirm the day
23 before the offered date and was notified that Mr. Kondrick was otherwise engaged. Ms. Stewart's
24 further deposition has since been cancelled by Mr. Kondrick due to the ruiing on the motion for
25 summary adjudication. However, he will not agree to withdraw Dr. Hunsaker. A true and correct
26 copy of the correspondence in March through May regarding Ms. Stewart's deposition is attached
27 as Exhibit L.
28 12. Due to scheduling issues, in mid-May the parties anticipated being unable to
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Hunsaker
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 complete certain depositions before the discovery cut-off. Therefore, I prepared two stipulations
2 to complete certain depositions after the discovery cut-off. One of the stipulations included was
3 regarding Dr. Hunsaker's depositiOn. Qualcomm was unwilling to enter into a stipulation to have
4 Dr. Hunsaker's deposition taken after the discovery cut-off unless a proposed date was provided
5 and unless a stipulation was entered into that would allow the deposition to proceed promptly and
6 that would allow Qualcomm the opportunity to file a motion in limine, if appropriate, after the
7 deposition. On May 27, 2011 at approximately Noon my office received by facsimile Mr.
8 Kondrick's revisions to the proposed stipulations regarding other depositions and Dr. Hunsaker.
9 Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Mr. Kondrick's facsimile with his
10 proposed revisions to the Stipulations. The hearing on Qualcomm's motion for summary
11 adjudication was scheduled for May 27,2011 at 2:30 p.m. and I attended the hearing which lasted
12 the remainder of that afternoon. Therefore, I was unable to make Mr. Kondrick's suggested
13 revisions to the stipulations on May 27, 2011. On Saturday, May 28,2011 at approximately 1:08
14 p.m. i emailed Mr. Kondrick stating that I needed a date for the Hunsaker stipulation when she
15 would be available because we would not agree to a deposition on the eve of trial and attached the
16 revised stipulation regarding the other depositions. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and
17 correct copy ofmy email to Mr. Kondrick. The parties never entered into such a stipulation
18 regarding Dr. Hunsaker.. Mr. Kondrick's response to my email ofMay 28,2011, was at the notice
19 of non-appearance, when Mr. Kondrick indicated he felt it was inappropriate for me to send him
20 an email on Saturday.
21 13. Qualcomm did not take Dr. Huhsaker' s noticed deposition off-calendar because
22 no stipulation was entered into and no objection was received to the deposition notice. Indeed, no
23 alternative dates were provided. Mr. Kondrick had notified us in the beginning of May that Dr.
24 Hunsaker had availability issues, however, because we did not receive an objection to the
25 deposition notice, we did not know definitively that she would not appear. However, she did not
26 appear for her deposition on June 1, 2011. Consequently, my office took a Notice ofNon-
27 Appearance on that date. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Non-Appearance is attached
28 hereto as Exhibit I. As of June 3,2011, at the close of discovery Dr Hunsaker had neither
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Decl. of Melissa Listug Kiick ISO ofMIL re 4
CONNAUGHTON D Hunsaker
.
1 appeared for a deposition nor produced any documents responsive to our requests. On the record,
2 Mr. Kondrick reneged on the earlier deposition stipulation which he had signed. Therefore, I did
3 not file it even though he had signed it on May 31, 2011. When the parties met on June 3, 2011
4 Mr. Kondrick confirmed he did agree with the stipulation he signed on May 31, 2011 and, as a
5 result, the stipulation was then filed with the Court on June 3, 2011.
6 14. Even though no stipulation has been reached, my office had attempted to schedule
7 the deposition of Dr. Hunsaker between June 3 and June 17, 2011. These efforts were
8 unsuccessful as Mr. Kondrick did not provide a date or produce any records during this time. Last
9 Friday, June 17, 2011, Mr. Kondrick and I met and conferred regarding motions in limine and we
10 indicated that my office would be filing this motion. He would not agree to withdraw her.
11 15. After the completion ofthis motion, but just prior to my signing this declaration, I
12 received some emails from Dr. Hunsaker that indicate they include transcripts she has reviewed. I
13 have not had an opportunity to review this information. Dr. Hunsaker still has not provided her
14 files for copying by Qualcomm's deposition officer as required by subpoena, and has not appeared
15 for deposition or indicated that she is prepared to be deposed.

. 11
18 Executed on June 24, 2011, at San Diego, Cal o ia
19
LZ>
salt{3 ick
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 5
SULLIVAN & Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO of MIL re
CONNAUGHTON LLP
Hunsaker
EXHIBIT A
. .
1 H. Paul Kondrick, Esq. (State Bar No. 88566)

H. Paul kondrick, a Professional Corporation
2 3130 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103-5803
3 Telephone: (619) 291-2400
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
4 Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
5
7 SUPERIOR COURT OP THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
9
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CrL

10
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S.

11 ) ETNYRE'S, EXPERT WITNESS
V. ) DESIGNATION AND
12 ) ACCOMPANYING DECLARATION
SANDIP ("MICKEr') MniHAS,.individually, ) OF EXPERT WITNESSES [CODE
13 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware ) OF CIVIL.PROCEDURE, § 20341
corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, )
14 ) Judge: Hon. Jay M. Bloom
Department: DC-70
15 Defendants.
) Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
16
Trial Date: . None Set

17
18
Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE I"ETNYRE'7, designates the following experts who
are expected to offar expert opinions at trial as follows:
19
20
1. Gene R. Konrad, Ceftified Public Accountant, 5151 Shoreham, Suite 100, San
Diego, CA. 92122, telephone: 858-692-5776;
21
22
2. Job9nna Hunsaker, Ph.D., University ofSan Diego, School ofBusiness
Administration, Olin Hall, 313, San Diego, CA., telephone: 619-260-4858;
23
24
3, Each ofplaintiffs trealing and evaluating physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists
25
or attending professionals or other health care providers, as appropriate, who are known to
counsel through discovery or otherwise, in particular, the following:
26
• DeeAnn Wong, M.D.,

27 345 Saxony Rd„ Suite 201
Encinitas, CA 92024
28 Tele: 760-753-7341 (office)
Fax: 760-753-6403 or 760-753-7341;
-1-
Plaintiffs Initial Expert Wit Designation
-1
.
1 • Arlene Pollard
7777 Alvarado, Suite 711
2
La Mesa, CA 91941
Tele: 619460-4322
3 Fax: 619-460-4322
4. Plaintiff also reserves the right to call all experts listed by or on behalf of any
4
5 other partiesto this lawsuit as well as any expert yet to be identified herein- Plaintiff
6 incorporates herein by reference the information supplied by the other parties, or to be supplied
7 by the other parties;
8 5. Plaintiff further reserves the right to augment expert witness designation and
9 declaration by adding the name and address of any expert which defendants subsequently retain;
10
6. Plaintiff further reserves the right to amend the general substance of the
11 anticipated testimony of all designated expert witnesses as below set forthi
12 7. Plaintifffurther reserves the right to call at trial any expert witness, regardless of
13 whether the e*pert has previously been designated by any party, to impeach the testimony of an
14 expert offered by any other party at trial;
8. Plaintiffs designated experts will be made available for deposition at a date, time
15
16 and location mutually convenient to all parties and the designated witness; and
17 9. Plaintiff further mserves the right to supplement this list or offer ofher expert
18 , testimony as their needs become apparent.
19 H. Paul Kondrick,
20 A Professional Corporation:
Dated: December 30,2010 By: *''

21
22 H. Paul Kondrick .--

Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY
23 S. EINYRE
24 DECLARATION
25 I, H. Paul Kendrick, declare as follows:
26 1. Purflutto Code of Civil Procedure, § 2034, andother,Aze, #ainSE,

27. COURTNEY S. E'INYRE ['*EINYRE"], hereby designates Gene K Konrad as an expert
28 witness in the above-entitled action. Mr. Konrad is expected to testify as to causation and
4- Pinintiffs Inibl Expert Wit Designation
. .
1 economic issues and damages sustained, suffered by, or otherwik caused to plaintiff, ETNYRE,
2·including but not limited to lost income, employment benefits such as vacafion, health and life
3 insurance and retirement whether stock or other retirement bene5ts and/or opti6ns, taxes and
4 tax obligations, including penalties, and the like, and other direct or indirect economic losses
5 and monetary damages sustained or experienced by plaintiff ETNYRE. Mr. Konrad will be
6 sumciently fnmiliar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral examination
7 concerning the testimony that he is expected to give at trial including his opinion testimony and
8 the bases therefor.
9 & Mr. Kooradwas a partner in Hutchinson & Bloodgood, Certified Public

10 Accountants, located in San Diego, CA. He was also previously a partner in Peterson &
11 Company, Certified Public Accountants, and tax senior with Seidman & Seidman. He has more
12 than twenty (20) years experience as a certiEed public accountant Mr. Konrad participates in
13 various professional activities including, but not limited to: the Americah Insutute of Certified
14 Public Accountants, California C.P.A. Society; California C.P.A. Society, San Diego Chapter;
15 NE]CIA International. Mr. Konrad has been retained as an expert witness in various civil
16 actions and other proceedings, including employment disputes relative to lost wages,
17 compensation and benefits, including retirement and pension issues, whether based on
18 employment contract, discrimination or other causes of action or clairnR
19 b. Mr, Komad's fee for providing deposition testimony is expected to be $275.00
20 per hour. He reserves the right to adjust his expert witness fee.
21 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure. f 2034, and otherwise, plaintiff, ETNYRE,
22 further 12Rignates Jobanna Hunsaker, Ph.D.. Dr. Hunsaker is expected to testify as to issues
23 relating to human resources and employee relations, including but not limited to the various
24 employme personnel, payroll, benefits, wage and industrial relations issues such as, but not
25 limited to, personnel management, industrial relations/personnel relations, scope and
26 reasonableness or fairness ofprocedures, and employee rights in the workplace. The issues will
27 further include business organizations, organizational and management structures, policy-
28 making, especially from a human resource standpoint and personnel policy-making
-3- Plaintiffs Initial Expert Wit Designadon
.
1 implememation, as appropriate. Dr. Hunsaker willbesufficiently familiar with the pending

2 action to submit to a meaningful oral examination concerning the tesdmony that sheis expected
3 to give at trialincluding her opinion testimony and the bases therefor.
4 She will further opine in relation to employment personnel and industrial relations
5 issues including but not limited to personnel management industrial relations/personnel
6.relations, including reasonable investigation, including scope and reasonableness/fairness of
7 procedures, and employee rights in the workplace. The issues will further include business
8 organizations, organizational and management structures, policy-making, especially from a
9 human resource standpoint, personnel policy-making implementatimi, the roles of management
10 and broads of directors, organizational and management structures and policy-making
11 especially from a human resource standpoint.
12 She will further more specifically opine relative to the following, as appropriate:
• In relaiion to defendants' conduct toward and treatment of plaintiff, whether it/he
14 Rahered to its/his own guidelines or policies, especially those on which
15 defendant's employees relied;
16 • Whether defendant (employer) followed its policies, practices and procedures in

17 its dealings with plaintiff, in particular relative to the terms, conditions and
18
privileges ofher employment;
19 • Whether plaintiff's employment termination or discharge was grossly or

20
otherwise disproportionate to the discipline, corrective measures or punishmehts
21 meted out to similarly, or substantially similar, situated employees;
• Whether the defendant employer significantly or otherwise deviated from its
23 ordinary personnel procedures in the plaintiff s case;
24 • The objective criteria of a performance improvement plan and whether
25 defendAnt, QUALCOMM, adhered to its own policies, practices, procedures and
26 guidelines relative to any performance improvement plan insofar as its conduct
27
toward and treatment of plaintiff;
28 • Wod¢place investigation standards, including any investigations defective their

+ Plaintiffs Initial Expert Wit Designation
.
1
inception, design, methods, execution and findings;
2
The roles or responsibilities of human resources and employee relations
.
3
personnel;
4
The objective criteria ofan appropriate orreasonable investigation of
5 harassment;
6
The objective criteria ofan appropriate or reasonable investigation of
7 misconduct
8
• Course and scope ofemployment, including in relation to business trips and
9
social events, such as so-called "team building" events as may be referenced and
10
applicable to the present matter;
· The objective parameters reasonably expected of sexual harassment, including

11
I2
sexually hostile, abusive or polluted work environment;
13
• Whether an employee can reasonably consent to sexual advances, harassment or
14
assault, especially battery, ftomthe hands or actions of the employee's
15
immediate supervisor or other person(s) in positions of power or authority over
16
the employee;
17
• What reasonably and/or objectively constitutes unwanted sexual advances or
18
verbal/sexual conduct of a sexual natUre;
19
Whether defendants should have known specifically on an objective basis, that
2O
plaintiff was subjected to a work environment that could be considered hostile or
21
abusive, including whether a supervisor engaged in the conduct, or the employer
22
[QUALCOMM Incorporated] or supervisor(s) or agent(s)lmew, or should have
23
known, of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
24, action;
25
Whether there was an objectively, sexually hostile or abusive work environment
26
as opposed to a subjectively hostile or abusive work enviroomenti
27
Whether defendant (employer) took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
28
from occurring, including the prompt, full, and fair investigation ofall
-5-
Plaintiff's Initial Expeit Wit Des*ation
.
1 harassment complaints or reports of harassment;

2 • Whether defendant (employer) failed to follow St,*te laws or regulation with
3 regard to it treatment of plaintiftdue to her medical condition or physical or
4 mental disability or condition including but not limited to engaging in a timely,
5 good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine
6 effective reasonable accommodations, if Eny, in response to a request for
7 reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a 1cnown physical
8,
or mental disability or known medical condition;
9 .
The employer's limitations, if any, on employee discipline, including
10 termination; and
11 • Whether defendant complied with its reasonable personnel policies, or whether

12
there was a violation of those policies.
a. Dr. Johanna Hunsaker is professor of Management and Organizational Behavior

13
14 at the University of San Diego where she has been on faculty since 1981. br. Hunsalcer C
15 previously taught at San Diego State University and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
16 Her degrees include: Ph.D. Uniyersity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Urban Education, Business
17 Administration and Sociology; M.S. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Philosophical and
18 Cultural Foundations ofEducation; B.S. University of Wisconsin, Madison, English and
19 Education.
20 Dr. Hunsaker taught internationally in France, Germany, Hong Kong, and Saipan in the
21 Northern Marianas Islands. At the University of San Diego, she has concentrated on effective
22 teaching and curriculum development, designed new courses and practiced innovative teaching
23 techniques. She consistently ranks in the top 10 percent ofprofessors in lhe School of Business.
24 Hnne*er has publided over 50 articles, including a book on gender issues in the workplace,
25 Strategies and SkiUsfor Managerial Women. Much of her professional life has been committed
26 to supporting Women in.leadership positions. She has served as a trainer, a consultant, and has
27 been an expert witness in court cases concerning sexual harassment and workplace
28 discrimination.
-6
1 b. Dr. Hunsalcor's fee for providing deposition testimony is $300.00 per hour. She
2 too reserves the right to adjust her expert witness fee.
3 4. I declare under penalty of pel:jury under the laws of the State of California that
4 the foregoing is true and correct except as to those matters stated on information, belief or
5 opinion, and as to those matters, I believe the same to be true.
6
Executed this 30* day of December 2010, at San Diego, Calimia. A
7/. pljL'</ C
H. Paul K6ndrick
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7.
Plaintiffs Initial Expert Wit Desigr,Blion
1
2 IL Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
3130 Fourth Avenue
Telephone: (619) 291-2400
4 Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
5 Attorney for PlaintifF, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
6
9
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ,
11 COURTNEY S. EINYRE, individually, ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL

)
12 Plaintii ) PROOF OF SERVICE
13 V )
)
14 )
SANDIP ('MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,)
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware )
16 corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,))
17 Defendants. )
)
18
19
I, H. Paul Kondrick, declare that:
20 '
I Mi'h, And was, at thetimes ofthe service hereinafter mentioned, over the age of 18
21 and nota party to the within action; I am employed in the County of San Diego, California
22 where the service occurs; and my business address is 3130 Fourth Avenue, San Diego,
23
California
24
25 On December 30,2010, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

26 1. PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE'S, EXPERT WITNESS
DESIGNATION AND ACCOMPANYING DECLARATION OF EXPERT
27 WrrNESSES SODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, § 2034
28 on all interested parties to this action by placihg true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
-1
ProofofService
1 envelopes addressed as follows:
2
Leonid M. Zilbeiman, Esq.
3 Wilson Cosmo & Turner LLP
550 West "C" Street Suite 1050
4 San Diego, CA 92101
5 Telephone: (619) 236-9600
Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
6
Attorneys for Defendant Sandip ("Mickey") Minhas
7 Mir-hmp-1 C. Sullivan, Esq.
8 Melissa L. Klick,Esq.
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP
9 401 *'B" Street Tenth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
10 Telephone: (619) 237-5200
11 Facsimile: (619) 615-0700
Attorneys for Defendant QUALCOMM Incorporated
12
13 X BY U.S. MATT. (AS INDICATED ABOVE): I placed the originals or copies of

14 the described documents, as appropriate, in a sealed envelope addressed to the parties as
15 indicated above on December 30,2010. I am familiar with the lirm' s practice of collection
16 and processing correspondence for mailing. I personally deposited theclaim in the United
17
18 States post oflice or in a mailbox, substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly
19 m,intained by the government oftlle United States, in a sealed envelope, properly addressed
20 with postage paid.
21 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally gathered a true copy of the above

22
23
documents, and gave same to our messenger service forpersonal delivery/service before
24 5:Oop.m. onDecember 30, 2010 willfile the original proof ofpersonal service withthe Court
upon request
25
26 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL (as indicated above): I placed a

27 tue copy in a sealed envelope addressed to the parties as indicated above, on December 30,
28 2010. I persormlly caused it to be deposited with Federal Express on the same day in the
-2-
Proof of Service
1 orainary course ofbusiness for delivery the next business day.
2
3
BY FACSIM[LE (as indicated above): By use of facsimile machine number, (619)
4 291-7123, Ifaxed a true copy(ies) ofthe document(s) listed above to the parties, on December
5 30,2010, at their fax numbers listed above as indicated by their names. The document(s)
6 were/was transmitted by facimile transmission and the transmission was reported as
7 complete and without error. The transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting
8 facsimile machine. A copy of the transmission report will be attached to the proof of service
9
10 indicating that the documents were transmitted properly, as necessary, in the future.
11 I declare underpenalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthe State of California thatthe
12 foregoing is true and correct Executed this 30"t day of December, 2010. / /5/
13
7710<''
14 Itt Paul Kondrick
15
16
17
18 1 ,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Proof of Service
EXHIBIT B
P
401 B STRIN:r. TENTI-! PLC©R, SAN 1)18'10, CA 9.1.?i
58
PAUL, PLEVlN, PHONE 619 ·137·5200 FAX 619·615·0700 | WWWPALILM.E\'IN.COM
SULLIVAN & MELISSA LISTUO KLICK
(619)243-1561 mklick@raulrlevin.corn
CONNAUGHTON LLP
March 22, 2011
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, California 92103
Re·. Etnyre v. Qualcomm Incorporated
Dear Paul:
On March 9, 2011, we contacted your office to inquife about scheduling the

depositions of yourexperts and to confirm whether we should coordinate the
depositions through you or contact the experts directly. To date, we have not heard
back from you. We would like to schedule the depositions of Gene R. Konrad and
Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D for April 25,26,27, May 3,5 or 6. If we do not hear back
from you by March 29, 2011 to schedule their depositions, we will serve notice of their
depositions. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan

& Connaughton up
By:
eli - 13fug Klick
cc: Leonid M. Zilberman

EXHIBIT C
.
401 B STREET, TENTH FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
pp PAUL, PLEVIN,
PHONE 61.9,237·520 FAX 619·615·6760 | WWWPAULPLEVIN.COM
SP SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
MELISSA LISTUG KUCK (619)243-1561 mklick@paulplevin. com
April 22, 201 1
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
Re: Etnyre v. Qualcomm Incorporated
Dear Mf. Kondrick:
As you know, on March 9th we contacted your office in an attempt to schedule the
depositions of your retained experts. We followed upon March 22nd with a letter to
schedule the depositions. We never heard back from you.
On March 31, we served a notice of deposition for your retained expert Johanna
Hunsaker for May 5, 2011. We attempted to serve Ms. Hunsaker with a subpoena for
production of documents of her file prior to her deposition and to serve her with her
deposition subpoena. Our process server was advised that Ms. Hunsaker is on
sabbatical for an indefinite amount of time.
Therefore, as we are unable to obtain her testimony we will be filing a motion in limine
to exclude her testimony at trial. If you believe that the information we have been
given is inaccurate, please provide us with dates in May when we can depose Ms.
Hunsaker with sufficient advance notice to subpoena and feceive her documents prior
to the deposition. Thank you.
Sincerely,

& Connaughton up
J/L- ID)esayistug Klick

265 Leonid M. Zilberman
EXHIBIT D
.
SUBP=020
"ATTORNEY OR PARTY WrrHOUT ATTORNEY (Neme, St,reaa/number, andaotiress): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Miehael C. Sullivan (SBN 131817)

Melissa Listug Klick (SBN 228470)
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP
401 B Street, loth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
EuPHONENO.: 619-237-5200 FAX NO. Npfjonal)· 619-615-0700
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Opttona*·
ATTORNEY FOR (Nan,e): Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Diego
STREETADDRESS: 330 West Broadway
MAILING ADDRESS:
cm AND zip CODE San Di ego, CA 92101

BIV,NCH NAME. Central
PLAINTIFF/PETmONER:Courtney Etnyre
DEFENDANT,RESPONDENT: Sandip ("Mickey") Minhas

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER
FORPERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS AND THINGS 37-2009-00101537
THE PEOPLE OF THESTATEOF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address; and telephone number of deponent, if known):
Johanna Hunsaker; University of San Diego-- School of Business Administration; Olin
Hall, 313; San Diego, CA; Phone: (619) 260-4858
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS In this action atthe following date, time, and place:
Date: May 25, 2011 Time: 9 :60 a. m. Address: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton,'LLP
401 W. B Street #1000, San'Diego, CA 92101
a. -F-7 Asadeponent whohnota natural person, you are. ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as
16 the matters described in item 4. (Code Civ, Proc., § 2025.230.)
b. 17 You' are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3.
c. [323 Thisdeposition will be recorded stenographically fT| through the instant visual display of iestimony
and by 171 audiotape EYEl videotape.
d. F-7 This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d).
1 The personal attendance ofthe custodian or other·quatified witness and the produdion of the ofiginal recbrds are required by this
subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Codesections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance
with this subpoena.
3. The documents and things to be produced and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows:
171 Continued on Attachment 3.

4, if the witness is:a representative of a business or otber entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are described
as follows:
FT| Continued on Attachment 4.

5. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EmPLOYER RECORDS UNDER
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN
SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS.
6. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographically at the deposition; later they are
transcribed for possible use st trish You may reeid the written record and change any incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You am entitled
to receive witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money must be paid, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition,
either with service of this subpoena or at the Ume of the deposition. Unless the court orders or you agred otherwise, if you are being deposed as an
individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 miles of yourresidence it the deposition witi be taken within the
county of the court where the acoon is pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed.by Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.250.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WIU ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM.OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESUl{Fll*RROM'YOURIAIL#*E TO OBEY.
Date issued: April 28, 2011 , ,

'
\%-;---, -
A
SpEMTUREE-OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
Melissa Listuq Klick (SBN 228470) Ano*ev.)bualcoun. :Incorporated.
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (Proot or servioe on reverse) (TITLE) . Page 1042
Codi c! Clvll Procedure §5 2020.510,
Form Adoped for Mandatory Use DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE ..
Judicial Council Of Callf#rnia Bmil 2026220,2026.230,202*250,·2026.620;
suBP,os [Rev, January 1,20001 AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS ;
SoliEGns Governmont Code, § 88097,1
Gkpks
.
PETITIONERPLAINTIFF. Courtney Etnyre ' CASE NluBER

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT. Sandip ( "Mickeyw) -Minhas___ 37-2009-00101537
Attachment 3
1. All documents sent by plaintiff or her attorneys to Dr. Hunsaker in connection

with his retention in this matter.
2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker ih connection with her retention ih this
matter.
4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions she intends to
offer in this matter.
5. All documents evidenting payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr. Hunsaker
for her services in this matter.
6. All documents evidencing communications between·Dr. Hunsaker and plaintiff. .

7. .All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and any member of H.
Paul. Kendrick, A Professional Corporation.
8. An updated copy of Dr. Hunsaker's curriculum vitae.
9. All documents evidencing br. Hunsaker' s qualifications to serve in an expert
capacity in this matter.
10. All documents listing' the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.
11. All documents reflecting any expert testimony, either at deposition or trial,
which Dr. Hunsaker has offered in other matters,
12. All documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Sunaaker within the last
ten years. ,
13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions
she intends to offer in thia matter.
SOss-
.
SUBP-020
CASE NUMBER
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Courtney Etnyre
37-2009-00101537
, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip ("Mickeya) M_inhas
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSNION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
1,1 served this Deposmon Subpoena for Pemonal Appearance end Pmduction of Documents and Things by personally delivering a
copy to the person served as follows:
a. Person served (name)1>aul Koid* 61<,
b. Address where served: 640 1 /5 54% 1 0«'* P L
c. Date of delivery: •, 1
d. Time of de\Werr. 1*,05 def¢\.

e. Witness fees and mileage both ways (chec* one):
(1) 0 were paid. Amount;.......... ..$ 0.00
(2) were not,paid.

(3) [3 were tendered to the witness's
public entity employer as
required by Government Code
section 68097.2. The amount
tendered was WpecM: ...... ..$ 0.00
f. Fee for service.............·...........$ 0.00
2. Ireceived this subpoena for service on.(date):
3. Pemon serving:
i: 25 Note registered Califomia process server

California sheriff or marshal
c. E-7 Registered California process server
d. Fl Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server
e. r--1 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b)
f., Fl Registered professional photocopier .
g. FT] ' Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451
h. Name, address, telephone number. and, if applicable, county of registration and numbert
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff 0, marshal use only)
California that the foregoing isjrue 9P*grrs© I certify thatthe foregoing is true and correct
-'UN.
Date:
75161,A _
U (SIGNATURE)
P•ge 2 of 2
SUBP·020[Rev. January 1.20091 PROOF OF SERVICE
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
}Niz'Sny,,9.('f.'„,4 ,i'kat *.i,}" '6,&.7,37:M,J' S'fr.",'C.2 ge,.9'6#, F,E,t"",r "T ,B,'r'K",''T,7"' J ,"'',j ],_"I,4,",]',]? ,', ,,f :',»,,r,",,.r'£,,ripil'f',ff ,f'kpl,,
«f54»1{, wk<*542$84 : 4 YGA#A#4<84
©»S««S''S·«3'i'<Es',# 52,9,4{,>, «T ./'t"".: , ='fl':'lf'f:<3 , P.* f..>" '5.' '
'" ,/"f + 4't' . i,ist' r>F'6.4-=4:ff 62*.f>t: 'S '
. 1 1 '111
-
7 KAB#w *444#45& 4641*01*<MASS**525»9»j

f .t ' 61, 4&40:j„ P bl'f t>>, 52. 31 '':.14'.·4*K2:,4.*»2,»g
L-»*f -aUC»»«-r«»»444 it'bf#.,44.$3:*4* 926«49. 4. f
*14 4
"f'.
354* ff«f.- ·, «r» SYBIry.5,1 1»PS«*»1*

.Filts:*34 , - '.4,4: , 5 4<. ' :(, R'.
.- 4* , - f :8 R/,
F<.:,2
E€tt. -z- , jf»»fff"f''f , ,

' I. ; 2 .'# *.:
I -
,f«At';4' ,$: 'tr,* AC 51«'X-9.ir -7

, * :C ->
- I ,
*.zi
124PLS,..,1'f,>,1jls,f':ffs=,3j)*flS?ff>ffAsf,S, ti ')g,9,<',',·" ' :4 -'· :«4]1), 'S '.4** ' 2'' »=,¥4"4104
91 rti < '<'#i 5 f f,],5« 4,"e-».22:<>r:
I'»'V*&:,s . #,i >A,iri -MAr "
r :.{t{S].,Ijil«
:"'..flt·],4,7*W f 4-.154:PS,>; 6-,<0 r,,
44 344 .
9.-* 7-
4
j;,A#-4,> 7,« -.
lnEr&2J- -'= I
'0=41,
.e f
, 21. 34.'..
1 4/ .
*I l
- ti -*«/4
j
* r ''.
r
».I -
J, F-'/ 4
'r ' *B.. I1t / 3.Pe -
, + ·9! f - «ti-'%,rk «ls *,
/-. 1. r "A4fy 7 'W
T
' '.. 44 It
I *r.
fip /7, 4, & Yp. ,0/f " S.4,0 *»"Z*",»,4-

t'?
0 7#4#f
18*5*-3 *
4'3,3*1''ff' , '* 10? 9 I
*44; 4 15
, a L 't '., 4 «ft 5

'f A
1 Fli .*9'.,
i 4 dy*
ff )64,<ff{Stio»%]ff t.-s»sipt,f» ,:i:jJ,,2141ZbiVI
%
me#*Agh<.449'*A..
I *.
4:*f*<*2..4
5.Sf:-06:£4...*14-1.292:41«*.1
J I4 ./
', r «6*,3,..: 4
.
,
i,
f*,0.s«>'>t t *>5 3 Si»1'fy:* -

f m 1
f
*,,»* *,t' 42'":yy,·9,1,1 52'4£*7 '.

..4
'4*Vp'*: 1//r. «S'{6 *,f:j ,;.:

I «S -74&- 4/7
4
I, 2 ty :.
.:-B-·f:>"'* 41:istSS#2..flt „cr ':'1..' &:ip-: ,'<1*€5«

+
S
-- I r
-,LV %81*Ktj:<4*ff,ji«{, 4 . i«-4.

%*43« ':P-'*, fi,,¢ 3/R,RB{»61*St*«'S',,24,'.>ff21',t ojsi 5f{f)&,f °:*f--ASP«54>_ff
f: " c, :9 f¢,3,1 . -j'.3,-: .4"-4' -
9 1 454 64 11=4#»,4, ,/= 5%,f'.':St<frxjytif
* r.r'r:' }it'1:211;*34.du.rfilmig'M*)UidAUjv
T
,r'*A,/ fij)1'» , . 4 :,A'.44,,p,4.8 «, t,"IT f'

/ "31*(P.('a&;42.4.:51...,2CVF'044#- t'f .
'* *v r " fY.,fs,„ * . 4,4..1' 4*4#/* St*« 1 R », '44
*-trj> ' 2.,....:r*wi JAW¥
f..4 249 re .. . 4
*,4 5r . B. 94.* 4'45'«f*%
.t & 1 * 4' L
«
r 4·,·41 k *, « :.*
K 5 191, 4 ' f *Ie ,

24 '' 4,4 + 8 r.
r 1'=. /% lf'
4
r *k.'*
4 $,»' 5,45"Ct: *r2') 24,2'«14'ff,<«,4

,»#4414 54" 4*A/K *»' , I d' 1, 4/4. ' 44 %17 f t» ...1
11*.,
.*,„4.*0..0 ,*,7 4*4,1 YV#&. 44,'f t.'t]"it:,4.MF..,·* -

.
9, 41 & *, 41'*r :47 C \ p' 44 c,3 '' ' s,„1''· 1 f,3%' '4 9 %61£9, 4/5 ¥7' :16£ " h 4 7 %*4
f#&
>'<4»b.
'*433.,4&49. #i,S»ls
4 'r, /444</f«S, »fft'f 'Cid,5) i,k, ifj-", GED*.4]jtjaqi'3
. .
a. I .#
4,54 4% I.,44 44. **44.f« .14'*r>dN'*K*y*,¥,·'1*» 4 :,#,1

Ies*Er-'«S/Sjf*SG»''SS,4fS'.:8' *63,«a45-44,:@9,4«.,4,„,is;-'4«,#'f:k :Sf'.,/S,1]
4./: #41
T ,
M'.- 121 / 9 .&*....'4
t "4*6'Ft:»**f-40 +Ull '4 6,i 't.,% =»pf:.:41,*f '':* 'fS»)1£*:4),i{4*'',1., 0 4
R{f<'5iM.afte#46.4.i#*.Fr©,1.if''Af, »>/tk
£03414#lrle : t:, St,tr, „6 ,;m<4*0#*Alp,
fl '4' - 4 4729 94 + 9 +*' 1 4,*c=«--"3=%* 1«r:r«Sy,V..,4,,,-52,r, 1 --C>:-„ »f-.,",*E»StiFt*A1'I. VAPA484%*./44#M
»: ,55,$.-, SP24#1906'34/Foho
ji. St'--,k,.:ilpiwk.-bi a'*R <,-'t:.d#':..],i:''i:
4:,31191*:V*54:193
4b
i» . '. 1 , %
Y
i
F.- Af*.
S 4 4#4: 92 0*»S¢%22:,3 4I
8.4*. At'A,'241 f.*.14.51 firt„ :- ·5,],9., «47"b.* ss'-» -- ---'°'. ' **'„4. p,6: \ ,/
4 ,' *rf)a+ ' *12 *-4 a
ft>'»irr,4'1,1"'r
.r h, «:, :D,-*S,f* tf* : 91.41#Af05
4
24#'4.yA:'85*el, w/*4'·' k #-0
1» ef<4#,34'4·Si<:Ul»ff. 41„*4.A 7.04' %1 44*a'YY
:9,/15,5>24'<,%,f. 0 f.,fg-9 V
'i.4 : *,,s:r,34 @,SK»«*.'I» .
}R. ' I ' k 4'

jU
,¢4
,%*
,«
6*' «f:.49:, %''4::5*f «,,>,70*#a.»«f£*33
" 6 *4449. f.„:'2 %24*3--4.1
.
r + 1 , S
S A
Ill I Y - 01*rf
"
p' 54 ' r .K r
trr.''frfeR k 46'6 ,A ' 4 e i 4.4

.
I ..' ' - .'9 '' A " 4 -
61' .
.
** *·r
P -,1 .
./'I./4 MA '..S * 7 n.l

9
' LL
'4 137 ,r.qi .A , 5 *f>*415

' ·4'44 " * ' . '49
6
*449,#A r f»'i** 44 1 .P* i" 144. 4 'v.wi"/

*6*ffs' :.MI
4 JqEpt,#44.Jip'* 0/2,# -*1#4* I. I ". < I .
' 4
T
0 + ef/4 0 .6,3,44, . " 7%
- I
f lf'. 44 44 4 0 2 i **& 14' 1,4 f .' . S ' , Ill
r
. 12 1 :
,
4.% . .
.1,, 1.4. f 7 + f<r. drFU

I *ir ,
r: ' f
·** #
*4,&4/rIN&
* ,&, 4 #..*ir
4 ,, 4,{>%6».". w '& 4% ' 4 24; b * {% ' -*4' 5
rn'
3.
L'.4 93/4
Al, ' *1.0 14 ,) e '14 i , ,# 4 .Pt<Y'"4

V
71* , 4& 4 7 3"A.4:,ir5,6,47¥;

,*44<
4 .
1., . lu
464 ' ' 1'3 I . f 4 T YI

N r ,47.
Ar- t-A
'
. * K
-I·'ft,V.*",",,.,.",,,,44'' 4444>*i'S»ri,.I,,,5»ty«",,0 f,]Ss@ ,

Imp £ *\ f,4 +
04# AN.t
ef '61{fjt ,,9„2",",,,6.1Lf,34ij,»tfs,BY';#fs,f:%.4,9, f,{41,4.04 I,,,5, 8„0/9S,„1,1,85*
I
1
1 /'0,
' -- '053 h
4''C·' 4$*W+A**RN ,] 4'Ssf/AERI*'.,.+ .,I,.,,,,,,„,jit*, M',,."'.flB!»>S.f»«-**'y

. 24*slpistatv' Rrf «0(>1,1 )-5 f ib'Qua,2/916 . ,:.'s**,4 - "tr'4*» #.4*..
* %*43*ff'*;14... .*&16:*4«5'.'**'.*2«fts«4*SE#fFS'.'.
, e,4:.ts-)'a*:....'.. 234 V ''; 071*<r X .JI 16/1 4%*ist:T
]S3«S4'#if',2,1.*. 2%.'P:* .4S.: ' "' 1 . k..fee:*,S.t5 .#14,
47,#.,49&,5-'e-S.>-2 .,. r)':12 ; 1-12,1/479420244*74 4*if >1.
£424«K .Ut«f-ST' A*42'732«»-: 34 **
»-sy©...n/j:It.-.PLK, 6 '"iNE -*,Sl''tt'-*5%35%8A?©·.21274,5*4 4* :>f.'-82.j
" ..'er ,
:32#74/,/8/ » 4
6,» *41 : j.', T .:.f ]I.c,71«3*5259
1i
r.*«t
r
. 237< 4%4* 6611 1'' ''' 7 53. 4
t»6*; &<.MO)'. ,-, t>t'''

I U ..1
4 .4:
' R's; '.,t- , f , Y .f, R ,. ' "" '44- , 6.4:2<YE·«S/V:£",'%'CL '· 1,4-ps.i, 1:„r. ' '4491 1.4»5:02*
ES44»8 .
' 4..2,A':'fT,f,>„2,,L
3€8:3**Sjf««fed»«S·*
k >r I
54 -.4. 7 *, r*is ke'*f'i.4..4444 ,<tht 5:4'&24 .

At.}ij»,I.'98)f' *13]f fff'*t:pwi t<3:Qi::29,#,.:Ajff,r '.311,M '4, f.,31,{. 2iP.'f,%,4,,F,'*4'4)4"'
r *"4'rt. .11 L / I
.
SUBP-010
ATTORNEY OR PAAr¢ VmHOUT ATTORNEY #Vane, Srate Bareumber. andad,na*· FOR COURT USE ONLY
_ Michael C. Sullivan (SBN 131817)

San Diego, CA 92101
·m#HONENO.: 619*237-.5200 FA,(No tomiona) 619-615-0700
E-MALADDRESS (Optonall-
ATTORNEY FOR (Nam,): Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF San Diego
MALING ADDRESS:
Crly ANDZ}P CODE: San Diego, CA 92101

BRANCH N»*: Central
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Courtney Etnyre

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip (•'Mickey") Minhas
CASE NUMBER:
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 37-2009-00101537
THE PEOPLE OF THE STAYEOF CAUFORNIA, TO (name, address, and te/ephone number of deponent if known):
Johanna Hunsaker; University of San Diego-- School of Business Administration, Olin
Hall, 313; San Diego, CA; Phone:. (619} 260-4858
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows:
'To (nume of deposition officely. AccuTech Legal Services, Inc.
On(date):May 10, 2011 At(bme): 10:00 a.m.

Lotason (address): 1620 Sth Ave, San. Diego, CA 92101', 619-232-9905
Do not release the requested records t6 the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above.
a. E-7 by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner
wrapper with the title and number of the action. name of witness, and date of subpoena dearly written on it. The inner
wrapper shall then be endosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer al the
address in item 1.
b. F-7 by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the
witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined
under Evidence Code s«ction 1563(b).
c. G-7 by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the
attomers representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal
business hours.
2. The records are to be pmduced by the date and #me shoWn /n item 1 (but not soonerthan 20 days anerthe issuance of the
deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them
available or copying them, and postage, if any, am recoverabia as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be
accompanied by an aflidavit of the custodian or otherqualmed witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561.
3. The records to be produced are described as follows:
f-x-l Continued on Attachment 3.
4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAS.RESUL ING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: April 28, 2011
Melissa Listua Klick (SBN 228470)
kCA 1- -d-
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) . <13<hthm¢ OF pERSON issums suspos,Al
1 Attg Endv. Oualcomm. Incorporated _
(TrTLE)
(Proof of service on reverse) . _Page 142
Form Adopted for Manctmory Uae Code 01 Clvil Pruceduri, 58 2020,41040*44

.Judicial Council of California DEPOSmON SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION T poml Govemnent Code, 668097.1
SUBP•010!Rev. July 1, 20101 OF BUSINESS RECORDS Solunor g
cik als
. .
.
*i
CASE NIMBER
PETmONER/PLAINTIFF. Courtney Etnyre
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Sandip ( "Mickey") _Minhas 37-2009-00101537
Attachment 3

matter.
3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
5. All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr. Hunsaker
6. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and plaintiff.
7. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and any member of H.
Paul Kendrick, A Professional Corporation.
8. An updated copy of Dr. Hunsaker' s curriculum vitaa.
9. All documents evidencing Dr. Hunsaker' s qualifications to serve in an expert
10. All documents listing the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
which Dr. Hunsaker has offered ih other matters.
12. All documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the last
ten years.
13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. HunBaker that relate to the opinions
she intends to offer in thfs matter.
SO*
. .
4,
SUBP-010
PLAINTIFF/PETTTIONER: Ceurtney Etny*e CASE NUMBER
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: *andip ("Mickey) Minhas 37-2009-00101537
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSmON SUBPOENA FOR

PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
1. I served' this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Busine,s Records by personally delivering a copyto the person served
as follows;
a. Person servad (nantef* K,*dvicK

b, Address where se,ved: 401 46 64· 10+A Ft-
66.*- 0% ¢50 U' 91; 0.'
c. Date of delivery: ,;11.*51'1
d. Time of delivery: 1/'00 a 4/\ .
e. (1) Witness fees were paid.
Amount:............. 0.00
(2) Fl Copying fees were paid.

-O.00
Amount:..............$ _
f. Fee for service:.. .0.00
2. I received this subpoena for service on (date):
3. Person serving:
a. IDS-Not a registered Caffomia process server.
b. FT California sheriff or marshal.
c. Fl Registered Califomia process server.
. Employee or independent
Exempt contractor
from registration of a registered
under Business CaliforniaCode
and Professions process server.
section 22350(b)
f Registered professional photocopier.
g. F-7 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22461.
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number:
I declare under penalty of pe,jury under the laws of'the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoing is true and cor,507- I certify that the foregoing is true and conect.
- nmid V h --
6/
1/ 49 au **08653*/2/.- - , fs/:i</18/5
Page 2 of 2
SUBP-010 [Rev. July 1,20101 PROOF OF SERVICE OF
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION
OF BUSINESS RECORDS
EXHIBIT E
g
Mal, 04 2011 8:35AM H L. KONDRICK RPC 6192923 P.2
LAW OFFICES , ,
H. PAUL KONDRICK
PROFESSSONAL CORPORATHON
Wednesday, May 4,2011
Via Fa6imile and U.S. Mall

1
Melissa Listug Klick.Esq.

Paul,Plevin, Sultivan & Connmighton, LLP
401 BSt, Tenth Floor
San Diego,CA 92101
Re: ,¢ourtney.Ernyn v. Sand49 ("A#ckey'l,Whzhas and QUALCOAa< Inco,porated;

Smt Diego Superior Court, Civil Case No. 37-2009-00101 537-CU-OE-CTL
Dear Ms. Klick
'During the past week, our office received at least nine (9) letters from you. Almost
without exception. each ofthe letters wasalso ihxed tq ouromce. During the past month, there
have been inultiple motions going back and forth between our offices, and on average, there
have been at least two depositions each week during fhe past mbrIth, or so. Accordingly, it has
been challenging to mafre the time td read, much less respond in writing, to; each of your letters.
In addition, there have been more than a few moments that I viewed your marked propensity to .
craft letters in'such rapd succession to soggest that your laiN firm may have given up billing on
an hourly basil electing instead to bill your clients based on each letter gent. l
.
Since our law ofaco does notbill our clients on aperletter basis, we arenotatall
reluctani to consolidate our response to your m*ple letters by this single correspondence.
Accordingly, Iwill chronologicany try to respond to each of yout letters sent withing thepast
wet
in reference to your first letter dated April 25,2011, we will work *ith your office to
reschedule Tom Rouse's deposition to May 19, 2011 at 1:30 PM., and I lmve 36 notedmy
calendar. Inrelatidn to your second letter ofthat ssine date, Ms. Etnym has either responded, or
will respond in short order, to each of QUALCOMM's discovery requests. We do not fully
concur that Courtney Emyre waived any 6fher objections especially »ed on the present ..
circumstances.
In relation to your letter dated April 26, 2011, we agreed that our oface granted 10-day
extension for Jane Baker to make changes to volume 3 ofher deposition. Likewid, referencing
yourletter dated April 28, 2011, vye also confinn asimilar 10-day extension inrelationto the
deposition of Stacy Dumraof. Your second letter dated April 28,2011, deals with the deposition
. of Ms. Emym' s expert witness, Gene Komrad. ' If you will recall, inearly April, I Ihentioned that ·
Mr. Konnd had been Eospitalized. .He has since retonied to work As with all of plaintiffs
expert witnesses, our qffice will cdrtainly work closely with your office in scheduling the
depositions ofboth Mr. Konrad and Dr. Hunsaker. We would certmnly like to believe that we.
will enjoy equal consideralion Rom your offige in relatian to 1*16 depositions of Ms. Dolan and
Dr. Kalich. Inretation to documents to be produced by Mr. Konrad, our office will certainly
cooperate with any photocopy service, or other person, to ensure that Mr. Konrad' s woking
papers are m*de available. Our officer cannot vduch for any communications that occurred
bet*een Mr. Komad ond your photocopy service; however, we understand that Mr. Konrad
certainly wodting papers because some oflhose papers likely werepreviously provided to ,
3130 FDURTHAVENUE • SAN DIEBO, CA 92103-5803 • (619) 291-2400 • FAX [619) 291-7123
Ma:, 04 2011 8:35AM H L KONDRICK APC 6192923 P.3
QUALCOMM even before this lawsoit started.

Melissa Listug Klick, Esq.
Re: ED*re v.. Minhas/QUALCOMM
May 4,201'1
Page 2 ,
In your letter dated MayA 2011, you statethat Judge Trapp ordered Courtney Elnyre to
produce her *'Facebook download» to your oftice on May 6,2011. We do not agree with your
'recollection or reading of Judge Trapp's order: Our understanding is that the order provided for
Courtney Etoyre totomover, or produce, a"hard copf of her Facebook within parmmeters
consistent with the Sinph, morage dedsion '*by May 13,2001." Ifyou hold an order litat sets
forth another date, then I look forward td seeing that order.
Weare also in receipt ofthe second letter from youroffice dated May 4 2011,
referencing Courtney Emyre's responses to QUALCOMM's recent requdsts for admission (set
one). As previously indicated, especially based on the cimnnstmlces imd fems oflhts malter, we
do not construe Courtney Etnym to have waived any and all objections that may pertain. Your
office has either received, or will shortly receive, complete responses to QUALCOMM's
discovery requests.
We am also in receipt ofyour recent amended notice of taking the videotape deposition
of Dr. Hwisaker. We understand diat, at present. her depos#ion is scheduled for May 25, 2011.
To our understandinglbat date s available to Dr. Hunsaker notwithstanding her present
sabbatical For your infbrmation, we understmwithatshe will be unavailable for·herdeposition
dring the following dates: May16-19 and May 28 through June 11. You may recall, Dr.
Hunsaker has been designated as an expert in the area oflmman resources and employee
reldons.related matters. We understand thai her testimony will rely on the deposition
testimonies of QUALCOMM human resources and employee rel:dions employees, including
Jane Baker, Ms. Maybaum, Katie Wilson an21. Mary Stewart. While our oface lim wolked with ,
you to accommodate Ms. Stewart to date, please fulS understand and appreciate that her
testimony is needed for Dr. Hunsaker to complete her opinions.
4 ·
There are, ofcourse, additional issues in-addition to scheduling the continued deposition
ofMary Stewart. Thereremains the incomplete depositions of Bill Sailer, Tom Rouse, and
other persnng. We look for*ard to wo*ing with your office to schedule those depositions,
especially invieW ofthe current deadlines set by thb Court
Thank you for giving these matths your immediate attention. As always, I remain:
.
1
H Paul Kondrick,
.
-
A Professional Corporation
HPK.pk ,
cc: Michael G. Sullivan, Esq. (via facsimile)
Lecnid M. Zilberman, Esq. (Viafacsimile)
EXHIBIT F
.

2 EMILY j. FOX (SBN 262106)
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLY
3 401 BStreet Tenth Floor
4 Telephone: 619-257-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSmON OF JOHANNA
V. HUNSAKER PH.D. AND REQUEST FOR
13 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (VIA
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, SUBPOENA)
15 40, inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
Trial Date: None Set
16 Defendants.
17
18
19 TO COURTNEY ETNYRE AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20 PLEASE·TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
21 2025.010 et seq., defendant Qualcomm Incorporated will take the deposition of plaintiffs expert
22 Johanna Hunsaker Ph.D. on June 1, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices ofPaul, Plevin, Sullivan
23 & Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street, Tenth Floor, San Diego, California.
24 The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter who is authorized to
25 administer an oath AND WILL BE VIDEOTAPED. If, for some feason, the deposition is not
26 completed on the above dates, it will be continued on mutually agreeable dates, excluding
27 Sundays and holidays, until completed.
28 Nbtice is further given that this office has requested a reallime-ready court reporter, If any
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & 2ND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING 1
VIDEOTAPED DEPO HUNSAKER
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 attorney who is present wishes to be connected to the court feporter's system, it is your obligation
2 to contact Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC at 800-697-3210 to make arrangements for their
3 technical support personnel to contact you regarding your software needs and to ensure that the
4 court reporter brings adequate cabling and supplies.
5 Dr. Hunsakef is requested to produce the following original documents at his deposition:
6 1. All documents sent by plaintiff or her attorneys to Dr. Hunsaker in connection with
7 his retention in this matter.
8 2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
9 matter.
10 3. All documents created by Dn Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
11 matter.
12 4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions she intends
13 to Offer in this matter.
14 5, All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr.

15 Hunsaker for her services in this matter.
16 6. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and plaintiff,
17 7. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and any
18 member of H. Paul Kendrick, A Professional Co*oration.
19 8. An updated copy of Dr. Hunsaker's curriculum vitae.
20 9. All documents evidencing Dr. Hunsaker's qualifications to serve in an expert
21 capacity in this matter.
22 10. All documents listing the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
23 at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.
24 11. All documents reflecting any expert testimony, either at deposition or trial, which
25 Dr. Hunsaker has offered in other matters.
26 12. All documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the last ten
27 years.
28 Ul
PAUL PUVIN
SULLIVAN & 2}ID AMENDED NOT]CE OFTAKING 2
CONNAUGHYON LLP VIDEOTAPED DEPO HUNSAKER
N
1 13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions she
2 intends to offer in this matter.
3 Dated: May 20,2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &
4 CoptbRHTN LLP
5
6 71M C A C. SULLIVAN
AIL
SA LISTUG KLICK
EMILY J. FOX
8
10
11
l 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & 2ND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING 3
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 Emyre v. Minhas et aL
San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2009-00101537
2
PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE
3
I, the undersigned, certify and declare·that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age
4
of eighteen, employed in the County of San Diego, State of California, and not aparty to the
5
within-entitled action. My business address is P.O. Box 12037, San Diego, California, 92101.
6
On May 20, 2011,1 served a true copy ofthe within:
7
8 • SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VII}EOTAPED

DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HUNSAKER PH.D. AND REQUEST FOR
9 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (VIA SUBPOENA)
10
by delivering for personal service to the following:
11
H. Paul Kondrick Leonid M. Zilberman
12 H. Paul Kendrick, a Professional Corporation Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP
3130 Fourth Avenue 530 West C Street, Suite 1050
13
San Diego, CA 92103 San Diego, CA 92101-3532
Telephone: (619) 291-2400 Telephone: (619) 236-9600
l4 Facsimile: (619) 291-7123 _ Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-Mail: kondrick@msn.com E-Mail: tzilberman@wnkt.com
15
Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Sanlip Minhas
16 Place of delivery js San Diego, Califomia. Executed this 20th day of May 2011, at San
17 Diego, California.
18 I hereby certify that I am employed by Accutech Messenger Service, San Diego,

19 California, at whose direction the personal service was made,
20
21
ACCUTECH MESSENGER
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
PROOF OF SERVICE 1
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LU
EXHIBIT G
MAY-*2011 MQN 09:10 AM FAX NO. P. 01/01
AccuTech Legal Support Services

We're Obsessive About Service
Facsimile Transmittal Cover Sheet
Date: 05/23/11
TO: Alecia / Paul, Plevin, Sullivan
Frorn: Jennifer
Re: Johanna Hunsaker
Message:
On May 13. 2011 we received an email stating that the deposition subpoena for
production of business had been served upon Paul Kondrick for Johanna Hunsaker,
and requesting that we follow up with her for these records.
On May 13, 2011 I made my first phone call to Ms. Hunsaker and received her
voicemail. I stated that I was calling from Accutech Legal Support following up
on the subpoena that was served to Paul Kondrick on April 28, 2011 by Paul,
Plevin, Sullivan was to be passed on to her for the records requested, please return
my call and I gave her my name and phone number.
May 16,2011 - same as above
May 17, 2011 - same as above
May 18,201 1 - same as above
On May 20th I was able to reach Ms. Hunsaker and stated who I was and the reason
for my call. She told me that she had not received the subpoena from Mr.
Kondrick and therefore no records have been produced. I stated I would call my
client, the issuing attorney, and would call her back.
Phone 619-232-9905 Fax 619-232-5928 PO Box 12637 San Diego, CA 92101

EXHIBIT H
. .
SUBP-020
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ArroRNEY (Nan,4 Stale 881 nUmber, and address)- FOR COURT USE ONLY
_Emily J. Fox (SBN 262106)

401 B Street, 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101 '
TELEPHONE NO · 619-237-5200 FAX NO. Iopti00: 619-61 5-0700
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional
ATTORNEY FOR (Nome) Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF San Diego
MAILING ADDRESS:
CrrYANDZIP CODE: San Diego, CA 92101 )

BRANCH NAME Central
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Courtney Etnyre
DEFENDANT/BESPONPENT:Sandip ( "M,ickey") Minhas

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE,NUMBER:
FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 37-2009-00101537
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and tefephone number of deponent, if known):
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO _TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the following date, time, and place:
Date. May 5, 2.011 Time: 9: 00 a. m. Address: Paul, Plevih, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP
401 B Street #1000,_-San Diego, CA 92101
a. F-7 As a deponent who Is not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as
to the matters described in item 4, (Code Civ, Proc., § 2025.230.)
b. 133 You are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3.
c. IU-1 This deposition will be recorded stenographically E-7 through the instant visual display of testimony
and by [Z] audiotape Ex-3 videotape.
d. GE] This videotape deposition is Intended for possible use at trial under C6de of Civil Procedure section 2025,620(d).
2 The personal anendance of the custodian or other qualifed witness and the production of the original records are required by this
subpoena. The procedure auth6rized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance
with this subpoena.
3. The documents and things to be produced and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows:
r«-1 ,
L.XJ Continued on Attachment 3.
4. If the witness is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are described
as follows:
E----] Continued 6,1 Attachment 4

5: IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA ASA CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985,6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN
6. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath, Questions and answers are recorded stenographically at the deposition: later they are
transcribed forpossibfe use at trial. You may read the written record and change any mtorrect answers before you sign the deposmon You are entmed
to receive withess fues and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money must be paid, at the option of the patty giving notioe ofthedeposition,
either with service of this subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise. if you are being deposed as an
individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 miles of your residence g the #epodition will be taken within the
county of the court where the action ks pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Clvil Procedure section
2025.250.
FOR THE SUM OF.$500 AND_ALL DAMAGES RESULTINS-*fM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: March 30, 2011

NATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
Emilv J. Fox (SBN 262106) Attorne»,4 Defendant_ Oualcomm inconoorated
0-YPE OR PRINT NAME) (Proof of sen,iceon reversek (TITLE) Page-1,-of 2
Fon*:ny*:*r' DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE T egpi 245&&MAgviSfiL#120#*52

SUBP•020 [Rev. January 1. 2009] Government Coce, § 68097 1
SommE,st
QI Rus
PETmONER/PLAINTIFF: Courtney Etnyre CASE NUMBER·
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Sandip ( "Mickey") Minhas 37-2009-001015378
Attachment 3

matter.
matter.
for hef services' in this matter.

Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation.
9. All documents evidencing Dr, Hunsaker's qualifications to serve in an expert
at trial or by deposition within. the preceding four years.
which Dr. Hunsaker has offered in other matters.
ten years.
she intends to offer in this matter.
solifEAs-
4 PiUS
.
1 Etnyre.v. Minhas et at.

2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party
4 to this action. I am employed, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego, California, and my
business address is: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street, Tenth Floor, San
5 Diego, California 92101.
6 On March 31, 2011, I caused to be served the following document(s):
7 • NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HUNSAKER

PED. AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (VIA SUBPOENA)
8
on the interested party (ies) in this action by placing a true copy thereof and addressed as foJlows:
9
H. Paul Kendrick Leonid M. Zilberman
10 H. Paul Kondrick, a Professional Corporation Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP
3130 Fourth Avenue 550 West C Street Suite 1050
11 San Diego, CA 92103 San Diego, CA 92101-3532
Telephone: (619) 291«2400 Telephone: (619) 236-9600
12 Facsimile: (619) 291-7123 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-Mail: kondrick@msn. com E-Mail: 1zilberman@wpkt.com
13 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Sandip Minhas
14 (By MAIL SERVICE) I then sealed each envelope and, with postage thereon fully
prepaid postage, I placed each for deposit with United States Postal Service, this same day,
15 at my business address shown above, following ordinary business practices,
16 0 (State) I declare under penalty of petjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
17
0 (Federal) I declare that I am employed by the office ofa member of the bar ofthis court at
whose direction the set*vice was made.
18
Executed March 31,2011, at San Diego, California.

19
DuouL A>52,2
20
21 Deborah Baranowski
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
PROOF OF SERVICE 1
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON up
.
SUBP-010
ATTORNEY OB PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Neme, State Bar number, and ado#esa) FOR COURT USE ONLY
Michael C. Sullivan (SBN 131817)

San Diego, CA 92101
TELEPHONENO., 619-237-5200 FAX NO. rop60,20: 619 -615-0700
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional>
ATTORNEY FOR (Nams) Defendant Qualcomm incorporated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Diego
STREET ADDRESS 330 West Broadway
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITYANDZ(P CODE: San Dieg6, CA 92101

BRANCH NAME· Central
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER Courtney Etnyre

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip ( "Mickey") Minhas
CASE NUMBER:
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 37-2009-00101537
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known):
Hall„ 313; San Diego, CA; Phone: (619) 260-4858
1. YOU ARE_ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows:
T6 (name of deposition omced AccuTech Legal Services
On (date) April 19, 2011 Atmme): 10:00 a..m.
Location (address): 1620 Sth Ave San piego, CA 92101
Do not release the requested records t6 the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above.
a. F--7 by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner
wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner
wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope cir wrapper, sealed. and mailed to the deposition officer at the
address in item 1.
b. Fl by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the
witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined
under Evidence Code section 1563(b)
c. FFI by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the
attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address Undef reasonable conditions during normal
business hours.
2. The records are to. be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the
deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them
available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be
accompanied by an.affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561.
3. The records to be produced are described as follows:
0327 Continded an Attachment 3.
CODE OF CIVILPROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN
AFFECTED MUST.BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE, REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS.
FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: March 30, 2011

Emily J. Fox (SBS 262106)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) {SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
Attornev.Defendant Oualcomm Incorporated

(TTTLE)
(Proof of service on reverse) _ _ . page 1 0, 2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2020.410-2020440.
Judicial Council of Califo,jiie DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION T -1 Government Code, § 68097.1
SUBP-010 [Rev, July 1, 20101 OF BUSINESS RECORDS soliZIAEr
ra Ping
.
SUBP-010
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Courtney Ethyre CASE NUMBER:
DEFENPANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip ( "Mickey") Minhas 37-2009-00101537
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR

PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
1. I served this DeposWon Subpoena /br Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy t6 the person served
as follows:
a. Person served (name)
b. Address where served:
c. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
e. (1) F-7 Witness fees were paid.

Amount.........,,..,$ 0.00
(2) r-1 Copying fees were paid.

Amount. .............. $ 0.00
t Fee f6r service:. ..$ 0.00
2. I received thjs subpoena f6r service on (date):
3. Person serving:
a. Fl Not a registered California process server.
b. EZ] California sheriff or marshal.
c [Z] Registered California process server,
d. C.=1 Empbyee or independent contractor of a registered California process server.
e. 1. j Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
f. F71 Registered professional photocopier.
g. F-1 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoihg is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Date:
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
SUBP-010 [Rev July 1, 20101

PROOF OF SERVICE OF Page 2 of 2
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION

OF BUSINESS RECORDS
.
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: Courtney Etnyre CASE NUMBER:
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Sandip ( "Mickey") Minhas 37-2009-0O101537A
Attachment 3

2. Ali documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
matter.
4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions She intends to
offer in this' matter.
5. All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr. HunsakeY

9. All documents evidencing Dr. Hunsaker's qualifications to serve in an expert
10. All documents listing the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker haS testified as an expert
which Dr. Hunsaker has offered. in other matters.
12. All d6cuments listing all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the iast
ten years.
13. A copy of all publicati6ns authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions
So*·
-
0.1 . 47'* ='S.'f·,wr'S' F,1
11)*i'*ACINS-4 4*%'f4% 46*f 4 9
6 B «rh. ** 'vf' 4: -t" 44% f v .41 2,
sf
1 nl +9l
1 4,r tu„4651, 4 '
*f :14,4,44..f 90 44;)k, t
4»04«tch'11:
M
44:'' 75<{;95 Sts' PA
«15 - »f irfo *Y. le/'/8 ,
>f , •f 4 4 'ty« 44.*82't:/flie '15Zf·.7 t, + 74

Elf:**1 41*f 1,>t ' 4
,* 47 *«fIS'4-53
14 ..4,iJA*0
#82$+ I=*'4,»'14* 4941',M'is..94t «*tRi6* , .Mt 4 11':9> # *3 4 ' , '1' 4
4
.. * .'p . r
S.
4 -, fa
4-k
fs,I<55*05. 'Viste
., 41 7 4 I
** -4 4 4*,=4*1 6 3:*Ar c, *4 , ¢ff elt.,.» - 74 Nr, f:- c.+ p'Ap'*4 -
44
44 *2: 'A . *. T'.

.10V6 En.2 .0 /t ..# 14 P#Y.*/e * 'F'-
.
*.
416 r: *r
-
=r ,
:i
/.
15. 9 * -
©
4. ¥p .
. -
,2
I
9. I
2, Y'> i»,4
n
f
1* 1
-Pf=47-.
-
1
' .A li
I f .
/2*f -b f>'' 0 H, 4, ' *5 ,%'T 4 Ar
: M 'P I
I
-4, . .
. 0 X f l,rf
*"4
a.
1 I t '. f
At
«. I . .
.
.
7 .&
:.*Fl
I T
*0 5 + M e« . 4
*9
44 .&.
tf 91
' . 5% 2.'t"I' , " F , A -241 . 4 1' .7 <,e ,, t 4 . r r
.
*pi. «41%
' . S» f A<% f .
4
: , sH. 1' V.s:' yst & 7 1,37

.
.
04,
. tn
a ; ./2
4
. t« r ', .2 I f. 1
'4*4'at..
tru .
- L
t
2 8 . 4. f 0
-=
, 6 36
.
I # ' h
t
N
4 r 4 & 1.: 4'1,»„ Y%
4
.
.,t.
- lei *' 4,
, '4 ./ I :% ty B
li
„ i -lf
L
4
..r *
. 1.4
, hu
44* r"/' 041#1 2*AE"rd 4.4441'4 f
/ 4/4/
MI -
9
J
'443.- ' i. 4
1 t,= . 6.1/.
t
>.bv- 113
.4 1: *t
&6 4 r P.
K
.
(h
1 3
I . e
46 .
t
r .
92%» I
4
= F
4
4
. f fv j: SY,A''f» *f,Ap A . * I
i & '.0. i } ' t. t :' 1
.
I. , 1
>.
1 5
# *R .r .
/
.8
, 's . 22*44 4' UK .
«
I'
9 .
»
4
.A# B
r
1I
51 ft .
'4 I.
, = f' 44 =.S, / .44' 4. * ' ./

.
1..
t 195,
fi
I
f '*, A I
.4 4
'96 62·sre,1 r 44 4-'
.#. I
6
.
6 if' R *1
4
6, I n 04
4
Z , r 1
1
r
/ ,, „]h
:44 ,.»·,.4f'f,%9544.,
84 .: . 4
4 ..r
't
. S
4 ,« 1'' 03 « ' 4 *r S *» / 9 f /
.
. 4
»*=1 4.1,, 1f *4
.*70 „fI -
'
fix' 2% 4 4
*'»,'>'fe©*j}
if,K** *02·tt,
y*453ESS 'kF '..ari.4»>tl'.S'
4/f 22
..#'tf
-» 4 Z . "f f''V'> 97' P.#151*» 5»tiff '3,1 $4<'«f/'4* , I n», 4 .

.
1
# I . 18
KF
ir
-4,4 9 . ' »4* f,
./
t trt"
.
...
20 1,* **,1 , -9'
Vwv: 4, ,.: 1 "*> 41US 4 164.2 » 'ttly'"43 .4 **i, 4 ,(,Sfe, »*'.' ' ' 8 4 f *j : 'lj # B
4
f
5& b. .
I. .* -.. f
, 4 4%- J £1 3 2 4,*
.f .42664>,
-'S *Syls*19g. f».12:4*$f:
2 47 A., 4 .#I
s,h
05. * 2. 1,4. k. 3% L
=. 1'- r
3 #i ' *, b .10,1
,
se 4% 44*5. .
*f
.Ii : .3
./
4 44
I, 4 .* %* : .*6 1 '5 f f#,A# , i# f:,1,&:f,j,p':iY ,&,0.4£&%4.11*Wil,

* 4 >t
*t
«,b ·yr.' ,«tf "'34) St,31:,ISS] &104'4,61,<Ai/-:51'i*f,r ,«44 f *'.'. '

Y'. A
ef# „ 7,.., 'thr, »'.,1" '' 'r,f Y ,
PS*
4
1 .4,4 f » f, 1 1 ' /,4 -

1/ 74 2/,m %. .*
4
$
a * - 411
4 .9 4*»* I -
& rs * . 3/ 0
'4 9
.,- 1 , 1'*'5.,119 '1",4'*'rt.94is,,7,:S464&w'ss":»»'':ttr

90!* . 4# I *" 4,
: IC: *46 1849. 0 »4, W '. 4
ti ') + .: . ,»
6 tSr
r
7-j' ' ..
, 1*'014 4«
L ,
y "5,«' ' *»'4/% f.9, &<i« ' RF'' '3f»l YA W* PWa< + ..sjap*yf >i.St%*f' e«., 4
hr f t.
I
I. f '11*' ./*» p 4. fatt
4 9 " . SN> a .
.2d «e: »*]: 1.1/Z*f

f , », **rb,» ·, + ,«%'.I' jttf* 4*t r:.*.pir,
i,#•f .r, 1144*
p'u,2'4» P-r.6..#.«0&.*
-Aff<:., 15 844»
'' " :-& .'*,i,k4*.1f,71
S '14.**8 ' f*»]« '»»*.4-*.
3,
I I
4. 6 9'2'L-
.%,
.. 2.4#4»,41*4*24.Yri.442*0%#144£1*M:ASS 64***6,:.09
k
.
t
45 v
»C
4 ' ' . S ' a,(A'&'S}' 3'54'' 2 2,76., »AAaff»'44

AR/A=,45 "V'{43*4.5i83»,:.3»,9::.1414:41?ir: '4»4 f :tij»Y
Ut .
**«.; 5#1% r:,Afj*6 ,]f»:'te.et&%*:RS°ftiEARA#jUSi »»ft.»2: . 4.'1-*44-J ·' 1£4.,3'154:%6#LAA .tba:wI---w

SUBP-020
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEYMme, State Bar number..and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Emily'J. Fox (SBN 262106)

San Diego, CA 92101
TELEPHONE NO · 619-237-5200 FAX NO (Optional) 619-615-0700
E-MAIL ADDRESS (OptioneO
ATTORNEY FOR (Name) Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF San Diego
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITYANDZ,P CODE: San Diego, CA 92101

BRANCH NAME Central
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Sandip ( "Mickey") Minhas

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER:
FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 37-2009-00101537
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and te/ephone number of deponent, if known)'
Hall, 313; San biego, CA; Phone: (619) 260-4858
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the following date, time, and place:
Date: May 5, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Address: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP
401 B Street #1000, San Diego, CA 92101
a. F-7 Asa deponent who is not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as
to the matters described in item 4. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)
b. [Fl You are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3.
c. 13E1 This deposition will be recorded stenographically F-7 through the instant visual display of testimony
and by Fl audiotape 1-1-1 videotape.
d. 171 This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d)
2. The pefsonal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the original records are required by this
subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance
with this subpoena.
3. The documents and things to be pr6duced and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows:
1-xi Continued on Attachment 3.

4. If the witness is a r6presentative of a business or Other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined'are described
as follows:
0 Continued on Attachment 4.
6. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographically at the deposition; later they are
trans¢ribed forpossibje use st trial. You may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you sign the deposition. You are entitled
to receive witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money must be paid, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition,
either with service of this subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise, if you are being deposed as an
individual. the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residence or within 150 miles of your residence lithe deposition will be taken within the
county of the court where the action is pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.250.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT Y THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTI M YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued.March 30, 2011

NATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
Emilv J. Fox (SBN 262106) Attorney/ Defendant Cualcomm Incorporated
fTYPE OR PRrNT NAME) (Proof of service on reverse) (TITLE) Page 1 of 2
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE T Code of CM[ Procedure §§ 2020 510
Form Adoptea for Mandatory Use
Judicial Cauricil of Calif*rita 2026220,2025.230,2025.250,2026620,
SUBP-020 [Rev. January 1,2009] AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
SoluitiBns Govomment Code, § 680971
r* HUS
.
SUBP-020
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Courtney Etnyre CASE NUMBER:
37-2009-00101537
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip ( "Mickey" ) Minhas
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE

1. I served this Deposition Subpoena for Persona/ Appearance and Production ofDocuments and Things by personally delivering a
copy to the person served as follows:
a. Person served (name):
b. Address where served:
c. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
e. Witness fees and mileage both ways (check one).

(1) F-7 were paid. Amount:............$ 0.00
(2) were not paid.

(3) FT were tendered to the witness's
public entity employer as
required by Government Code
section 68097.2. The amount
tendered was (specio:........$ 0.00
f. Fee for service: ..................,.. .., 0.00
2. I received this subpoena for service on Mate):
3. Person serving.
a. El Not a registered Califomia process server
b, Fl Califomiasherifformarshal
c El Registered California process server
d. Fl Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server
e. E-1 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b)
f. Fl Registered professional photocopier
g. El Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoing is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Date:
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
SUBP-020 [Rey. January 1, 20091 PROC)FOF SERVICE Pago Z of 2
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCOMENTS AND THINGS
PETmONER/PLAINTIFF: Courtney Etnyre CASE NUMBER:
RESPONDENUDEFENDANT: Sahdip ( "Mickey") Minhas 37-2009-00161537A
Attachment 3
1. All documents sent by plaintiff or her attorneys to Dr. Hunsaker in connectien

matter.
3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in conriection with her retention in this
matter.

8. An updated copy of Dr. Hunsaker' s curriculum vitae.
10. All documents listing the matters in which Pr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
11. All documents ref·lecting any expert testimony, either at deposition or trial,
12. All documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Munsaker within the last
ten years.
13. A copy of all, publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions
So*'
SUBP-025
AT¥6RNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Sfate Bar number. and address) FOR COURT USE ONLY
Michael C. Sullivan (SBN 131817)

-Melissa Listug Klick (SBN 228470)
San Diego, CA 92101
¥ELEPHONENO 619-237-5200 FAX NO. coptional)· 619-61520700
E-MAIL ADDRESS (OptiOna)
ATTORNEY FoR/ame) Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZiP CODE San Diego, CA 92101

BRANCHNAME Central
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER: Courtney Etnyre
37-2009-00101537
DEFENDANTRBESPONDENI: _-Sandip-·("Miqkey" ) .Minhap

NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985.3, 1985.6)
NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
TO (name): Courtney Etnyre

1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT REQUESTING PARTY (name): Qualcomm Incorporated
SEEKS YOUR RECORDS FOR EXAMINATION by the parties to this action on (speci* date). April 19, 2011
The records are described in the subpoena directed to witness (spech> name and address ofperson or entity from whom records
are sought): Johanna Hunsaker
A copy of the subpoena is attached.
2. IF YOU OBJECT to the production of these records, YOU MUSTDO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED.
IN ITEM a. OR b. BELOW:
a. If you are a party to the above-entitled action, you must file a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 to
quash or modify the subpoena and give notice of that motion to the witness and the deposition officer named in the subpoena
at least five days before the date set for production of the records.
b. If you are not a party to this action, you must serve on the requesting party and on the witness, before the date set for
production of the records, a written objection that states the specific grounds on which production of such records should be
prohibited. You may use the form below to object and state the grounds for your objection. You must complete the Proof of
Service on the reverse side indicating whether you personally served or mailed the objection. The objection should not be filed
with the court. WARNING: IF YOUR OBJECTION IS NOT RECEIVED BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED IN ITEM 1, YOUR
RECORDS MAY BE PRODUCED AND MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.
3. YOU OR YOUR ATTORNEY MAY CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED t6 determine whether an agreement can be reached in writing
to cancel or limit the scope of the subpoena. If no such agreement is reached, and if you are not otherwise represented by an
attorney in this action, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE ¥OU OF YOUR RIGHTS OF PRIVACY.
Date: March 30, 2011
Emily J. Fox (SBN 262106)

- -- - 1·11 - r--n ·· ·
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
(SIGN¥TURE OF 1 1 REQUESTING PARTY | X | ATTORNEY)
OBJECTION BY NON-PARTY TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
1. [3] I object to the production of all of my records specified in the subpoena.

2..FEE I object only to the production of the following specified records:
3. The specific grounds for my objection are as follows:
Date:
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE)

(Proof of service on reverse) Page 1 of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory'Use T Am:,1 Code of Civil Procedure,

NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION §§ 19853,19856,
SUBP-026(Rev.
Judjcjal Council of California
Jaay 1.20081 5O12iGS 2020.010-202.510
Cik Phls
..
SUBP-025
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Courtney Etnyre CASE NUMBER
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip ( "MiC]tey") Minhas 37-2009-00101537
PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985.3, 1985.6)
Fl Personal Service [71 Mail
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.
2.1 served a copy of the /Votice to Consumer or Employee and Objection as follows (check e#her a or b):
a. F7 Personal service. I personally delivefed the Notice to Cohsumer or Employee and Objection as follows:
(1) Name of person served. (3) Date served:
(2) Address where served: (4) Time served:
b. f--1 MaIL ldeposited the Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope
with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows:
(1) Name of person served. (3) Date of mailing:
(2) Address: (4) Place of mailing (city and state):
(5) I am a resident of or employed in the county where the Notice to Consumer orEmp/oyee and Objection was mailed.
c. My residence or business address is (specig)
d. My phone number is (speci*).
l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
(TYPE OR PRINT NWE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED)
PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985.3, 1985.6)
f-3 personal Service F-3 Mail
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.
I served a copy of the Objection to Production of Records as follows (complete either a orb):
a. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY
(1) 1-3 Personal service. I personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows:
(i) Name of person served: (iii) Date served:
(ii) Address where served: Ov) Time served:
(2) 7 Mail. l deposited the Objec#on to Production of Records in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows:
(i) Name of person served: (ill) Date of mailing:
(ii) Address: (iv) Place of mailing MAY and state)
(v) I am a resident of or employed in the county whefe the Objection to Production of Records was mailed.
b. ON THE WITNESS
(1) F-1 Personal service. I personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows:
(D Name of person served: (iii) Date served:
(ii) Address where served: (iv) Time sefved:
(2) F1 Mail. I deposited the Objection to Production of Records in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows:
(i) Name of person served: (iii) Date of mailing:
(ii) Address: (iv) Place of mailing (city and state):
(v) lama resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Pmduction of Records was mailed.
3. My residence or business address is (specify)
4. My phone number is (specih)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of tbe State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
(TYPE-OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED)
SUBP-025 [Rev. January 1.20081 - - NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPL6¥EE AND OBJECTION Page 2 of 2
**Sit,· 60.»<4*<egs:,0..Ii+..,c-,89{t,ttf. ]::°.,,t,pz,;,f,,ifirti,.- ,,„. ' j»f-fSf4
4.1.:941,./44 k.st»
-1-, 4.i). *23 *,"b,d lfT ,' , -'-%-· ,#Trf-f' -' , -,r r „.*IT ' , = r"rm
3 f 8, " 045'LS,20 , •
tf P',
,;j«*pz:u>gjjsdiA<4<,912,i,44''AS'13.'*-584'/fs>05.J'&:52' w»5<*1,%.j,%.k''i>8{1415"
*1.44 t, ,,,',<;·
"'" ' f' -2
*R.,5.,r,»
',I:53'Q:,.5,4-'
:C't=tr<,4e. 6
eli,r*3tR»]?Y»::,1*. *33*42{flk{
·b
,1*:,t'f73:'#2>84'4=40=* 4
f>,1 •.rt' 2.'10**51'1£,,HA,':,Ck,%:4'4«>jiF»'51*'<1:1,*4,

' '' "*'*'S«fAji8 364SSY*f<*9
,-' - 7"s;* „' # t.n)}5 i]' '96,,,4 A '664' 4'- 4 Ef>i 4%532(54-*-5.: 4* »420 N.»fit
, 816*3'filf> 9
5 14
N>,4-«i'%4<.VAB P"'fj'K''f i'.t,<19·>%'>-'','i3Afs>f,«38 3'440 r,ZR. : *

U XWS't,f"fs# 31> th: 4
2%. .&., ' -
-
Ik
"
1
T ¢r, I
„
,t«»i..I'f·Sfigt4,:....;
' 2 .4 & 1., 7w
'. '4 V
Amy.,fz·.+ L:,$.:6354.-3jiM'l ' 542--:TS,&w-
15
SP' .'.f' I' tw
U»tzus.<fhz.», 'ft.,rj. 5 42' fW

-
? 1
I . ... . I
r»
-
--:56':*.6111.',-Li€SUE tr
--,.spkt.0 6 2 , 4..< it'2]j<» 7-.s* -..' 4,, „: « 451». f.-1 4: /6 S. -.40.v#'1=. „
-
ff j ' 5.t"*j 6?4:13'SSS*f#&24694**,·ss,

,=S=-C'.:' nex"Pi,Evre: 1. IFFUM#.#*17*8»6* i:f]F»63«55;'62 *-*'Wafk·t,2 . •,
' #4 irr;** '
*Y351)41 <©S >>*]:·'4,'·' ,,3.4,),e.4, ' 1*'44>€Sffr,"Fip/*,'
*Pls#4*424+Wififwk.ser]F'&.:44f,>»S>'5 4e.*
""'.' ...p
:8>'.,i:], r T,<,f ':4:.Sit ,: ,1,,'49J' 81.'", r. ,#445*%4-",»'lk*jk„TFV©* it
f , '4=«'R' 4.r->.
'AZ'.(5.".F*4*.
* .7 /,6. A.* * S1 .1' . 4 i '4 1/*'u
1#.Bil''H
.f'S«18'<-*415= 1.1...,».1.* *,
4,0"4#5*/Wnk*20/$9624A*4 :1478» . 0- + 4*2* 4 1, 4
-'..
»rt
1,
44 *4/r
2}4%
t ) .
. U k
%
# I
Id*A 113* ''4
4, c'*#Th'„f.SY:*(:i'LS#<J*'5*Sfit<LA,fi
-'«,!31,»F'
,{3<SK,9:#%:E YY,':-,1 4,4'.\;'.3': ':., , N"s 4,4".,:.:i.::-wAkES*-*4*
sty*93 Li '4#4,„4f''V,'fk,#,",<5] »)_,6.'4„4'R:22,r'''"'p£,4'.f,35£4,*.'144 -7. - .'* ..P=;f.ktm.*'*f,9
-4141,44, + 4,»
-1?i*, 3 / ,
47:6*34,1.4.2,.'f'$§11>'.48\*S-«.:Lar©S..« 31-Y„1'' f ..ir],2

: LT'*,E;'>,2. 6/,3'. 9-»>8<5353,, '' :
< fit 45,4 & .6
r
,ltr
h
i P
-SW"i.: ,<f.:t,55''28
#,6..'*4 . f 7 &
t*,*smy«,#*{ff{>4'fj,*t:,-:46.:'- S:u:f'*'rpR*S»-%*i/YV,t{'i'·f'·34:*S,k't ,%S,»52<«19%*4*sz*,s- 'Alp .:9*,fe: 1* 21*MILE<CH#9-42*2"' 1,7 -

ir,*ASS; 67&49{' 44
' S , «3.Jk#,4 -"7 ''.4"'f, 4,4 ,.'25-'f :LLS*,r ··•:,j,,41·j kt,r, 2 ..- 1':44*44% 4., .
St{St<r-f,nfts«»113/S]{43..6.:,414:,1...*82.; f i.,S if'xw

". A:,S:,6 404,9)«%:417**%4, R :4:#'# ,+ '* f:',
212:"K.5>*»48'*,1
V
ss<*·A,* ': *)11 %44I ./ % I
I I -6 A
4
*4*
, 4 fl
, E f i,,-fl .4.*
,
. 6
-I.
. f' 147. ** *mi/414yv. :*4 . SAM*V 40. f'*t'tjk,):,4 FA ' r . 4 4, . 4,
... f
IM' 4910.
: &35rSe t' 1
4, 4 :ax :*19 p
willf.*. .*,a*;3.4#Ank..*»yi:::»,
11 .
, 't*%1'19. - 4,2" h.,0

. * *. 1 *.t%1' t** " ,
f 4 1' *'f'1 +U. 1 ..f' 4
40 i '*8. I
6 1 1 4 )# b
t
>t
j *K
.
-
k
$,#b4*149::'is,&2,:,Ii*7*f «5FS"w'* m -" ' , 'W,r•', 1,0 t*»,47,4'& 4 ":89it* 1.',««.1:?t,Krftf
44 4,*4,# tri vt .9·'6. A,
J
,& ,**f, fj,:j {·f»,,8:»4.*..90.-543-*5»4»*«Rsi]

S:' '
'k-'
*51:-*ze *4299/#0/.f·tf-"»-'{54,3*f-tfs:.,4,3 » , 1, , *,52:, +„ , . .< ':<S5f@gs,s.

3
56*Frk-r*'·S.r *,-
m.4*..
f-*Liffils -1 .1 -64*,f.»4
r.:lerpil f,t])„tr :,,it«Sf»Sts«8*,1 1
f'*LE.-4. :"sit,4/10,.32,r' 4444#"44 ,1,,' A· .. ' >. ,1,44ff'ifd»'f') -f *",0"**--16 '' ».),f:, ,;4,* ,#A-t,«11«.4.<114**-M-«iai,"4*
S *f.
. 44**maa<**.3 1 1«,'551
0 4#24i, '*4
--yf-V**.1'
S'ASSE¥» /8, , .Ag, 4 f, tfs''P ro,:f /*'Sfij .i,„ 1·.; <t]Sjkj » 1,041.1, a «-
,-51,1
3-1-1.*4$*:>·Rfi, .»)*,rif:i ,+41' -,tr,· »lt,4. -s# r:¥i- 4·F," 4 fit' 4 4 r#ffs
'P j,,Y,.3.«84 5»,««»34,] -iff,,4
.L.44*<9''.,,,,#,'» fU»"" f/<4 . ':,k " 4 ' *1
',...,t:,5,„f,Rk-1-4'>2»Le»/24,«i«.4,H s'4*,a.:,77,
& #'91.3 ,
»k«,e»fS,"e,Effy' f>S 12,8]t -, 59' , ·6181·2Lk*,4 7,1, , 5-RA,A,'':f . .ML*LM,Byi//*29*4,
«''
"e - 6 i', », : „ 4,-»,>f-
1.
%*>»*»050*441·f'.6
SffS* 4,r"3.:4 0 2>i:>4'8445'f,ers»€42',';.Sfs,fk.,:4,5,5'<i,,.f)'.4., "',1 ,
r -*Yr e, 1 -. 6,
,»;54.,%4 a :''BLI '4 ,+ 9'.6 ;4,-f',,A::44,!94.t{*3'fy*,>t{.C ,SSif,45.Tti'v

4, 1:2 4.:-f: *' '·t i '*;*fA?,i, 13,f'92¢, A,-444%*4*94*»**'2'3;' ' 44* 3*t,;2
044,.,Ii«j,.,f' ,,hoft,>Yfi'21.64.:]kd,1*51=«4 ' 4,#*1*'9 »..,•'1*'51 9.'..#*,p
.1
,»»24*E-{),3,5''ff¢R,*» ' d.·..E. A*.5(%,4-*,st<,rj *4915: 6 ,

11
' fAY
4?*59>.94?,4
e
t&
.e 1-5 l, B
* 0
J,4* I t' , i .'
41
Pr t
*': «144-
4% *,0' ,.''f'"£ 4 $4 5 " N 454''S , «,- " 4 'tr A .4
t t tr
i{*'S„ *wr*No*14
6..M,)*r*tit ''s
&# 4,«-T>4%f,flk) ji 4),9*,Sf«f) f,&%i4*,9.ty,*,'ti'..4, , 4„ .. ·,9. „3 ., * 4)'.,f, Y, .' '.,.'f,4,,I&,,S B :,13 , , 9,4*„,1,4.f#9,#4 I,«,fl,<ft"%/At,1
0 /;, : *' I
.y, 41,'S ' r,
' ' **>ht.4*96 9?4»jji 7,=Cr. e .47 4:
--4, '
_X.1.- 2 - - -

4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE.CTL
11
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED
12 DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HUNSAKER
V. PH.D. AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
13 OF DOCUMENTS (VIA SUBPOENA)
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS,
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through Complaint Filed: November 2, 2009
15 40, inclusive, Trial Date: None Set
16 Defendants.
17
18
TO COURTNEY ETNYRE ANb HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
19
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
20
2025.010 et seq., defendant Qualcomm Incorporated will take the deposition of plaintiffs expert
21
Joharina Hunsaker Ph.D. on May 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan
22
& Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street, Tenth Floor, San Diego, California.
23
The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter who is authorized to
24
administer an oath AND WILL BE VIDEOTAPED. If, for some reason, the deposition is not
25
completed on the above dates, it will be continued on mutually agreeable dates, excluding
26
Sundays and holidays, until completed.
27
Notice is further given that this office has requested a realtime-ready court reporter. If any
28
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN &
NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 1
DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 attorney who is present wishes to be connected to the court reporter's system, it is your obligation
4 court reporter brings adequate cabling and supplies.
5 Dr. Hunsaker is requested to produce the following original documents at his deposition:
8 2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
9 matter.
10 3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
11 matter.
13 to offer in this matter.
14 5. All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr.
i6 6. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and plaintiff.
17 7. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and any
18 member of H. Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation.
19 8. An updated copy ofDr. Hunsaker's curriculum vitae.
22 10. All documents listing the niatters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
27 years.
28 Ill
PAUL«PLEVIN
SULLIVAN &
DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
CONNAUGHTON LLP
13.
1 A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions she
3 Dated: March 30,2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &

CONNA HTON LLP
4
5
BY:
MICH L C. SULLIVAN
6 MELISSA LISTUG KLICK
EMILY J. FOX
7
Qualcomm Incorp6rated
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLE·VIN
SULLIVAN & NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 3
CONNAUGHTON LLP DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
.
SUBP-020
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Bar number, and eddress) FOR COURT USE ONLY
Emily J. Fox (SBN 262106)

401 B Street, 10.th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
TELEPHONE NO· 619-237-5200 FAX NO. /Optiot,80 619-615-0700
E.MAIL ADDRESS (Optionao
ATTORNEY FOR (,Vame) _Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated

MAILING ADDRESS:
CrrYAND ZIPCODE: San Diego, CA 92101

BRANCH NAME·Central
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Sandip ("Mickey") Minhas

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER
FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCEAND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 37-2009-00101537
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known)
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the following date, time,_and place:
Date: May 5,2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Address: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & connaughtopiLLE
_401 B Street #1000, San Diego, CA 92101
a. Fl As a deponent whols not a natural pers6n, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as
to the matters described in item 4. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2025.230.)
b. [53 You are ordered to produce the documents and things described in item 3.
c. 1-YFI This deposition will be recorded stenographically F--1 through the instant visual display of testimony
and b EI] audiotape [13 videotape.
d. EZ] This videotape deposition is Intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d).
2. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the original records are required by'this
subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed suffitient c6mpliance
with this subpoena.
3. The documents and things to be produced and any testing orsampling being sought are described as follows:
[23 Continued on Attachment 3.

4. If the witness is a representative of a businesi or other entity, the ,matters upon which the witness is to be examined are described
as follows:
EZ] Continued on Attachment 4,

5, IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITHTHIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985,6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN
AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE kEQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS.
6. At the deposition, you wilibe asked questions underoath. Questions and.answers arerecorded stenographically at the deposition:laterthey are
transcribed for possibje use at trial You may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you sign the deposiNon. You are entived
to receive witness fees and mileage actualhf traveled both ways. The money must be paid, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition,
either with service of this subpoena oral the time of the deposition Unless the court orders or you agree otherwise, if you are being deposed as an
individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your residenge or within 150 miles of your residence ii the deposition will be taken within the
county of the court where the action M pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents ks governed by Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.250.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE UABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESUL-BEgM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: March 30, 2011 , 9 -ts=j
BNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)
Emilv J. Fox (SBN 262106) Ft tornev' Defendant Oualcomm Inconoorated
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (Proof of service on reverse) (TITLE) _ _ . _ . _ . Page 1 Of.2
Form Aooptell for Mandatory Use Codeof Ci,ii Pocedw,e §5 2020-Siii.
Ju*lat Council or CalWomia DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE T -, - 1 2025.220,2076.230,2025.250,2025 620:
SUBP,020 IRev. Ji nvmy 1.20091 AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS Q..jfNESCU Government Cote, §,68057 1
'1:RAS
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF. Courtney Etnyre CASE NUMBER:
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: Sandip ( "Mickey") Minhas 37-2009-00101537A
Attachment 3

with his retention in this matter,
matter.
3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connecti6n with her retention in this
matter.
5. All documents evidencing payments plainti f f or her attorneys made to Dr. Hunsaker

7. All documents evidencing communications. between Dr. Hunsaker and any member of H.
Paul Kendrick, A Professional Corporation.
8, An updated copy of Dr. Hunsaker's curriculum vitae.
9. All documents evidencing Dr, Hunsaker's qualifications to serve in an expert
ten years.
.
1 Emyre v. Minhas et al.

2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party
4 to this action. I am employed, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego, California, and my
business address is: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street, Tenth Floor, San
5 Diego, California 92101.
6 On March 31, 2011, I caused to be served the following document(s):
7 • NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HUNSAKER

PH.D. AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (VIA SUBPOENA)
8
on the interested party (ies) in this action by placing a true copy thereof and addressed as follows'
9
10 H. Paul Kondrick, a Professional Corporation Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP
12 Facsimile: (619) 291-7123 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-Mail: kondrick@msn.com E-Mail: 1zilberinan(@wpkt.com
13 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Sandip Minhas
14 (By MAIL SERVICE) I then sealed each envelope and, with postage thefeon fully
prepaid postage, I placed each for deposit with United States Postal Service, this same day,
15 at my business address shown above, following ordinary business practices.
16 0 (State) I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
17
(Federal) I declare that I am employed by the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made.
18
Executed March 31, 2011, at Sah Diego, California.

19
046*£ A>.St:
20
21 Deborah Baranowski
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
PROOF OF SERVICE 1
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON. LLP
EXHIBIT I
.
5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
8 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE,
)
9 Plaintiff, )
)
10 VS. ) No. 37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
11 SANDIP("MICKEY") MINHAS, ) AFFIDAVIT OF
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, ) CERTIFIED
12 a Delaware corporation and DOES ) SHORTHAND
1 through 40, inclusive, ) REPORTER

13 ) RE NONAPPEARANCE
Defendants. ) OF WITNESS
14 )
15
16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS
17
I, Jeannette M. Kinikin, CSR 11272, do hereby.
18 declare:
19
That on Wednesday, June 1, 2011, I appeared at
20 401 B Street, Tenth Floor, San Diego, California, for
21
the purpose of administering the oath to and reporting
22
the deposition of JOHANNA HUNSAKER, PH.D. , a witness
23 herein, scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m.;
24
That present were Melissa Listug Klick from, the law
25
firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughten, LLP,
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - 800.697.3210

AFFIDAVIT OF NONAPPEARANCE
1
representing Defendant, Qualcomm Incorporated, and
2 H. Paul Kendrick from the Law Offices of H. Paul
3 Kondrick, representing Plaintiff, Courtney S. Etnyre.
4 At the hour of 9:10 a.m., it being evident that no
5
appearance would be made by JOHANNA HUNSAKER, PH.D., the
6 following proceedings were reported:
MS. LISTUG KLICK:

7
I'm attaching, as Exhibit A, ·a
8
notice of deposition on Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D. for
9 June 1st, at 9:00 a.m. It's 9:10 a.m. on June 1st. It
10
was personally served on May 20th, 2011. And we're
11
simply noting nonappearance of the withess.
MR. KONDRICK:
12
There is no nonappearance, for the
13 record. I think this whole proceeding, Counsel, is a
14
sham proceeding. It' s unfortunate that your office"
15 would relegate itself to such a lowly tactic.
16
Well after 5:00 0'clock last night, I,received
17 notice that this deposition was going to ptoceed. You
18
full well know, there was correspondence between our,
19 offices, written, and telephonic, and e-mail. It goes
20 far beyond this. But April 22, 2011, there were
21 discussions about Dr. Hunsaker's deposition that our
22
office would accept service of the subpoena. Your
23 office full well knew that she' s on sabbatical. You
24
full well knew that she is in Europe at the present
25 time. You full well knew also that we Were not

1 concluded with the deposition of Mary Stewart.
2 Mary Stewart's deposition was essential to the formation
3 of at least a substantial significant part of
4 Dr. Hunsaker's reports. We have yet to even schedule
5 Mary Stewart' s continued deposition when we. proceed in
6 hour-and-a-half segments to complete that deposition.
7 Your office presented me with a stipulation. I
8 fully well understood that there was a stipulation for
9 the expert witnesses to appear after the discovery
10 cutoff date of June 3rd. Your witnesses, Ms. Fuchs
11 Dolan, Dr. Kalish did not appear for their deposition.
12 Our office did not prepare certificates of nonappearance
13 for their depositions because there's a longstanding, I
14 think, good-faith rule between counsel ahd this
15 jurisdiction that.counsel, and particularly in relation
16 to expert witnesses, cooperate, even if the witness
17 depositions proceed after the discovery cutoff date.
18 I'm really taken aback by the conduct of you in
19 particular, Ms. Klick, the conduct of this office that, I
20 would feel that would conduct itself at a higher level
21 than apparently forcing our office to come down here at
22 9:10 to go through a charade of saying that there's a
23 nonappearance by the witness. You full well knew that
24 she was not going to appear today. This is just a
25 setUp. You' re trying to make grounds and a motion - - in

.
1 fact, construct a motion that would give you some type
2 of cause to try to strike at least, in part, her
3 deposition.
4 We were presented with a written stipulation by
5 your associate, Ms. Fox, yesterday at a deposition
6 continuing all or a number of the witness depositi6ns
7 past the discovery cutoff date. Omitted from that
8 stipulation was that 6f Dr. Hunsaker. We got that a
9 little later in the day. I think that may have been
10 attached to your e-mail to me, or faxed last night .after
11 close of business. Your office and you in fact,
12 Counsel, have a habit of sending me communications on
13 Saturday afternoons in relation to a discovery matter.
14 You cah make your face. Just as recently as this past
15 Saturday, May 28th, you were sending me stipulations I
16 think at 1:00 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon, on a holiday
17 weekend, in relation to discovery.
18 There is no deposition, you know that, today.' I
19 don't know why we're going through this other than to
20 waste, my time, run up my -- my client's bill and cbst in
21 this matter. It's unfortunate you've rel'egated yourself
22 to this.
23 There was correspondence as recently as May 24 in
24 relation to this deposition. You've been scheduling
25 depositions of Ms. Fung to be videotaped, and you

AFFIDAVIT OF NONAPPEABANCE
.
1 withdraw it. I don't know what to say.
2
MS. LISTUG KLICK: Well, I respectfully disagree
3
with much of what you just said. I don't think it's
4
productive to discuss it on the record. We have not
5
received a date when Ms -- Dr. Hunsaker is actually
6
available for her deposition, so that is why we are
7
doing this within the discovery cutoff in order to
8
preserve our client's rights.
9 MR. KONDRICK:
When is Mary Stewart gonna appear
10
for a continued deposition so we can conclude that and
11 get that t6 Hunsaker? You know that's the predicate to
12 Hunsaker going forward.
13 MS. LISTUG KLICK:

We,provided you three days when
14
Ms. Stewart was available in early May so that
15
Dr. HunBaker could appear on May 25th. We were not
16
informed that you w6uld not be taking those depos. And
17
so, after repeated calls, we were finally told, no,
18
they're not going to go forward. And so that was our
13
understanding, that you did not need those further
20 sessions.
21 MR. KONDRICK: Counsel --
22 MS. LISTUG KLICK: If you want to talk about
23
Ms. Stewart, I was unaware that there was an open
24
question as to Ms. Stewart at this time. And I don't
25
believe that Ms. Stewart has, at this time, another
5

.
1 scheduled deposition session.
2 MR. KONDRICK:
Counsel, we just deposed
3 Mary Stewart on May 23rd. It was resumed at that point
4 in time.
It was terminated early again because of her
5
medical condition. I don't know what games are being
6
played here, Counsel, but it's not --'you know, it's --
7
maybe this is the way you practice law, Melissa. I just
8 don't understand it. When is Mary Stewart going to
9
appear for her continued dep6sition?
MS. LISTUG KLICK:

10
I wasn't -- if you have an issue
11 with needing to take Mary. Stewart's deposition for more
12
time, you need to provide us a date when you might be
13 available for that.
14 MR. KONDRICK: No, Counsel. There is an issue as
15 to her availability. It's an issue of all counsel's
16 availability. That's the issue.
17 MS. LISTUG KLICK: No. We are available: We've
18 been available, next week and the following week. We've
19 provided lots of dates when we're available. We will
20 make ourselves available: I've not received dates from
21 you, and so I don't think that it's particularly
22 fruitful to talk about this on the record. I -- if you
23 have an issue with Mary Stewart, if you have -- you
24
know, we're happy -- discovery closes on Friday. So if
25
you want to talk ab6ut Mary Stewart and any issue

.
1
regarding a witness such as Mary Stewart, we'd be happy
2
to db that. If you could either lay out, in a letter or
3
an e-mail, what the issue is and what you want to do
4 about it.
MR. KONDRICK:
5
Counsel, I'd love to put letters out
6 to yoU.
7 MS. LISTUG KLICK: Or an e-mail.
8
MR. KONDRICK: You keep writing letters to me. And
9
I can't write letters when I'm in your depositions down
10 here in your office. We have advanced trial review
11
orders and j6iht trial readiness conference reports I'm
12 trying to put together. I wa trying to get that @6ne
13
today. To get- your e-mail after the close of business
14
last night, well after 5:00 0'clock, I get an e-mail
15
from you that you're going forward with this deposition,
16
that's a game, Counsel, and I would be working on other
17 matters. I can't write letters when I'm in this
18
deposition er other depositions in this case. We have a
19 tight depositi6n schedule.
20
Afid, right now, I'm in a position right how because
21
6f, in fact, the antics of today, to bring a motion to
22 the Court. And I'll indicate in. the trial readine·ss
23
conference report that this case is not ready for trial
24
in fact because of the noncooperation of counsel in
25
relation to making witnesses available.

1 Mary Stewart, we notic'ed her deposition, I think it
2 was November 2010. And we still have -- she never
3
presented herself until what? March of this year, maybe
4 April. Thank you.
5 MS. LISTUG KLICK:

Again, I respectfully disagree,
6 but I think we should go off the record.
7 MR. KONDRICK:
And, Counsel, I think that if you --
8 I thought we were meeting and conferring in relation to
9 rescheduling the depositions of Kalish, Fuchs Dolan, add
10 even Gene Konrad.
11
You know, we understand that Dr. Hunsaker is going
12 to be coming back sometime on or about June 15th.
13 Unf6rtunately, since then, I've gotten a trial notice or
14 a notice of oral argument in a court of appeal on
15 June 15th, and then that leaves us the 16th or 17th.
16 And that's the scheduling issue, and that's why you meet
17 and confer. That's not why you go on the record and do
18 certificates of nonappearance. You knew that this
19
witness, Dr. Hunsaker, was not going to appear today.
20 So then I have to ask you, Counsel, why are we going
21 through this charade of a certificate of nonappearance
22
when you knew that she was not going to appear?
23
MS. LISTUG KLICK: As I've stated previously --
24
well, I haven't stated this on the record, but since
25 March gth, 2011, we have attempted to obtain
HUTCHINGS COURT REP6RTERS, LLC - 800.697.3210

AFFIDAVIT 6F NONAPPEARANCE
.
1
Dr. Hunsaker's testimony in this matter. Discovery
2 closea on Friday. Therefore, we are trying to preserve
3 our client's rights.
4
We have given y6u dates on Dr. Kalish and Ms. Fuchs
5
Dolan, and we have not heard back from you on those
6 dates or been given alternate dates. We'd be happy to
7 m6et and confer with you if you provide us with
8 alternate dates or let us know that the dates that we
9 provided are acceptable.
10 MR. KONDRICK:
Are you in agreemeht, Counsel, that
11 in relation to Fuchs Dolan, Dr. Kalish, and
12 Dr. Hunsaker, that those are depositions that are to be
13 scheduled after the discovery cutoff date? I thought
14 you had a stipulation, Counsel. You sent us a
15 stipulation to that effect yesterday. You sent us two
16 stipul ations.
17 MS. LISTUG KLICK: Yes.
18 MR. KONDRICK: One for Fuchs Dolan, and Kalish, and
19 a number of 6ther witnesses, and theh you sent us a
20 later stipulation with regard to Dr. Hunsaker and Kalish
21
in relation to how their depositiens are treated for
22 purposes of, for instance, motions ih limine. And the
23
stipulation was for their depositions to proceed after
24 the discovery cutoff date. Ar* yeu not proceeding with
25 that.stipulation now?

.
1 MS. LISTUG KLICK: If you want to sign the
2
stipulation, then we will have an agreement. If you
3
don't want to sign the stipulation, we may not have ah
4 agreement. If there is a change you want to make to the
5 stipulation, I would be happy to discuss it off the
6 record.
7 MR. KONbRICK: Well, Counsel, you sent me that
8 stipulation. I thought that was the agreement.
9 MS. LISTUG KLICK: If --
10 MR. KONDRICK: I sent -- I thought I sent your
11 office -- I talked to Mr. Sullivan from your office, and
12
in relation to earlier stipulations extending the
13
discovery past the discovery cutoff date, some· hames
14 were omitted. So I sent back to y6ur office an
15 indic,ation that certain depositions would be continued
16 to a mutually available or agreeable date.
MS. LISTUG KLICK:

17
Right. And we made that change,
18 and we have signed that stipulation. But I did s6nd you
19
the other stipulation again yesterday; based on your
20 changes, regarding Dr. Hunsaker and Dr. Kalish and the
21
motion in limine issue, and if -- if it's acceptable to
22
you, I am proposing that stipulation based upon what I
23
understood. But until it's signed, we don't have an
24
agreement because apparently there's something you don't
25 agree about it.
10
HUTCHINGS COURT REP6RTERS, LLC - 800.697.3216

.
1 MR. KONDRICK: That's correct. Counsel, I just got
2 the stipulations yesterday. I was in depositions all
3 day yesterday. You weren't there. You sent other
4
associates from your office to go there. I can't be in
5 tw6 places at one time.
6
I signed and returned one stipulation in reliance,
7
in reliance, Counsel, on there being a stipulation in
8 relation to Dr. Hunsaker based on a representation of
9 Emily Fox from your office. If you're not going to
10
proceed on that same basis with regard to Hunsaker, then
11 we have no stipulations. So -- you know, and we would
12 withdraw from the earlier stipulations. So you have to
13
make your mind up, Counsel, as to how you're playing.
14 Apparently, there's a gamesmanship being played on the
15 part of your office, and I'm just putting you on notice,
16 at this point in time, I thought we had a stipulation in
17 relation to experts, in particular, going past the
18
discovery cutoff date, and now we're here on June 1st t6
19
do a certificate of nonappearance, and that's --
20 that's -- you knew, that's improper.
21 MS. LISTUG KLICK: We have -- we will -- it's been
22 our position that we will only agree to take
23
Dr. Hunsaker's deposition after the discovery cut6ff if
24 we can get a stipulation regatding a motion in limine.
25 That is a condition for us agreeing to take that
11
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - 800.697,3210

AFFIDAVIT OF *6NAPPEARANCE
.
1
deposition after the discovery cutoff. We will be happy
2
to da so if we have that stipulation, which is why we
3 provided that stipulation to you. It is our
4 understanding that you would like to take other
5
depositiens after discovery cutoff, and so we have
6
agreed to that, and We put that in a stipulation, which
7
I understand to be sighed. If you --
8 MR. KONDRICK: Counsel --
9 MS. LISTUG KLICK:

If you have -- we.sent you the
10
other stipulatieh last week, so if -- initially, and
11 then we got a comment back from you. So we added a
12 paragraph on Dr. Kalish. If you have a change to the
13 stipulation, take a look at it, let me know. I'd be
14 happy to talk to you about it.
15 MR. KONDRICK: C6unsel, I entered into what at
16 least was a verbal agreement or understanding in
17
principle with a partner in your firm, Mr. Sullivan. As
18
a result, you, Counsel, sent my office some draft
19 $tipulations. Multiple draft stipulations I might add.
20 And some of those were sent Saturday the 28th, that I
21
didn't see uhtil yesterday, the 3 lst, in the morning.
2'2
So I'm trying to ge as quickly as I can. The issue is
23
net -- I'm just saying, you're sending me things on
24
weekends, you're sending me correspondence and notices
25 after the close of business.

Please stop it, numbet
12
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORYERS, LLC - 800.697.3210

.
1
one. Number two, don't play this game. of scheduling
2
certificate of nonappearances when you know the witness
3 isn't going to appear. Dr. Hunsaker is in Europe. You
4 full well knew she was on a sabbatical. You full well
5 knew that Mary Stewart's deposition would need to be
6 taken and concluded. We took the most recent session on
7 April 23rd. I don't think her deposition transcript,
8
even oh an expedited basis, is done yet from last
9 Monday's deposition. There are a lot of issues here.
10
I'm just telling you right new and putting you on
11
notice that in relation to -- I'm taking from today's
12
date, this morning, a very different position with you.
13
And one of the reasons I -- I don't feel that you and I
14
have good communications, Counsel, because you practice
15 law much differently than I do. You sit behind a
16 computer, generating letter after letter, self-serving
17 letters. You sent out letters suggesting that there are
18 confirmations of agreements that don't exist that we
19 didn't agree on.
20
And I talked to your partner, or partner.in this
21
firm, Mr. Sullivan, and we come to an understanding on
22
certain matters, and I get a stipul'ation from you» that
23 either it is or is hot in conformance with that. And
24 I'm getting a little tired of it. I don't have anymore
25
time for your gamesmanship out ef this office. I would
13

.
1
ask you to act in a more reas6nable and good-faith
2 manner and stop wasting my time, stop wasting the
3 expense of the parties in this case so far, to make
4
certificates of nonappearance for instance-for today.
5 MS. LISTUG KLICK: Please do not impugn my
6
reputation as none of that -- the insinuation in that is
7
completely inaccurate. But that's your prerogative.
8 MR. KONDRICK: I didn't make an impugnment of your
9 reputation, Counsel. I made a statement of fact. And,
10
Counselor, if you're not sending me stipulations or
11
letters c6nfirming agreements that we never entered
12 into, I'd like to hear you say you didn't do that.
13
MS. LISTUG KLICK: I have never sent you a lettur
14
on an agreement that it was not my understanding we had
15 entered into.
16 MR. KONDRICK: Okay.
17 MS. LISTUG KLICK: I would not do that.
18 MR. KONDRICK: Okay. I take exception wi.th that
19 and that's -- Counsel, you're sending me three or four
20 letters a day. One, pick up a phone, confer.
21
MS. LISTUG KLICK: We have conferred fer many
22
hours. .And just as this notice of nonappearance, we are
23
unable generally to come to anything productive and
24
actually schedule things, the almost 40 depositions that
25
you wanted to take in this case, and the vast extensive
14

.
1
litigation that have been done in this case. And so we
2
have conferred for hours and hours throughout the .last
3 year-and-a=half, And we have also tried to communicate
4
to resolve issues, to provide withesaes, to give you
5
dates, even though we don't get them, to schedule what
6
you need, to get you the information that yeu want. We
7
have done that at every turn.
8 I have nothing further.
9
(Whereupon the document referred to is marked by
10
the reporter as Defense Exhibit A for identification.)
11
(The proceedings c6ncluded at 9:24 a.m.)
12 ***
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15

.
3 I, Jeanhette Kinikin, CSR 11272, do hereby declare:
5 That the above foregoing fifteen
6
C 15 ) pages contain a full, true and correct
7 transcription of the proceedings.
11
14 and correct.
15
16 WITNESS my hand this 8th day of
17 June / 2011
18
,/1- 2- c» 1r
19
20
*< J nnette Ki-nikin, CSR 11272

21 (
/- CpuRT * 4
22
ES 44 f \.&76
23
5 6 ! TRANSCRIPT
24
E Y E CERTIFICATION
.P.
:AS
jr 8
1,4 %.0
0.• A S
25
"'0 SEAL ,
16
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVI CES

800.697.3210
0
EXHIBIT
A
\
.
1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN.131817)

3 401 B Street Tenth Floor '
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
Plaintiff
SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA
V.
HUNSAKER PH.D. AND REQUEST FOR
13 PRODUCTION OF DOCIJMENTS (VIA
SANDIP ("MICKEY'I) M[NHAS, SUBPOENA)
15 40, inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
16 Defehdants.
17
18
19 TO COURINEY ETNYRE AND HERATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20 PT F.ASE·TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section

21 2025.010 et seq., defendant Qualcomm Incorporated will take thedeposition of plaintifrs expert
22 Johanna Hunsaker Ph.D. on June 1,2011 at 9:00 a.m. atthe law offices ofPaul, Plevin, Sullivan '
23 & Connmighton T.LP, 401 B Street Tenth Floor, San Diego, California
24 The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter who is authorized to
25 administer an oath AND WILL BE VIDEOTAPED. If, forsomereason, the·depositionis not
26 completed on the above dates, it will be continued on mutually agreeable dates, excluding
27 Sundays and holidays, until completed.
28 Notice is further given that this office has requested a realtime-ready court reporter, If any
2ND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING 1 -- - -
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUORTON up
EXHIBrr _ A
WITNESS HUMS'AKER
! DATE 6-1- U
REPORTER K/AssK/D
r
1
attorney who is present wishes to be connected to the court reporter's system, it is your obligation
2
to contact Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC at 800-697-3210 to make arrangements for their
3
technical suppoyt personnel to contact you regarding your software needs and to ensure that the
4 ' court reporter brings adequate cabling and supplies.
5
Dr. Hunsaker is requested to produce the following original documents at his deposition:
6
1. All documents sent by plaintiff or her attorneys to Dr. Hunsaker in connection with
8
9 n,Atter
3.
10
All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retendon in this
11 m atter.
12
4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions she intends .
14
5. AIl documents evidencing payments plaintifTor her attorneys made to Dr.
15 Hunsaker fbr her services in this matter.
16
]7
7, All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and any
18 member of H. Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation
20
22
24
11. All documents reflecting any expert testimony, either at deposition or trial, which
26
12. Al] documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the last ten
27 Ye ars.
28 111
PAUL PLEVIN
SULL;VAN & 2ND AMENDED NOTICE OFTAKING 2

COMNAUGHTON U, VIDEOTAPED DEPO HUNSAKER
.
3 Dated: May 20,2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SUILWAN &

4 CO55HT0N Up
5
AL------ C. SULLIVAN
6 MELIS SA LISTUCKLICK
EM[LY J. FOX
7
Attorneys f6r Defendant
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
2ND AMENDED NOTICE OFTAKING 3
SULLIVAN &
V IDEOTAPED DEPO HUNSAKER
CONNAUOHTON LLP
,
1. Etnyre v. Minhas et al.

San·Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2009-00101537
2
PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

3
I, the ,mdersigned, certify and declare that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age
4 of eighteen, employed in the County of San Diego, State of California, and not a party to the
5 ..
6
within-entitled action. My business address is P.O. Box 12037, San Diego, California, 92101.
On May 20, 2011, I served a true copy ofthe within:
7
• SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED

DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HIJNSAKER MI.D. AND REQUEST FOR
9 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (VIA SUBPOENA)
10
.by debvenng for personal service to the following:
11
H Paul Kondrick Leonid M. Zilberman
12 H. Paul Kondrick, a Professional Corporation Wilson TOmer Kosmo LLP
3130 Fourth Avenue .
550 West C Street, Suite 1050
13 San Diego, CA 92103 ' San Diego, CA 92101-3532
Telephone: (619) 291-2400
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
14 Facsimile: (619) 291-7123 · Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-Mail: kendrick(@msn. com . E-Mail: Izilbermanawskt.com
15 Attorney for Plaihtiff Attorneys for Defeitdant Sandip Minhas
. 16
Place of delivery is San Diego, California. Executed this 20th day of May2011, at San
17 Diego, California
18 I.hereby certify that I am employed by Accutech Messenger Service, San Diego,

19 California, at whose direction the personal service was made.
20
21
22 1CUTECH MESSGER
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVlN
SULLIVAN & PROOF OF SERVICE 1
DONNAUGHTON 4p
.

4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED
12 DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HUNSAKER
V. PH.D. AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
13 OF DOCUMENTS (VIA SUBPOENA)
SANDLP ("MICKEY") MINHAS,
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through Complaint Filed: Novembef 2,2009
15 40, inclusive, Trial Date: None Set
16 Defendants.
17
18
TO COURTNEY ETNYRE AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
19
PLEASETAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
20
2025.010 et seq., defendant Qualcomm Incorporated will take the deposition of plaintiff's expert
21
Johanna Hunsaker Ph.D. on May 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan
22
& Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street Tenth Floor, San Diego, California.
23
The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter who is authorized to
24
administer an oath AND WILL BE VIDEOTAPED. If, for some reason, the deposition is not
25
completed on the above dates, it will be continued on mutually agreeable dates, excluding
26
Sundays and holidays, until completed.
27
Notice is further given that this office has requesteda realtime-ready court reporter. If any
28
PAUL PLEVIN
DEPOSmON OF GENE R. KONRAD
CONNAUGHTON LLP
1 attorney who is present wishes to be connected to the court reporter's system, it is your obligation
4 couft repofter brings adequate cabling and supplies.
5 Dr. Hunsaker is requested to produce the following original documents at his deposition:
4
8 2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in conhection with her retention in this
9 nnatter.
10 3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
11 matter.
14 5. All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr.
16 6. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and plaintiff.
17 7. All documents evid¢ncing communications between Df. Hunsaker and any
18 member ofH. Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation.
22 10. All documents listing the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
27 years.
28 m
PAUL PLEYIN
DEPOSIHON OF GENE R. KONRAD
CONNAUGHTON LLP
2 intends to 6ffer in this matter.
3 Dated: March 30,2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &

CONNA»UQHTON LLP
4
5 By: 1 1
MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN
6 MELISSA LISTUG KLICK
EMILY J. FOX
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLE·VIN
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
EXHIBIT J
Maw 27 2011 11:44AM H UL KONDRICK RPC 6197123 P.2
3I
4
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALiFORNIA

81
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
9
10 COURTNEY S. ET'NYRE CASE NO. 37-2009400101537-CU-OE-CTL
11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER

TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF
12 V, JOHANNA HUNSAKER AFTER THE
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE
13 SANDIP C'MICKEY'D MINHAS,

14 Delaware conporation and·DOES 1 through Dept: 70
40, inclusive, Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
15 Complaint Filed: November 2,2009 .
Defendants. Trial Date: June 24,2011 4
0
16
17
18
The parties by and through their respective sel, Melissa Listug Klick on behalf of
19
defendant Qualcomm Incorp6fated, Paul Ko 'ck on behalf of plaintiff Couftney'Etnyre and
20
Leonid M. Zilberman on behalf of De dant Sandip Minhas hereby stipulate as follows:
21
Perthe Court's Decemb 7, 2010 minute orde, the disc.oveiy cut off date is June 3,2011.
22
Johanna Munsaker, pl ' s expert, has been generally imavailable fot deposition due to
23
scheduling constrain . Therefore, the parties stipulate that Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated
24
may take the deposition of Johanna Hunsaker after the discovery cut-offon the first date when she
25
is available and prepmed to testify and counsel for Qualcomm is available. Qualcomm has agreed
26
to take the deposition of Plaintiff Courtney Etnyre's expert Johanna Hunsaker after the discovery
27
cut-offbecausesheis notavallableto testifybefore June 13,2011. However, thelate nature of
28
I
: Stipulation And [Proposed} Order to Take the
i Deposition ofHunsaker after Discovery Cut.off
Mau 27 2011 11:44AM H UL KONDRICK APC 6197123 P.3
1 this discovery would prevent Qualcomm from filing a motion to exclude her testimony, if.
2 appropriate. Therefore, the parties stipulate that Qualcomm may file a motion in limine 7 days
3 after the completion ofher deposition and such motion will be considered timely by the Court.
4 This is a condition to Qualcomm entering into this stipulation.
5 SO STIPULATED.
6
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &
Dated: May , 2011 CONNAUGHTON LLP
7
9
By;
10 MICHART. C. SUILIVAN
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK
12
I3 Dated:. May -, 2011 H. PAUL KONDRICK, A PROFESSIONAL

CORPORATION
14
15
16 BY:
H. PAUL KONDRICK
r7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Courtney Etnyre
18
19
Dated: May-2011 WILSON TURNER KOSMO UP
20
21
22 BY:
LEONID M. ZILBERMAN
San(tip Minhas
24
25
26
27
28
2
Stipulation And [Proposed] Order to Take the
Deposition of Hunsaker after Discovery Cut-off
i,ati d ' ZU 11 11 : 4bHM H UL KOMDRICK APC 61517123 P.4
.1 1
2
9
10
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
11
COURTNEY S. ElNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OBCTL
12 1
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TAKE THE
13
DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA HUNSAKER
V.
AFTER THE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF
DATES
14
SANDIP C 'MICKEY") MINHAS,
; Delaware corporation and DOES 1 throngh
16 ' 40, inclusive, Dept: 70
17 Defendants. Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
Trial Date: June 24,2011
18
19
20
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the deposition of Johanna Hunsaker may be completed
21
after the June 3, 2011 discovery cut-offas specified in the parties stipulation. Further, Qualcomm ·
22
Incorporated may timely file a m6tion in limine regarding Dr. Hunasaker's testimony, if
23
appropriate, by filing such within seven days of the completion ofher deposition.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26 Dated:
HONORABLE RANDA TRAPP
27
28
Stipulation And [Prop6sed] Order to Takethe 3

Deposition of Hunsaker aftcr Discovery Cut-off
May 27 2.011 11:46RM HUL KOMDRICK RPC, 61917123 P.5
1.

8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9
10 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL

TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS AFTER THE
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE
12 V.
13 L SANDIP {'*MICKEY") MR'fHAS,

individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Dept: 70
14 Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through Judge; Honorable Randa Trapp
40, inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
15
Trial Date: June 24,2011
Defendants.
16
6
17
18 The parties by and through their respective counsel, Mefissa Listug Kliok on behalf of
19 defendant Qualcomm Incorporated, Paul Kendrick on behalfof plaintiff Courtney Emyreand
20 Leonid M. Zilberman on behalf of Defendant.Sandip Minhas hereby stipulate as follows:
21 Perthe Court's December 7,2010 minute order, the discovery cut off dateis June 3,2011.
22 The parties have diligently tried to schedule depositions before the discovery cut off date. Due to
23 the number ofdepositions being taken and witness and counsel availability, the following
24 depositions are not able to be completed before the discovery cutoff. Therefore the parties have
25 agreed to complete the following depositions as noted:
26 1. Buradspooje-lwex rs*v*4 ,- w p i <1,4 4 iA ; )A J 4 - M *9344 0 1
27
2. Laura Fuchs Dolan - *S;g,2911219iDa.m.; ,&74* ,0 4 L £
28 3. Mark Kalisk-JLme,2>at 1:OOP.m.; stid
... ' -
fl 4& 1 1
Stifiulation And [Proposed] 0;er To Take
Depositions After Discovery Cut-Off
1
Maw 27 2011 11:47AM H UL KONDRICK APC 61917123 p.6
1 DeeAnn Wong-June 10.20ll at2:OO P.m.

2 /The parties hereby stipulate that the above depositions may be taken and completed after
3.40 discovery cut off date.
.
,/4 SO STIPULATED.
5
PAUL, PLBVIN, SULLIVAN &
Dated: May . 2011
6 CONNAUGHTON up
-1-, 1 \- lj\,4 44.1. BY:_

9
MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN
11
12 Dated: May , 2011· H. PAUL KONDRICK, A PROFESSIONAL

CORPORATION
13
14
15 BY:
H. PAUL KONDRICK
16 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Courtney Etnyre
17
1
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
Dated; May , 2011
1
2 BY:
LEONID M. Z[[BERMAN,
Sandip Minhas
0
2
Stipulation And [Proposed] Order To Take
May 27 2011 11:48AM HUL KONDRICK APC 611,17123 P.7
7,
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THB STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
11
CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE,
12
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TAKE
13
DEPOSITIONS AFTER THE DISCOVERY
CUT-OFF DATES
V..
14
SANDIP C'MICKEY") MINHAS,
70
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through Dept:
16 40, inclusive, Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
17 Defendants. Trial Date: June 24,2011
18
19
20 Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the depositions of De©Ann Wong, Mark Kalish, Laura
21 Fuchs Dolan and Thomas Rouse may be completed after the June 3,2011 discovery cut offas
specified in the parties' stipulation.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
K'/
1
Dated.
2 HONORABLE RANDA TRAPP
3
Stipulation And Iproposedl Order To Take
May 27 2011 11:48AM HUL KONDRICK RPC 81 17123 P.8
4'
7
8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9
10 COURTNEY S. EINYRE CASE NO. 374009-00101537-CU-OE-CIL

REGARDING THE AUTHENTICITY OF
MARRIOTT RECORDS
12 V.
13 SANDIP ('*MICKEY'D MINHAS,

individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Dept: 70
14 Delaware corporation ana DOES 1 through Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp

40, inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
Trial Date: June 24, 2011
15
Defendants.
16
17
The parties by and through their respective counsel, Melissa Listug Kliek on behalf of
18
defendant Qualcomm Incorporated, Paul Kendrick on behalf of plaintiff Courtney Etnyre and
19
Leonid M. Zilberman on behalfof Ddfendant Sandip Minhas bereby stipulate as follows:
20
The records received from the Marriott (Marriott-Bridgewater 1-18 and Marriott-Marquis
21
1-18) are authentic and may be admitted into evidence in the trial of the above-captioned matter.
22
without objection as to authenticity or lack offoundation.
23
SO STIPULATED.
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation re Marriott
May 27 2011 11:49AM HUL KONDRICK RPC 61 17123 P.9
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &

1 Dated: May - 2010 CONNAUGHTON LLP
BY:
4
MICHAEL C. SULUVAN
5
6
7
Dated: May 77.2010 H. PAUL KONDRICK, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
8
10
BY:
4 8,4
H/PAUL KONDRICK -
11
Attorneys for Plaindff
12
Courtney Ettlyre
WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP

13 Dated: May . . 2010
14
15
BY:
LEONID M. ZILBERMAN
16
17 Sandip Minhas
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Stipulstion re Marriott
May 27 2011 11: SORM HUL KONDRICK RPC 61 17123 p. 10
9
10
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO · ,
11
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-Crt«
12
Plaintiff, IPROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING THE
AUTHENTICITY OF MARRIOTT
13
V.
RECORDS
14
SANDIP eMICKEY") MINHAS,
Delaware go*omtion and DOES 1 thrdugh Dept: 70
16 40, inclusive, Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp

17 Defendants. Trial Date: June 24,2011
18
19
20 Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the records received· from the Marriott (Mariott-
21 Bridgewater 1-18 and Marriott-Marquis 1-18) are authentic and may be admitted into evidence in
22 the trial ofthe above-captioned matter without objection as to authenticity or lack of foundation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
25 HONORABLE RANDA TRAPP
26
27
28
3
Stipulation re Marriott
May 27 2011 11:44AM HUL KONDRICK RPC el.17123 p.1
H. Paul Kondrick
A Professional Corporation
3130 Fourth Avenue
Facsimile Transmittal
-- ·· ·ir
TO: Michael G. Sullivan; Esq. From: H. Paul Kendrick Esq.
Company: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan, etc. Date: May 27, 2011
Fax Number: 619-615-0700 Total No. Pages incluiling Cover: 10

Phone Number: 619437-5200 Sender' s Phone Number 619491-2400
Re:Emy*e v. QUALCOMA£ Inc&Atinhay Sender's Fax Number 619-291-7123
<MGENT O FORYOUKINVO*MATIONAND FILES OPLEASEREPLY YOURREQUEST

'... .. 1
Attached areintedineated stips per our
CONFIDENTIAL nANSMISSION
This message is int:snded mly for the use offhe individual or mtilyto which it is addressed, and may contain inImation that is
coofidmitamidpivilegmd«gait,stdisclosi,re md=Fplicable law. Effhereadcrofthls*nes=Stisnotthe inlmdodrea*ic,Xy&
areher©bynotiSed thatnnydissemiijaioo.dist,ibutionorcopying ofthis communicationiss;triddyprobibited. Ifyouhaverwoived
mis c,nymmlicstion in error. plense immedisEely notil by telephono md destroy the Stcsimile sent to youinerrer. Thank you
EXHIBIT K
Page l of 1
.
Melissa Listug Klick
From: Melissa Listug Klick

Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 1:08 PM
To: 'Paul Kondrick'
CC: Mike Sullivan; Lonny Zilberman; 'Wilson Claudette G.'

Subject: Etnyre v. Minhas et al. Deposition Stipulation
Attachments: Stipulation re depositionsFINAL.doc

Paul,
I incofporated your changes into the deposition stipulation that is attached. Please sign and send backto
my office for filing next week. As you know, we need to get this filed as soon as possible. Although you
wanted me to change the dates in the stipulation to a "mutually agreeable" date, below are proposed
dates for MS. Dolan and Dr. Kalish. Please confirm these dates as soon as possible. If these dates do
not work for you, then please provide alternate dates. Also, I think we need to discuss the Hunsaker
stipulation as I did not understand your note. As to Dr. Hunsaker, could you please provide us with a date
when she will be prepared and available to testify? Thank you.
Melissa
Laura Fuchs Dolan -June 8,2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Dr. Kalish -June 8, 15, or 16,2011 at 1:OOP.m.
Melissa Listug Klick I Direct: 619.243.1561
Paul, Plevin,
fpal
Sullivan &
Connaughton LLP
401 B Street, Tenth Floor

1,
San Diego, CA 92101
T: 619.237.5200 1 F: 619.615.0700
www.Daulolevin.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact admin@Daulplevin.com
6/23/2011
EXHIBIT L
..
P
401 B SIREEL TENTIi FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PAUL, PLEVIN,
PHONE 619,237·5200 |.FAX 619·615·0700 | WWWPAI.!I.Pl.E\'IK COM
SE SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (619)243-1561 mklick@paulplevin.com
March 4, 2011
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
Re: Etnyre v. Qualcomm incorporated
Dear Mr. Kondrick:
As I mentioned earlier this week, we had reason to believe that Mary Stewart's
medical condition is such that her provider does not believe she can participate jn a
deposition until mid-April 2011 due to her drug therapy and physical condition. Today
we received confirmation from Ms. Stewart that this is the case and that she is
underg6ing treatment in March.
Therefore, she is available for half days during the weeks of April 18 and 22, 2011.
Again, we can block out a three-hour time period for the deposition, but she may need
briefand frequent breaks. Please let us know what dates you are available during
those weeks, how many dates you will need, and we will schedule her deposition.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

& Connaughton up
, 84: \l ../ l j
Jrbhsastug Klick
cc: 1edhid M. Zilberman
Page 1 of 1
.

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:58 AM
To: 'Paul Kondrick'
Cc: Lonny Zilberman; Mike Sullivan; Deborah Baranowski

Subject QC/Etnyfe - Mary Stewart
Paul,
As we discussed yesterday, we confirmed that Mary Stewart is avajlable for her deposition on April 14th
in the a. m. and Apfil 18th in the a.m. from 9:00 to 12:00. Please send a revised notice to confirm these
times as well. Thank you.
Melissa
Melissa Listug Klick 1 Direct: 619.243.1561
Paul, Plevin,
P Sullivan &
Connaughton LLP
,) r«.. ' 401 B Street, Tenth Floof
San Diego, CA 92101
T: 619.237.5200 1 F: 619.615.0700
www.DauIDIevin.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have received«
this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact admin@gaulolevin.com
6/24/2011
Page 1 of 2
. .
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:31 PM

To: 'Paul Kondrick'
CC: Lonny Zilberman
Subject: QC/Etnyre - Mary Stewart - Kondrick Reply
Paul,
As we have previously indicated, Ms. Stewart witi need to take frequent, short
breaks and each session will need to be set for three hours or less. Ifthis changes
as the dates approach, we will let you know. Ifyou are not available on the dates
we have offered, please let me know what dates you propose in April to take Ms.
Stewart's deposition. I had understood fromour callyesterday thatthese were the
first available dates you had in April and apologize for any misunderstanding.
We will make every attempt to make the dates that you provide work, but it will be
easier to do so if we have some advance notice. Thank you.
Melissa
Melissa Listug Klick \Direct: 619.243.1561
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact
admin@Daulgievin.com
From: Paul Kondrick [mailto:kondrick@msn.com]

To: Melissa Listug Klick
Cc: Lonny Zilberman
Subject: Re: QC/Etnyre - Mary Stewart - Kondrick Reply
Ms. Klick,
Insofar as Ms. Stewart, kindly apprise our omce of the continued

accommodations necessary in planning for Ms. Stewart's deposition. Your
proposed dates likely will not work because plaintijfwill most likely be
proceeding with other depositions at or about the dates you reference. In
addition, depending on the needed accommodations, we want to assure that
su#icient time is set aside, or planned for, & our preference is that there be no
more than 1-day between her deposition sessions. I think that will lend itself
better to a more e#icient deposition.
6/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
.
-Paul Kondrick
-- Original Message--
From: Melissa Listucl Klick
To: Paul Kbndrick
Cc: Lonnv Zilberman ; Mike Sullivan ; Deborah Baranowski
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:57 AM
Subject: QC/Etnyre - Mary Stewart
Paul,
As we discussed yesterday, we confirmed that Mary Stewart is available for her deposition on April
14th in the a.m. and April 18th in the a.m. from 9:00 to 12:00. Please send a revised notice to confirm
these times as well. Thank you.
Melissa
Melissa Listug Klick \Direct. 619.243.1561
Paul, Plevin,
Th Sullivan &
71-7 Connaughton LLP
D/«h 401 8 Stfeet, Tenth Floor
l * San Diego, CA 92101
»" T: 619.237.5200 1 F: 619.615.0700
www.Daulblevin.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact
admin@gaulplevin.com
6/24/2011
Page l of 2
.

To: 'Paul Kondrick'
Subject: RE. UC/Etnyre - Mary Stewart - Kondrick Reply
Paul,
We believe 2.5 hours. Thanks.
Melissa
Melissa Listug Klick \ Direct: 619.243.1561
admin@gaulolevin.com
From: Paul Kondridc Imailto:kondrick@msn.com]

To: Melissa Ustug Klick
Cc: Lonny Zilberman
Subject: Re: QC/Etnyre - Mary Stewart - Kondrick Reply
Ms. Klick,
Out of a 3-hour deposition period that you propose be set aside for Ms. Stewart,
how much time will she be available to give testimony?
-Paul Kondrick
-- Original Message -
From: Melissa Listua Klick
To: Paul Kondrick
Cc: Lonnv Zilberman
Subject: QC/Etnyre - Mary Stewaft - Kondrick Reply
Paul,
As we have previously indicated, Ms. Stewart witl need to take frequent, short
breaks and each session witl need to be setfor three hours or less. If this
changes as the dates approach, we will let you know. Ifyou are not available on
the dates we have offered, please let me know what dates you propose in April to
take Ms. Stewart's deposition. I had understood from our call yesterday that
these were the first available dates you had in April and apologize for any
misunderstanding.
6/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
..
We witt make every attempt to make the dates that you provide work, but it wit! be
easier to do so if we have some advance notice. Thank you.
Melissa
6/24/2011
P
PHONE 619·237·5200 | PAX 619'615·0760 | WWW.PAULPLEVIN.COM
SE
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & MELISSA LISTUG KUCK
(619) 243-1561 mklick@paulnlevin.com.
CONNAUGHTON LIP
April 5, 2011
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
Dear Paul:
We are in receipt of your deposition notice for Katie Wilson, Mary Stewart, Michelle
Maybaum, Stephen Harpster, Katherine Umpleby and Maggie Bracewell.
We are available for Mary Stewart and Maggie Bracewell's depositions as noticed.
We are also available for Kathefine Umpleby's deposition on April 20th as noticed,
however, we are not available until 2:00 p.m. We are checking with these witnesses
to confirm their availability.
As you know, based on your request last week, we advised you that Bill Sailer is
available for deposition on April 19th and 26th. However, you noticed Michelle
Maybaum's deposition for April 19th. Please let us know as soon as possible if you
would like to proceed with Mr. Sailer's deposition that day or Ms. Maybaum's. We are
checking on Ms. Maybaum's availability.
We are not available on April 14th for Katie Wilson's deposition. We are checking to
see if she is available on April 15th. Please let us know alternate dates if the 15th
does not work for you. We are also not available for Stephen Harpster's deposition on
April 20th at 9 a.m., but we are available on April 22nd for his deposition. We are
checking to see if he is available. Please let us know alternate dates if the 22nd does
not work for you.
Thank you.
Kind regards,

& Copqhton up
Ay: v \
L C..555'ZI-
iss¢ ListdS Kjick
cc: Leonid M. Zilberman
Page 1 of 1

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:38 AM
To: 'Paul Kondrick'
CC: 'Lonny Zilberman'; Mike Sullivan
Subject: Conference Call

Paul,
I am available for a call at 1:30 today to discuss deposition scheduling. Let me know if you'd like to go
forward. As a reminder, we are available (and we have confirmed witness availability) for these
depositions as follows:
4/15 - Katie Wilson (all day)

4/18 - Mary Stewart (morning, if possible)
4/19 - Sailer or Maybaum (your choice) (all day)
4/20 - Stephen Harpster (2:00)
4/21 - Maggie Bracewell (1:30)
4/27 - Katherine Umpleby (9:00)
Thank you.
Melissa
Melissa Listug Klick I Direct: 619.243.1561
Paul, Plevin,
Sullivan &
1 T)S
C6nnaughton LLP

San Diego, CA 92101
T: 619.237.5200 1 F: 619.615.0700
www.Daulolevin.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have received
this e-mall in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact admin@Daulbjevin.corn
6/24/2011
Page 1 of 2

TO: 'Paul Kondrick'
CC: Lonny Zilberman; Mike Sullivan; Deborah Baranowski

Subject: RE: Conference Call
Paul, ,
We are simply producing Ms. Bracewel! on the date that you noticed, with no
changes. If you would like us to check with Ms. Umpieby on an earlier date,
please provide us an alternative. As we informed you when we received the notice,
our office is not available on the date you noticed for her. Thank you.
Melissa
admin@naulglevin.com
From: Paul Kondrick [mailto:kondrick@msn.com]

To: Melissa Listug Klick
Cc: Lonny Zilberman; Mike Sullivan
Subject: Re: Conference Call
I'm on for 1:30. I'll initiate a 3-party conference caN... Klick, Zilberman,
Kondrick.
Thanks for the availability dates. The Umplyby & Bracewell dates strike me as
problematic because I see those depos as necessary for plaintiffs opposition to
the upcoming SAI motion filing deadline. We would likely need to
unnecessarily purchase expedited depo transcripts. Doesn't sound fair to me.
-Paul
Original Message.
From: Melissa Listua Klick

To: Paul Konddck
Cc: _onnv Zilberman ; Mike Sullivan
Subject Conference Call
Paul,
I am available for a call at 1:30 today to discuss deposition scheduling. Let me know if you'd
6/24/2011
Page 2 of 2
like to go forward. As a reminder, we are available (and we have confirmed witness availability) for
these depositions as follows:
4/15 - Katie Wilson (all day)

4/18 - Mary Stewart (morning, if possible)
4/19 - Sailer or Maybaum (your choice) (all day)
4/20 - Stephen Harpster (2:00)
4/21 - Maggie Bfacewell (1:30)
4/27 - Katherine Umpleby (9:00)
Thank you.
Melissa
Melissa Listug Klick \ Direct: 619.243.1561
Paul, Plevin,
13 Sullivan &
Connaughton LLP
554 1.
San Diego, CA 92101
T: 619.237.5200 1 F: 619.615.0700
www.DauIDIevin.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact
admin@gaulglevin.com
6/24/2011
..
P
PHONE 619·237·SOO | FAX 619·615·0700 | 'WWW.PAULPLEVIN.COM
SK
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (619) 243-1561 mklick@paulplevin.com
- CONNAUGHTON ap
May 5, 2011
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
As to depositions that you referenced in your May 4, 2011 letter, please send out an
amended notice for Mr. Rouse on May 19th at 1:30 p.m. as you indicated this date
worked for you. Further, we have not received a response from you regarding our
offerto produce Mr. Sailer on May 11th at 9:30 a.m. for his continued deposition.
Mary Stewart is available for her continued deposition on the following dates from 9:00
to 12:30: May 12th, May 17th, and May 19th. Please confirm the dates that you need
for her deposition as soon as possible.
Please let us know when Mr. Konrad's file will be ready for copying so that we can
reschedule his deposition. If he has the file and there was a miscommunication with
the deposition officer, please clarify so we can arrange to have the file copied this
week. If not, please let us know when you or he anticipates the file being ready. We
would prefer for you to coofdinate this effort, but we have been unable to obtain any
dates from you either for production or deposition.
We are in receipt of your deposition notice f6r Dr. Kalish and <Ms. Fuchs Dolan. We
would be happy to coordinate dates with them, but since you did not contact us, we
will contact Dr. Kalish and Ms. Fuchs Dolan to check to see if they happen to be
available as noticed.
Sincerely,

& Connaughton up
-'T' I \Mellsiistug Klick-

401 B STREET, TENTH FLOOR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
fP PAUL, PLEViN,
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON up
PHONE 614·237·5200 | FAX 619·615·0700 | WWW.PAULPLE\'IN.COM
MELISSA LISTUG KUCK (619) 243-1561 mklick@paulplevin.com
May 9, 2011
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
As we previously advised on May 5th, 2011 Mary Stewart is available for her
continued deposition on the following dates from 9:00 to 12:30: May 12th, May 17th,
and May 19th. My assistant called this morning to inquire whether you planned to take
Ms. Stewart's deposition on May 12th. Since we have not heard from we will assume
you are not planning to take Ms. Stewart's deposition on May 12th.
Further, please respond to us no later than Friday, May 13th on whether you intend to
take the continued deposition of Ms. Stewart on May 17th and 19th. Thank you.
Sincerely,
& Connahton Lip
0RCI-
C]><Meh* Listug Klick
cc: Xebnid M. Zilberman
.
PP
401 B STREET, TENTH FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CA.92101
PHONE619·237·5200 | FAX 619·615·0700 | WWW.PAULPLEVIN.COM

PAUL, PLEVIN,
St
SULLIVAN & MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (619)243-1561 mklick@paulplevin.com
CONNAUGHTON LLP
May 11, 2011
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
This will confirm my assistanfs telephone call with your office this morning regarding
Mary Stewart's continued deposition. We were advised that you have conflicts on May
17th and May 19th (the dates we provided to you on May 5th and 9th) and that you
are not taking Ms. Stewart's deposition on either of those dates.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

& Connaughton up
cc: LeoniYM. Zilberman

0.
1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817) FILEDC

Clerk of $he Superior Court
MELISSA LIST[JG KLICK (SBN 228470)
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5 JUN 24'11 PM03:28
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
v. TO EXCLUDE THE VIDEOTAPED
13 DEPOSITION OF JANE MACK-BAKER
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a [6 of 81
15 40, inclusive,
16 Defendants. I)ate: July 1, 2011

Time: 8:45 a.m.
17 Dept: 70

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude The Videotaped
CONNAUGHTON LLP Deposition Of Mack-Baker
.
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 This motion seeks to exclude the videotape of the deposition of Jane Mack Baker
4 ("Baker") because plaintiff Courtney Etnyre ("Etnyre") chose to videotape only the last two days
5 of Baker's deposition after a full day of harassing, intimidating, and browbeating questioning.
6 The introduction of this video is simply unfair to Baker to show the intimidated witness, when the
7 aggressive behavior of Etnyre's counsel was not captured on Videotape. Baker will be present to
8 testify and the jury will have ample opportunity to observe her as a witness at that time.
9 As the Court may recall, defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm'D brought a
10 motion for a protective order to terminate the deposition of Baker after she endured three days of
11 redundant, hostile questioning and unduly intimidating conduct by Etnyre's counsel. In its April
12 29, 2011 order granting the motion, this Court agreed with Qualcomm as to the nature of Etnyre's
13 browbeating questioning in taking Baker's deposition, and ruled that:
14 The deponents, Kelly Scanlon and Jane Baker, shall not be

required to return for a fourth day of deposition. Further
15 questioning of these depositions would cause them further
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. Plaintiffs
16 counsel asked duplicative and compound questions and often
interrupted them when they attempted to answer. There were
17 also instances where plaintiffs counsel's attitude could be
interpreted as discourteous, abrupt, sarcastic and/or
18 intimidating.
19
(Emphasis added.)1
20
II.
21
ARGUMENT
22
California Evidence Code section 352(b) provides that the Court may exclude evidence "if
23
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the possibility that its admission will... create a
24
substantial danger of undue prejudice, or of confusing the issues, or ofmisleading the jury."
25
26
1 Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of this Court's Minute Order dated April 29,
2011, regarding Qualcomm Incorporated's Motion for Protective Order to terminate the Baker deposition.
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude The Videotape Of
Mack-Baker
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 Here, Baker was the HR representative who investigated Etnyre's claim of harassment
2 against defendant Micky Minhas ("Minhas") in June 2006, and concluded that Minhas'
3 relationship with Etnyre was consensual. Etnyre took Baker's deposition over three grueling
4 days. However, only the second and third days were videotaped, and the first day of her
5 deposition was not. Qualcomm seeks to exclude the Videotape of the second and third days
6 because the partial videotaping of Baker's deposition is one-sided and therefore may mislead the
7 jury in assessing Baker as a witness, and so cause undue prejudice to Qualcomm. The jury would
8 assume Baker was a scared witness based on viewing only the partial videotape of her deposition.
9 The jury would not have the benefit of observing by video the threatening and browbeating
10 questioning in the first day ofdeposition that caused Baker's shaken demeanor in the videotaped
i 1 second and third days of her deposition.
12 The videotaped portion of Baker's deposition only gives a partial, and not complete, story
13 of Baker's unduly hostile and harassing deposition. Etnyre should not be allowed to take
14 advantage of counsel's improper conduct in deposition questioning - as recognized by this Court
15 in its order terminating the Baker deposition - and counsel's decision to videotape only a portion
16 of Baker's deposition. The videotape of the second and third days of Baker's deposition gives the
17 wrong impression to the jury without the benefit of any videotape of the first day.
18 III. . (
19 CONCLUSION
20 For all of these reasons, the videotaped deposition of Jane Mack-Baker should be
21 excluded.
22 CONNAUGHTON LLP
23
24
BY:
25 IC AE . U VAN
ISSA IS G KLICK
26 ILY J OX
A s for Defendant
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN & Motion.In Limine To Exclude The Videotape Of
CONNAUGHTON LLP Mack-Baker
EXHIBIT A
.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 04/29/2011 TIME: 11:00:00 AM DEPT: C-70

CLERK: Anthony Shifley
REPORTER/ERM: Katie Langgle
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Frank Cordie


MOVING PARTY: Qualcomm Incorporated
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 03/09/2011

MOVING PARTY: Qualcomm Incorporated
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Protective Order, 04/07/2011
EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing
Additional events listed on last page.
APPEARANCES
H Kondrick, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Melissa Klick, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Claudette Wilson, specially appearing for counsel LEONID ZILBERMAN, present for Defendant(s).
Mike Sullivan, cousnel, present on behalf of Defendant Qualcomm Incofporated
The Couft hears oral argument and MODIFIES AND CONFIRMS the tentative ruling as follows:
(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY [Special Interrogatories Set Twol by defendant
Qualcomm Incorporated is DENIED.
Plaintiffs opposition was filed late. The court, in its discretion, has considered the late-filed papers.
Counsel is advised that the court expects compliance with all statutory procedural requirements and in
the future, it will not consider papers not timely filed.
Special Interrogatory No. 56 appeafs to be an attempt to discovery information precluded by CCP §

CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
2017.220. Special Interrogatory No. 57 has been adequately answered.
(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY by defendant Qualcomm Incorporated is

GRANTED.
The court, in his discretion, has considered plaintiffs late filed opposition but in the future will not
consider late filed papers.
Defendant shall provide a further response to Request for Production (Set Two) No. 44, seeking a copy
of plaintiffs Facebook page by May 13, 2011. The court has considered plaintiffs privacy concerns, but
she has made a claim for emotional distress which compels disclosure.
The subsequent production shall be consistent with the parameters set forth in EEOC v. Simply Storage
Management LLC (S.D., Ind. 2010) 270 F.R.D. 430, 436. The parties shall work together in good faith to
ensure prompt disclosure in conformance with this ruling.
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER by defendant Qualcomm Incorporated is GRANTED. (CCP

025.420)
The deponents. Kellv Scanlon and Jane Baker, shall not be required to return for a fourth day of
deposition. Further quest onina of these deponents w6uld cause them further unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment. or obbression. Plaintiffs counsel asked duplicative and compound questions and often
interrupted them when thev attemoted to answer. There were also inftanceR whArA p|Aintitt'R rn, inRAI'R
attitude could be interpreted as discourteous, abrupt, sarcastic and/or intimidating.
(4) MOTION TO COMPEL QUALCOMM EMPLOYEES TO ATTEND THEIR CONTINUED

DEPOSITIONS by plaintiff Courtney Etnyre is DENIED.
The court has granted a protective order prohibiting the fourth day of deposition for witnesses Scanlon
and Bakef for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to compel their depositions is
denied.
(5) MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY THE DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

SUBPOENA by plaintiff Courtney Etnyre is GRANTED.
Qualcomm claims it seeks to depose plaintiffs counsel concerning the 'interactive' process to return her
to work after she returned from medical leave. During a portion of this process, plaintiff requested that
her counsel replace her such that her counsel communicated directly with Qualcomm for a period of six
months. Specifically, Qualcomm claims it needs to depose plaintiffs counsel to obtain information about
counsel's communications with Qualcomm about potential accommodations, all discussions counsel had
with plaintiffs medical providers or plaintiff about her physical or mental restrictions that related to the
communications with Qualcomm and to confirm that he produced all documents pursuant to subpoena.
Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require
"extremely" good cause-a high standard. There are strong policy considerations against deposing an
opposing counsel. Therefore, California applies a three-prong test in considering the propriety of
attorney depositions. First, does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information?
Second, is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? Third, is the information subject to a
privilege? (Carehouse Convalescent Hosp. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1562-63)

CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
The court finds that Qualcomm has not shown extremely good cause. First, it appears the requested
information can be obtained by less intrusive methods, such as special interrogatories or requests for
admissions. Qualcomm already has access to communications between it and plaintiffs counsel.
Second, while Qualcomm seems to want the information to show it did engage in good faith in the
interactive process and/or plaintiff or counsel did not, it is not clear that Qualcomm needs the requested
information from plaintiffs counsel to assert these arguments. Lastly, to the extent defendant seeks
document pertaining to communications with Qualcomm, including notes from phone calls and notes
from any meetings regarding or relating to plaintiff, it appears these may be attorney work product.
Therefore the subpoena issued to compel plaintiffs counsel to appear for deposition and produce
documents is quashed.
0*tp
Judge Randa Trapp

.
CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 32009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
ADDITIONAL EVENTS:

MOVING PARTY: Courtney S Etnyre
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Subpoena, 04/07/2011
EVENT TYPE: Discovery Hearing

MOVING PARTY: Courtney S Etnyre
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 04/07/2011

.

FILED
Clerk of the Superior Court ,
3 401 B Street Tenth Floor By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
JUN 24'11 PM03:29
5
7
/
8 ...f
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
V. TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
13 CmLDHOOD ABUSE
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a [7 of 81
15 40, inclusive,

Time: 8:45 a.m.
17 Dept: 70

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
f
PAUL, PLEVIN,
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
Childhood Abuse
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") hereby moves to exclude any evidence
4 regarding the physical, emotional, or sexual abuse allegedly suffered by plaintiff Courtney
5 Etnyre («Etnyre") as a child at the hands of her family members. Such evidence is
6 undocumented, highly inflammatory, and irrelevant. The prejudicial impact of such evidence -
7 introduced solely to create sympathy for the Etnyre - would outweigh any probative value that
8 Etnyre could assert, and would serve only to confuse the issues.
9 II.
10 THIS COURT MAY, AND SHOULD, EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE AND
11 EVIDENCE WHOSE PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY ITS PREJUDICIAL
12 IMPACT OR TIME CONSUMPTION
13 It is axiomatic that "[nlo evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." (Evid. Code §
14 350.) 4'Relevant Evidence" is defined as evidence"having any tendency in reason to prove or
15 disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Id. at §
16 210.) Evidence Code section 352 further provides that "[tlhe court in its discretion may exclude
17 evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission
18 will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice,
19 of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." Ud. at § 352.)
20 III.
21 THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING ETNYRE'S
22 PURPORTED CHILDHOOD ABUSE
23 In conversations with her physician and social worker, Etnyre has raised allegations of
24 past physical, emotional, and sexual abuse perpetrated by various family members. For example:
25 • Etnyre alleges she was fondled by one uncle (Exh. A, Pollard Depo. at 100:25-
26 101:5);
27 • Etnyre alleges she was forced to change clothes in front of another un¢le, who also
28 hit her with a belt (Exh. A, Pollard Depo. at 102:24-103:22);

PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN &
Childhood Abuse
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 • Etnyre alleges that her two older brothers were physically and emotionally aBusive
2 towards her (Exh. B, Fidaleo Depo. at 29:10-16).
3 Etnyre's testimony about the alleged abuse she suffered twenty or thirty years ago will not,
4 in any conceivable way, tend to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence in the present
5 action. Because such evidence has no probative value, it is necessarily outweighed by the
6 substantial danger of undue prejudice that assuredly would result from its admittance.
7 Moreover, Qualcomm sought certain evidence regarding Etnyre's discussions about her
8 past, but recent sexual history at Qualcomm. Based on Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220,
9 the Court denied Qualcomm's motion to compel on April 29, 2011. (See Minute Order dated
10 April 29, 2011.) Therefore, if Etnyre is allowed to present evidence ofpast sexual abuse, based
11 on the Evidence Code, Qualcomm has no ability to present evidence of a normal sexual history
12 after her alleged childhood issues. Indeed, Qualcomm does not wish to make this trial about
13 Etnyre's sexual history. The focus ought to be on the relevant facts of the events at issue - with
14 both sides refraining from discussion or introducing highly inflammatory evidence of Etnyre's
15 prior sexual history. If any evidence of Etnyre's childhood sexual abuse were admitted, Etnyre
16 would be permitted to portray a selective sexual history that casts her as a sympathetic victim.
17 This would present a distraction.
18 IV.
19 CONCLUSION
20 For all ofthese reasons, any evidence relating to Etnyre's alleged past abuse should be
21 excluded including questions to Dr. DeeAnn Wong, Arlene Pollard, Dr. Charles Nelson, Dr.
22 Judith Matson, or Dr. Raymond Fidaleo and portions of Exhibits 90,951,958 and 959 pertaining
23 to her alleged abuse.
Dated: June 24, 2011 PAU EV , SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP

24
25 Y
C L . LIVAN
26 SSA LI TUG KLICK
EMILY J. FOX
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP Childhood Abuse
1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817) FILED
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) Clerk of the Superior Court

JUN 24 2011
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200 JUN 24'11 PM03:29
Facsimile: 619.615-0700
5
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, CHILDHOOD ABUSE
15 40, inclusive,

Time: 8:45 am
i7 Dept: 70

19
20
21
.1. I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
22
23
24
called as a witness, could and Would testify competently thereto.
25
2. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of relevant portions:.of the
26
deposition testimony of Arlene E. Pollard, LCSW taken on May 6,2011 by my office.
27
3. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the '
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO of MIL to Exclude 1
CONNAUGHTON LLP
Evidence of Childhood Abuse
.
1 deposition transcript of Raymond A. Fidaleo, M.D. taken on May 24, 2011 by my office.
4 Executed on June 24, 2011, at San Diego, C a.
6 elis a 1Stug Klick
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN & Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO of MIL to Exclude
CONNAUGHTON LLP
Evidence of Childhood Abuse
0 .
EXHIBIT A
. CERTIFiED COPY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
Plaintiff,
VS. ) No. .37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
SANDIP ("MICKEY" ) MINHAS, )

)
Defendants.
)
DEPOSITION OF ARLENE E. POLLARD, LCSW, a witness
herein, noticed by paul, Plevin, Sullivan &
Connaughton, LLP, at 401 B Street, Tenth Floor,
San Diego, California, at 10:06 a.m., on Friday,
May 6, 2011:, before Jeannette M. Kinikin,
CSR 11272.
Hutchings Number.310934
HUTCHINGS
<CHIAG COURT REPORTERS
HEADQUARTERS:
6055 E WASHINGTON BlyD., Bn, FLOOR

Los ANGELES, CA 90040-2429
800.697.3210 323.888.6300
FAx: 323.888.6333 · WMv.hutchings.com

. .
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Pollard, LCSW, Arlene on 05/06/2011
1 A. I don't recall. 14:10
2 Q. Okay. And here -- and she also talks about she
3 had hydrocephalus. Do you see that7
4 A. She had hydrocephalus after a car accident.
5 Q. Okay. And, as I read this, she's saying that 14:10
6 she wanted them to put in a shunt, they didn't, but
7 now -- so now she's easily off balance. Am I reading
8 that correctly?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Okay. And then there' s a comment that she says 14:11
11 she sees, hears, smells things that aren't there. Do
12 you know what she's referencing there7
13 A. Yes. She was specifically describing certain
14 events. During this period of time, she was isolating a
15 great deal at home. And what she was describing were 14:11
16 what I would conceptualize as flashback experiences to
17 the occurrence of the assault.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. And that there would be certain things on
20 television, for example, or lighting in the room at 14:11
21 certain times of day that would trigger that.
22 Q. Okay. And then -- oh, I think this is also
23 1-18. The next page are your 1-18 notes?
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. Okav. And she says -- she talks, and this is 14:12
Hutchings Court Reporters - Global Legal Services Page 100

800-697-3210
.
1 where I think this may be the first time she raises the 14:12
2 Uncle Frank --
3 A. Right.
4 Q. -_- who fondled h_er aenitals; is that correct?
5 A. Right. 14:12
6 Q. And her -- her perception that her mother knew
7 that's what was going on?
8 A. She told her parents. They did know.
9 Q. She told them. When did she tell them?
10 A. At that time. 14:12
11 Q. When she was in third grade?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. How -- I would assume this would be a
14 fairly significant emotional event in someone's life?
15 A. Yes. 14:12
16 Q. And did she respond that way? Did she have a
17 strong reaction to it when she talked to you about it7
18 A. She was clearly distressed describing it.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. The context in which she was describing it was 14:13
21 really that that was the first incident she could
22 remember. And she related this to the incident of the
23 assault where she would just freeze rather than fight
24 back. She was describing this as the historical
25 precedent for -- along with others, for if you fight 14:13

800-697-3210
1 back, you pay a very heavy price. If you just freeze 14:13
2 and endure, you survive.
3 Q. And then your notes of 2-14-08.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And this is -- I'm just looking at the last 14:14
6 paragraph where it says she and --
7 A. Dr. Fidelio.
8 Q. -- Dr. Fidelio have been role-playing
9 cross-examination for her lawsuit?
10 A. Yes. 14:14
11 Q. What did she tell you about that?
12 A. That, in her work with Dr. Fidelio, he was
13 trying to help her be much more assertive, visually
14 articulate, c6mposed to prepare her for what was
15 believed to be coming in legal issues. And that 14:14
16 basically, when the going got rough, she would fall
17 apart. And he said, you know, you can't -- you can't go
18 into court and function like this. You've gotta work on
19 this. You've got t6 be able to speak up f6r yourself.
20 Q. And then, on your n6tes from 2-28-08, this 14:15
21 indicates that this is -- Uncle Frank, in second grade,
22 fondled her. Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. And -- okay. Did you understand it to be the
25 same event as th6 third grade, second grade event or -- , 14:15

800-697-3210
. .
1 A. I assumed that it is the same event. 14:16
2 Q. Okay. Here's the_other. I'll qo over it
3 because I didn't want to misregresent to vou.
4 A. Uncle Randv?
5 Q. Uncle Rand¥, I didn't want to have 14:16
6 misrepresented that I understood that there were two of
7 them. What did she tell you about Uncle Randy?
8 A. I'll read from my notes because I don't have__a
9 recollection.
10 Q. That's fine. 14:16
11 A. When she -- when she was ten years old, she and
12 her brother Rob were with her arandmother for the
13 summer. When the grandmother left them with Uncle Randy
14 in a trailer, that Randy would refuse to leave the
15 trailer so that she _could change with privacy. 14:16
16 Do you _want_me to continue?
17 Q. Yeah. Who hit her with the belt for it7
18 A. Her brother Randy.
19 Q. Oh, okay.
20 A. No. No. No. No. Randv -- hold on. 14:17
21 Q. No. Her Uncle Randy. right?
22 A. Yes. It was the uncle.
23 Q. Okay. Okay. And then on your notes from
24 4-7-08.
25 A. Mm-h=. 14:17

800-697-3210
1
5 and correct.
7 Executed at , Calif6rnia,
8 on
10
11
ARLENE E. POLLARD, LCSW

12
13
4 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
209

800.697.3210
. .
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) s's
3 I, Jeannette Kiflikin, CSR 11272, do hereby declare:
5 That, prior to being examined, the·witneds named ih
6 the. foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn ptl'*duant
7 to Section 2093(b) and 2094 of the Code.of Civil
8 Procedure;
12 thereafter reduced to text under my directioh.
13
14 I further declare that I have no.interest in the
15 event ef the action.
16
17 I declaiteunder penalty of perjury under the laws
19 and 66*rect.
20
20th
21 WITNESS my hand this day of 01,10",0,4,4
May 2011/1
22 r 1 1 F.0..... ....ap %.
23
fs/ \%
EUE TBANSCRIPT ; ZI :
24 Cjwba#*. len_., 1 i 2-P.

2 CERTIFICATION
i .r. %
E. i
:
f .5,3.5
S:
/-6 1
'»J-#Enette Kinikin, CSR 11272 6• '3 4
20 %,{' " SEAL - 444%4

210
HUT¢RINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES

800.697.3210
EXHIBIT B
. .
ORIGINAL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
VS. ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537
) CU-OE-CTL
SANDIP ( "MICKEY") MINHAS, )

individually, QUALCOMM )
Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation and DOES 1 )
through 40, inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )
)
DEPOSITION OF RAYMOND A. FIDALEO, M.D.,
a witness herein, noticed by Paul, Plevin,
Tuesday, May 24, 2011, before Marc Volz, CSR 2863,
RPR, CRR.
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
HEADQUARTERS:
6055 E WASHINGTON BLVD., 8nl FLOOR
800.697.3210 323.888.6300
FAX: 323.888.6333 · www.hutchings.com
..
Fidaleo, Raymond on 05/24/2011
1 history of post-trauma in growing up and so the idea of
2 facing a traumatic situation was very difficult for her.
3 The normal feeling that people have when they
4 have -- when they've been raped, y6u get an*ious, but
5 you also at times have guilt. She had the guilt and she
6 wasn't able really to touch on the anger. Anger for her
7 because of her earlier traumas was not something that
8 she could deal with. So we had a difficult time in
9 working through post-trauma with her.
10 Q. What is vour understandina of what her PTSD was
11 growing up?
12 A. She had brothers that were physically attacking
13 her. Two brothers contemporary. two and four years
14 older than her. were Dhysicallv and mentally abusive to
15 her throughout her childhood_so she_had no protection
16 from them.
17 Q. Any other traumas growing up?
18 A. She also had -- we didn't go into it but she
19 had a sexual molest from an uncle later.
20 MR. KONDRICK: I'm sorry, would the court reporter
21 read back that last response.
22 (The answer is read by the reporter.)
23 MS. NAGLE:
24 Q. Did she tell you about any other issues with
25 any other family members other than the brothers and the

800-697-3210
.
1 ***
3
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
4
of the State of California that the. foregoing is true
5 and correct.
8 Executed atbe.&., U , California,
9 on
/35/2% l_q 9-0/.1
10
RA A. FIS EO, M.D.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120

860.697.3210
4
B
. .
f
fr
f 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
4 3 I, Marc Volz, CSR 2863, do hereby declare:
4
i
7 to Section. 2093 (b) and 2094 ef the Code of Civil
8 Procedure;
1
13
16
19 and correct.
20
6th day of
22 J_une__ 2011
24
Mark Volz, CSR 28 0, RPR, CRR
25
121

800.697.3210
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) FILED
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP JUN 2 4 2011
3 401 B Street, Tenth Floor
San Diego, California 921014232 By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
JUN 24'11 PM03:29
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
Plamtiff, DEFENDANT QUALCOMM
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE
i3 EXPERT OPINIONS OF DR. DEEANN

SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, WONG AND ARLENE POLLARD
15 40, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
Date: July 1, 2011
17 Time: 8:45 am
Dept: 70

19 Trial Date: July 1, 2011
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Wong
CONNAUGHTON LLP And Pollard Opinions
.
1 L
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Despite Plaintiff Courtney Etnyre's ("Etnyre") designation ofDr. DeeAnn Wong and
4 Arlene Pollard as expert witnesses in this case, both have testified unequivocally that they cannot
5 give expert opinions. Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") agrees. Neither Dr.
6 Wong nor Ms. Pollard is qualified to offer any expert opinion as to whether the sexual assault
7 alleged by Etnyre actually occurred, whether the symptoms treated by both caregivers were in fact
8 caused by the alleged sexual assault, or whether the alleged sexual assault actually caused any
9 emotional distress. Based on the witnesses' own admissions, Qualcomm respectfully requests
10 that any expert opinions of Dr. Wong or Ms. Pollard be excluded.
11 II.
12 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13 Etnyre began seeing Dr. Wong, a licensed psychiatrist, on August 25,2006, and continues
14 to see Dr. Wong through the present. (Exh. A, Wong Depo. at 25:4-9; 28:2-4.) Dr. Wong's role
15 is to "oversee [Etnyre's] psychiatric care, primarily treating and managing her chronic major
16 depression as well as her post-traumatic stress disorder." (Exh. A, Wong Depo. at 29:18-25.)
17 During a typical session with Etnyre, Dr. Wong "check[s] in with her and find[s] out what has
18 transpired with her since the last appointment," in addition to "trying to find out if there's any
19 ongoing symptoms ofdepression or PTSD, [or] if she's having any side effects from medication."
20 Ud. at 31.1-10.)
21 Dr. Wong admitted that she has never engaged in any forensic psychiatry where she was
22 "asked to determine whether or not an individual did or did not experience certain events." (Id. at
23 17:25-18:4.) Nor has Dr. Wong undergone any specialized training in forensic psychiatry. (Id at
24 18:5-13.) In her eleven years as a practicing psychiatrist, Dr. Wong has engaged in approximately
25 two cases involving forensic psychiatry, both of which involved providing a second opinion on
26 another doctor's diagnosis. Ud. at 16:15-17:12.)
27 Regarding the present case, Dr. Wong declared unequivocally, "I'm the treating physician,
28 not the expert Witness." (Id. at 58:24-59:4.) Her sole focus is "treating [Etnyre's] major
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN & Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Wong
..
1 depression and PTSD, not determining what events did or did not happen at Qualcomm." (Id. at
2 56:16-19.)
3 Arlene Pollard is a licensed clinical social worker who provides "counseling and
4 psychotherapy in private practice." (Exh. B, Pollard Depo. at 17:10-23.) Ms. Pollard treated
5 Etnyre as a,client from October 17, 2007 through October 28,2010. (Id. at 28:18-21; 11:20-25.)
6 Ms. Pollard stated that she does "no expert work" and that she "just treat[s] people." Ud
7 at 19:4-8.) She also testified that she does not do any "forensic work" where she would"try to
8 analyze what the problem is that the individual is having." (Id. at 19:9-14,) When informed by
9 Qualcomm's counsel at her deposition that she had been named in Etnyre's expert designation in
10 this case, Ms. Pollard reacted that it was "news to [her]" and that she was seeing Etnyre's expert
1i designation for the first time. Ud. at 9:17-10:4.)
12 III.
13 NEITHER DR. WONG NOR MS. POLLARD IS QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE AN
14 EXPERT OPINION IN THIS CASE
15 Qualcomm seeks to exclude any expert opinion from Dr. Wong or Ms. Pollard regarding
16 whether or not the events alleged by Etnyre in this case actually took place, whether the symptoms
17 experienced by Etnyre were caused by the alleged sexual assault, or whether the alleged sexual
18 assault actually caused Etnyre any emotional distress. The practice of evaluating whether or not a
19 person has undergone the experiences that they claim they have is more commonly referred to as
20 forensic psychiatry. Forensic psychiatrists "evaluate and testify in cases of alleged emotional
21 harm and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)," where it "is necessary to reach a deep
22 understanding of the person's life history, so as to identify prior experiences that may have
23 created a special vulnerability to trauma (as opposed to prior impaired functioning), as well as to
24 distinguish genuine trauma from faking, malingering, exaggerating, or misattributing." Harold J.
25 Bursztajn,MD, The Role of a Forensic Psychiatrist in Legal Proceedings, Journal of the
26 Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (1993).1 When a forensic psyehiatrist is "acting in the
27 iExh. C
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
CONNAUGHTON up And Pollard Opinions
. .
1 capacity of a forensic specialist, he or she is not providing therapy to alleviate the patient's
2 suffering or to help the patient be free and healthy, but an objective evaluation for use by the
3 retaining institution, attorney, or court." Id.
4 Here, it is evident from the testimony of Dr. Wong and Ms. Pollard that neither is
5 qualified (or prepared) to offer an expert opinion on whether or not Etnyre actually experienced
6 the alleged sexual assault. The treaters have not received detailed accounts of the alleged sexual
7 assault so as to even have sufficient information to opine whether or not it occurred. Further,
8 neither obtained detailed personal histories, as would be required to properly make the inquiry
9 about whether or not an event occurred, whether or not the patient suffered symptoms prior to the
10 alleged assault, or whether current symptoms were caused by a former event. The reason for this
11 is simple: it is not required information to treat current symptoms.
12 The role of both of these individuals was to treat Etnyre's then-current symptoms. Neither
13 Dr. Wong nor Ms. Pollard ever performed any objective evaluation as to Whether the alleged
14 assault took place. (Exh. A, Wong Depo. at 61:4-8; Exh. B, Pollard Depo. at 65:10-14.) Dr.
15 Wong explained that her treatment of Etnyre would be the same regardless of whether or not the
16 assault actually took place, because her focus is on current symptoms. (Exh. A, Wong Depo. at
17 70:17-71:15.) Ms. Pollard likewise made it clear that the only relevant fact to her treatment was
18 that Etnyreperceived she had been assaulted, (Exh. B, Pollard Depo. at 65:10-19.) Neither
19 purports to know whether or not such symptoms existed befbre the alleged sexual assault.
20 Moreover, Dr. Wong expressly stated that she cannot be an expert witness in this case
21 because she does not meet the requirement that an expert forensic psychiatrist be an objective
22 observer:
23 A: I cannot be an expert witness.
24 Q: Why not?
25 A: Because it was -- it's a conflict of ethic - it's a conflict of interest. As a treating
26 physician, my bias is towards the patient with objectivity. An expert witness, that
27 person needs to be completely objective to the case and not have a relationship with
28 the patient such as I have had.

PAUL, PLEVIN, 3
..
1 Q: Because at the end of the day, you consider that one of your roles is to serve, although
2 with some objectivity, as an advocate for the patient?
3 A: Correct.
4 (Exh. A, Wong Depo. at 59:14-60:1.)
5 IV.
6 CONCLUSION
7 For all ofthese reasons, any evidence relating to expert testimony ofDr. Wong and Ms.
8 Pollard should be excluded, specifically, but not limited to questioning relating to the following
9 excerpts from their depositions: Wong 35:6-40:20; 66:10-67:2; and Pollard 46:19-47:18; 104:12-
10 105:6.
11

12 CONNAUGHTON LLP
13
14
15 1 h,4f(*IAErC. SULLIVAN
|/BEBISSA LISTUG KLICK
16 6'\ EMILY J. FOX
-*fforneys for Defendant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 4
74=...
. I
'1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)

MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) FILED
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) Clerk of the Superior Court
4
Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
JUN 24'11 PM03:29
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, THE EXPERT OPINIONS OF DR. DEEANN
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a WONG AND ARLENE POLLARD
16 Defendants.
Date: July 1, 2011
17 Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: 70

19 Trial Date: July 1, 2011
20
21 I, Melissa J. Listug Klick, declare:
22 1, I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
23 attorneys of record for Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated in the above-entitled matter, and am
24 licensed tp practice before this Court. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if
25 called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.
26 2. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the
27 deposition testimony of Dr. DeeAnn Wong taken on May 4, 2011 by my office.
28 3. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the
-----
Klick Dec. ISO of MIL to Exclude Expert Opinions 1

PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP ofDr. Wong and Ms. Pollard

1 deposition testimony of Arlene Pollard taken on May 6,2011 by my office.
2 4. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of an article titled "The
3 Role ofa Forensic Psychiatrist in Legal Proceedings," by Harold J. Bur5ztajn, M.D., which
4 originally appeared in the Journal of the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (1993). A
5 copy of this article was obtained from the website:
6 http://www.forensic-psych.coin/articles/artAskexpOl.php.
7 5. Attached as Exhibit D hereto is atrue and correct copy of Etnyre's Expert
8 Witness Designation and Accompanying Declaration.
9 I declare under penalty of peKjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
11 Executed on June 24, 2011, at San Diego, Cafornia.

12
13 / Melksa Elsfilg Klick

/U
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
Klick Dec. iSO of MIL to Exclude Expert Opinions 2
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP of Dr. Wong and Ms. Pollard

EXHIBIT A
L
ORIGINAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually,) Case No.:
) 37-2009-00101537-
Plaintiff, ) CU-OE-CTL
)
VS. )
)
individually, QUALCOMM )
INCORPORATED, a Delaware )
corp6ratioh, and DOES 1 through )
40, inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )
)
DEPOSITION OF DEEANN WONG, M.D.
VOLUME I, PAGES 1 THROUGH 74
San Diego, California
May 4, 2011
REPORTED BY HEIDI J. JOHNSON, RPR, CSR NO. 12525
Hutchings Number: 318125
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
HEADQUARTERS:
6055 E. WASHINGTON BLVD., 8'nt FL0OR

LoS ANGELES, CA 900404429
800.6973210 323.888.6300
FAX: 323.888.6333 • www.hutchings.com

t

Wong, M.D., Deeann on 05/04/2011
1 disabled, and you need to put them on a conservatorship
2 so someone else is responsible for their food,
3 clothing, shelter, as well as being their payee, and
4 you can force the person to long-term treatment.
5 Q What training, if any, do you have in
6 forensic psychiatry?
7 A I have what was provided to me through my
8 general psychiatry training as well as my child and
9 adolescent psychiatry training.
10 Q And what was that? Was that like a course in
11 forensic psychiatry or --
12 A It was both courses and rotations.
13 Q How many courses?
14 A I couldn't -- I cannot recall.
15 Q And your practice since completing education,
16 have vou engaged in anv work that vou would consider to
17 be_forensic psychiatry work?
18 A I_ haye done approximately maybe two_ cases.
19 and these were second ovinions.
20 Q What tvges of cases?
21 A This is for DSS.
22 Q And does this fall in the area of childhood
23 and adolescent psychiatry?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And. very Generally. what were those tvpes of

800-697-3210
L
.
Wong, M.D„ Deeann on 05/04/2011
1 cases for DSS?
2 A Thev were for second oDinions. Thev were for
3 diagnostic clarification.
4 Q So what types of things were you beina asked
5 to _ crive a second oninion on?
6 A What is the child's diagnosis. what kind of
7 treatment do thev need. what kind of treatment should
8 thev receive. reviewing other professional' s records.
9 and determinina if the Datient was receivina Droner
10 treatment. if the child was -- what the child's actual
11 diagnosiswas, did I agree with the treatina _physician
12 and other people who were involved with the case.
13 Q Okay. So all that had to do with Whether
14 there was proper diagnosis, proper treatment, and
15 proper care of the child?
16 A Correct.
17 Q Okay. In both of the times that -- the two
18 cases that you were engaging in forensic psychiatry?
19 A Correct.
20 Q Have you ever engaged in your practice any
21 forensic psychiatry to try and determine what the
22 underlying facts were that occurred to an individual
23 based on your meeting with him and analysis?
24 A Can you repeat the question?
25 Q Sure. Have vou enaaaed in any forensic

800-697-3210
..
1 Dsvchiatry where you were asked to determine whether or
2 not an individual did or did not exnerience certain
3 events?
4 A Has-
5 Q Have vou had any particular_training in
6 makina that type of assessment?
7 A Are vou asking about specific training or
8 trainina in aeneral?
9 Q SDeCific training.
10 A In the forensic settind or in a general
11 psvchiatry practice setting?
12 Q In a forensic setting.
13 A No.
14 Q Have you had any such training in a general
15 psychiatry setting?
16 A Yes.
17 Q What training was that7
18 A The general training that goes into a general
19 adult, child and adolescent psychiatry training where
20 you are asked to believe, in general, what the patient
21 tells you with reasonable objectivity.
22 Q Is that the general approach that you take
23 with a patient?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And what do you understand "reasonable

800-697-3210
1 A Right.
2 Q -- and the other the girth of the body?
3 A Correct.
4 Q In this case when did you begin seeing
5 Courtnev Etnvre for treatment7
6 MR. KONDRICK: The record should reflect the
7 doctor is referrina to her notes.
8 THE WITNESS: The first time that I met
9 Ms. Etnvre was on Auaust 25th of 2006.
10 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
11 Q And do you know how she was referred to you?
12 A She was referred to me by Charlie Nelson,
13 psychologist.
14 Q Did you have a prior relationship with
15 Dr. Nelson?
16 A He and I have shared patients together.
17 Q Did you have a general opinion of Dr. Nelson
18 as a health care provider based on sharing patients
19 together with him?
21 Q Sure. Did you form any opinion about
22 Dr. Nelson as a psychologist based on your common work
23 with him?
24 MR· BELSKY: It's vague as to time.
25 But you can respond.
Hutchjngs Court Reporters - Global Legal Services Page 25

800-697-3210
1 A Yes.
2 Q Have vou provided care to Ms. Etnvre in
3 this -- for about four and a half years right now?
4 A Starting 2006 to the present.
5 Q Yeah. I guess five years.
6 In the course of your treatment of
7 Ms. Etnyre, what have been the sources of information
8 for you? In other words, you've gotten information
9 from her --
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q -- about her situation, correct?
12 A Correct.
13 Q What other sources of information have you
14 had in order to form your opinions and conduct your
15 treatment?
16 A Dr. Nelson; Judith Mattson, who is also a
17 clinical psychologist; Arlene Pollard, whols a licensed
18 clinical social worker; and then whatever paperwork
19 Ms. Etnyre has provided t6 me. For e*ample, there is a
20 performance -- therels a PIP from Qualcomm that I do
21 have in the chart.
22 And then whatever conversations I've had with
23 Mr. Kondrick and whatever written correspondence has
24 gone on between him and myself.
25 Q Okay. Any other sources of information,

800-697-3210
1 other than Dr. Nelson, Dr. Mattson, Ms. Pollard, the
2 paperwork that's in your chart, and Mr. Kondrick?
3 A Not that I can recall.
4 Q How would you describe what your role has
5 been over these past five years in treating Ms. Etnyre?
6 Let me try to clarify that question in case
7 it seems overbroad. She's also seen Dr. Mattson and
8 Ms. Pollard as well during that time, and they had
9 certain roles that they had in Ms. Etnyre's treatment,
10 correct?
11 A Uh-huh, correct.
12 Q Okay. I need to make sure I get a verbal
13 response.
14 A Okay.
15 Q And then you as a psychiatrist have had a
16 role, correct?
17 A Uh-huh, correct. ,
18 Q Okav. Can you describe to me what your role
19 has been during that time and explain -- to the extent
20 it's varied over those five Years. feel free to explain
21 that as well.
22 A M¥ role is to oversee her psvchiatric care,
23 primarilv treating and managing her chronic maior
24 depression as well as her post-traumatic stress
25 disorder.

800-697-3210
1 Let me qualify that by saying her major
2 depression did go into remission at one point, which is
3 not unusual for the illness to remit. And it has
4 recurred, which is a typical course of chronic major
5 depression.
6 Q What caused vou to conclude on
7 September 12th. 2006. that Ms. Etnvre had exverienced
8 post-traumatic stress disorder or was exveriencing
9 Dost-traumatic stress disorder?
10 A It was based on conversations I had with
11 Dr. Nelson from Auaust 2006 through September 2006 as
12 well as what Ms. Etnyre had revealed during the
13 September_ appointment.
14 Q What, specifically, did vou learn from
15 Dr. Nelson that caused you to have this PTSD diagnosis?
16 A He told me that she had told him additional
17 details about the incident with her boss. Said he
18 invited her to watch a movie.
19 The next_thing she remembers is that he
20 pushed her down, and she was pushing him away. Then
21 she realized, auote, Her face was wet, end quote. She
22 had a bloody nose. She's not sleeping well. She's
23 only vettina four hours of sleep.
24 Q Was there anything else that Dr. Nelson told
25 vou that contributed to vour PTSD diaanosis?

800-697-3210
a,

1 A Not that I recall.
2 Q Do you recall what Ms. Etnyre told you that
3 contributed to your PTSD diagnosis?
4 A What I recall is that she asked me not touse
5 the word "raDe"_because she was very uncomfortable with
6 that word. On subsequent appointments, we had -- and,
7 actually. on the September 2006 aDDointment. we_had
8 talked about symptoms of PTSD. SDecificallv. triaaers.
9 heiahtened level of anxiety, as well as flashbacks.
10 Q What caused you to talk about PTSD svmptoms?
11 A Itwas based on a conversation that I had
12 with Dr. Nelson with the additional information that he
13 had.
14 Q What caused you to use the word "rage" in
15 speaking to Ms. Etnvre in SeDtember of 2006?
16 A I cahnot recall exactly.
17 Q Okay. Was that based on what Dr. Nelson had
18 told you?
19 A It was both based on what Dr. Nelson had told
20 me and what Ms. Etnvre had told me.
21 Q Do you remember what. if anvthina. Ms. Etnvre
22 told you in which you based your use of the word
23 "rape"?
24 A I cannot remember exactly what words she
25 used, but it was the emotional content that was behind

800-697-3210
1 the words that she used.
2 Q So it wasn't what she said but how she said
3 it?
4 A Correct.
5 Q What was it about how she said it that caused
6 you to use the word "rape"?
7 A There was a sense of hiah anxiety. shame.
8 embarrassment. guilt, reluctance to talk more in detail
9 about what happened.
10 Q Okav. Anything else?
11 A Not that comes to mind.
12 Q Did you consider your observations about that
13 to be consistent onlv with the possibility_ of there
14 having been a rane?
16 Q Sure. Did vou consider that --
17 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, actuallv, can you read
18 back her list of things? I didn't write it down.
19 There was shame_and reluctance and some others.
20 (The following answer was read back:
21 "A There was a sense of hiah anxiety.
22 shame, embarrassment, Guilt, reluctance to
23 talk more in detail about what_happened. ")
24 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
25 Q Whv did vou consider these observations of
Hutchihgs Court Reporters - Global Legal Services Page 37

800-697-3210
.
1 shame. high anxietv, embarrassment, guilt, and
2 reluctance to indicate to you that there had been a
3 rape?
4 A Because it is not uncommon when someone is
5 forced or coerced or pressured into a situation that
6 thev might not necessarily have done without coercion
7 or_without _force. that they Give in. and then they have
8 shame. guilt. and embarrassment about the event
9 afterwards.
10 Q Would_ it be fair to sav that vou used the
11 term "rane" with Ms. Etnyre prior to her directly
12 expressing to you that any sexual contact she had had
13 with her boss had been involuntarv7
14 A Can you regeat the auestion?
15 Q Sure. What I understood you to previously
16 testifv is that you used the term "rape" based on your
17 6bservations of her demeanor -- I'm not sure if that
18 was the term_you used, but_of _shame. reluctance. _high
19 anxiety, embarrassment, and guilt, correct7
20 A That was part of it.
21 Q Okay. When you first used the term "raDe"
22 with Ms. Etnvre, had she expressed to you prior to your
23 use of that term the fact that sexual contact with her
24 boss had been nonconsensual on her part?
25 A Yes.

800-697-3210
1 Q What did she sav to you in that regard?
2 A I cannot recall exactly what she said, but I
3 would have not used the word "rape" if there had not
4 been mention or indication that there was sexual
5 contact that was not consensual.
6 Q Had she previously described to you that the
7 sexual contact with her boss was a decision on her
8 Dart?
9 A No.
10 Q Had she described to vou Drior to vour using
11 the term "rape"_that her boss had come onto her and she
12 had had sex with him and it was a stupid decision or
13 something to that effect? Do you recall that without
14 referring to your notes?
15 A Thi s is four and a hal f years ago .
16 Q Okay. I understand.
17 My question is: Do you recall her saving
18 anything like that to vou prior to your uslng the term
19 "rape"?
20 A I'm going to refer to mv notes.
21 Q No. you're not. You're goina to answer my
22 question. And you can say you don't recall. and that's
23 fine. Then you can look at your notes.
24 But without_ referring to your notes, _do you
25 recall her saying words to that effect?

800-697-3210
1 A What were the words that you were saving that
2 she said?
3 MR. SULLIVAN: Can you read the question
4 back - - _ I_' 11 ius t redo_ it.
5 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
6 Q Did she tell you that her boss had come on to
7 her and she had had sex with him and it had been _a
8 stupid discussion on her part or words to that effect?
9 A I do not recall. I would need to refer back
10 to mv notes.
11 Q Okay. Had she said such words to you, would
12 that be indicative as to whether or not there had been
13 consensual but Derhaps rearettable sex?
14 A If it had _come out that way._ ves .
15 Q That type of descrintion would not indicate
16 to you that there had been a rape. correct?
17 A Correct.
18 Q In fact, that description of the event would
19 be contrary to the conclusion of rape, _correct?
20 A Correct.
21 Q Have you in your education ever learh*d of
22 situations where an individual might consent to a
23 sexual relationship and later change it in their mind
24 to being nonconsensual based on their own psychological
25 disorders?

800-697-3210
.

1 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
2 Q Okay. You did not discuss any other
3 relationships; is that correct7
4 A N6t that I recall.
5 Q Did you consider her prior work history and
6 prior experiences in the workplace to be relevant
7 information for you to evaluate in terms of assessing
8 the current situation that you were discussing with
9 her?
10 A You mean assessing her situation at Qualcomm
11 or assessing her medically for the depression and PTSD?
12 Q Both.
13 A I did not feel that either were particularly
14 relevant to the PTSD or the major depression, which is
15 the main focus of my treatment with her.
16 Q Okay. Your focus was on treating her mator
17 denression and PTSD. not determinina what events did or
18 did not happen at Oualcomm?
19 A Correct.
20 Q Okay. And you didn't believe that her prior
21 employment history was relevant to your determination
22 as to what she was presently experiencing with regard
23 to the major depressive disorder or the post-traumatic
24 stress syndrome, correct?
25 A Correct.

800-697-3210
.

1 to determine what the correct diagnosis is.
2 Q Can it be helpful?
3 A Possibly, but it's secondary to really what
4 the patient is reporting and what I am observing as I'm
5 interacting with the patient.
6 Q Would it be fait to say that the prior work
7 history could be more or less relevant depending upon
8 what it was? In other words, if it contained certain
9 events, it might not be really relevant at all; if it
10 contained other events, it might be relevant?
11 A For the purposes of what I was treating
12 Ms. Etnyre for, it was probably less relevant.
13 Q Okay. But you didn't know what those events
14 were to ever make that determination of whether it was
15 or was not relevant, correct?
16 A No, because that's not essential to getting
17 an adequate history of present illness.
18 Q What other opinions did you have about
19 Ms. Etnyre, other than the fact that she was
20 experiencing major depressive disorder and
21 post-traumatic stress syndrome?
22 MR. BELSKY: It's vague as to time.
23 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
24 Q Here's what I'm askina -- and if_counsel
25 wants to kind of direct us in some wav. that's fine

800-697-3210
.

1 too. But you've been designated as a treating expert.
2 if you will. You're a treating physician.
3 A I'm not the -- I'm the treating Dhvsician.
4 not the expert witness.
5 Q I think you've been designated not as the
6 formal expert but --
7 MR· SULLIVAN: Well, let me ask it of
8 Mr. Kondrick: Is Dr. Wong going to be asked to give
9 any type of expert opinion at trial?
10 MR. KONDRICK: She's been designated per
11 the -- I think as we're required to as the treating
12 physician or health care practitioner.
13 MR. SULLIVAN: SO --
14 THE WITNESS: I cannot be an expert witness.
15 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
16 Q Whv not?
17 A Because it was -- it's a conflict of ethic --
18 it's a conflict of interest. As a treatina Dhvsician,
19 mv bias is towards the patient with obiectivity.
20 An expert witness, that person needs to be
21 completely obiective to the case and not have a
22 relationshin with the patient such as I have had.
23 Q Because at the end of the day, __you_ consider
24 that one of your roles is to serve, although with some
25 obiectivity. as an advocate for the Datient?
Hutchings Court Reportefs - Global Legal Services Page 59

800-697-3210
..
1 A Correct.
2 Q Are there any other opinions that you have
3 with regard to Ms. Etnyre, other than the diagnoses
4 that you've previously discussed and what you have said
5 with regard to the personality traits of her sometimes
6 being passive aggressive?
7 A No.
8 Q Are you in your role as a physician generally
9 familiar with the duties and obligations of an expert
10 witness to familiarize themselves with certain
11 information in order to give expert opinion testimony?
12 A No.
13 MR. BELSKY: Lacks foundation.
14 MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry?
15 MR. BELSKY: Lacks foundation.
16 You can respond.
17 THE WITNESS: NO.
18 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
19 Q Have you done any professional research
20 relating to Ms. Etnyre's case beyond what you would do
21 to provide her with clinical psychiatric care7
22 A "Research" meaning?
23 Q For example -- thanks for seeking
24 clarification on that.
25 For example, an expert witness might go and

800-697-3210
.
COURTNEY S, ETNYRE vs, SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS

1 do some outside research and some other things that a
2 clinician who is just providing care as a treating
3 physician might hot do.
4 So I'm iust asking: Beyond whatever you
5 might do to provide treatment-as a treating phvsician.
6 have you done any additional research with regard to
7 Ms. Etnyre's situation?
8 A No.
9 Q Have you done any objective testing of
10 MS. Etnyre?
11 A Such as?
12 Q Whether it's MMPI-2 or any of those pendil
13 and paper tests.
14 A Those are done by a licensed clinical
15 psychologist. I'm not trained or qualified to do those
16 kinds of exams.
17 Q Have you seen the results of any of those
18 tests if they've been done?
19 A With Ms. Etnyre7
20 Q Correct.
21 A If they have been done, if I've seen them,
22 they're in the chart.
23 Q Okay. Do you recall seeing the results of
24 any such tests with regard to Ms. Etnyre?
25 A To the best of my recollection, no. But I

800-697-3210
.

1 sex with her boss or whether it was, to the contrary,
2 rape?
3 MR. BELSKY: Can you read the question back.
4 MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah. Let me kind of rephrase
5 that.
6 MR. BELSKY: Oh, sure.
7 MR. SULLIVAN: I think it was inartfully
8 worded as I'm prone to do. I apologize.
9 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
10 Q Did vou ever make a_ factual conclusion as to
11 whether Ms. Etnvre did make a decision to have sex with
12 her boss as opnosed to her boss raping her?
13 A Define "factual."
14 Q Where vou concluded what actuallv hanpened
15 between the two of them in February of 2006.
16 A When she disclosed more about what happened
17 that niaht with her boss._the conclusion I drew from
18 that is that there was some pressure and coercion.
19 Q Based on what she told vou?
20 A Correct.
21 Q Did vou ever reach a factual conclusion as to
22 how that actuallv happened, what events actually
23 occurred that night?
24 A It would_be in the chart.
25 Q So vou don't recall, but if it's in the

800-697-3210
.
1 chart, then she did --
2 A Right.
3 Q -- or she didn't?
4 Did you ever ask Ms. Etnyre for the factual
5 details of how the rape occurred?
6 A No.
7 Q Did she ever offer those details to you?
8 A Yes.
9 Q What did she tell you?
10 A I cannot recall exactly.
11 Q What's your best recollection?
12 MR. BELSKY: You mean without looking at the
13 chart?
14 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.
15 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
16 Q I mean, you have the chart there. We're
17 short on time. I'm not going to deprive you of the
18 chart if you can quickly find that. That's fine. If
19 not, I'll just settle for what you recall without
20 looking at the chart.
21 A What happened that night has come out in bits
22 and pieces, so it is not in one particular part of the
23 chart.
24 Q Okay. What is your best recollection of what
25 it is over the course of time she has told you about

800-697-3210
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY') MINHAS
1 Q Do you recall Ms. Etnyre offering you any
2 details with regard to what occurred on that business
3 trip?
4 A Not that I recall.
5 Q Do you believe that other details with regard
6 to what happened on that business trip, other events,
7 might be relevant7
8 MR. BELSKY: Calls for speculation.
9 THE WITNESS: It's not relevant to my
10 treatment of major depression.
11 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
12 Q Okay. Because all that really matters is
13 what her subjective experience is and what her
14 knowledge base was with regard to treating the major
15 depression?
16 A As well as my objective assessment.
17 Q Would it make a difference -- would _your
18 treatment decisions _differ depending upon whether you
19 believed Ms. Etnyre was or was not actually subiect to
20 rape?
21 A No.
22 Q Your assessment and treatment would be the
23 same whether she merely believed she was subiect to
24 rape or whether she was actually subiect _to rage?
25 A Correct.

800-697-3210
Wong, Mil, Deeann on 05/04/2011
1 Q And vour treatment decisions would be the
2 same whether or not she was actually subiect to rape_or
3 she had what _we talked about before. morphed_the belie f
4 that she was subiect to rape. correct?
5 A Meanina. vou're saying that my treatment --
6 my course of treatment recommendations_ would_not happen
7 different regardless of whether she was raped or
8 coerced or changed her story?
9 Q Correct.
10 A Correct. My treatment course would not have
11 changed.
12 Q Would anythina about your professional care
13 have changed for her based on the assessment of those
14 three options?
15 A No.
16 MR. BELSKY: Is this a good place to stop?
17 MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah. Why don't we agree that
18 we will suspend the deposition for today. We'll
19 reconvene at a mutually convenient time.
20 We'll relieve the court reporter of her duty
21 under the Code to maintain the original.
22 We'll have the original of the deposition
23 sent to --
24 MR. BELSKY: Sent to me, and I'll forward it
25 to Dr. Wong.

800-697-3210
.
11.,
1 DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
f:
3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the
4 foregoing is my deposition under oath; that the f6regoing
5 is true and correct; that I have read my deposition and
have made the necessary corrections, additions, or

'd,
6
f 7 changes to my answers that I deem necessary.
8
4.
9 Executed this 6 day of 0110 , 2011,
10
at SAA -Pfg , CA
T
11 (City) (State)
12
e
13
14
i, 15
f
16
17 r/=41
18
DEEANN WONG, fli
19
20
tl 21
22
23
24
25
f,
73

800.697.3210
f
.
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
:SS.
2 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
4 I, HEIDI J. JOHNSON, a Certified Shorthand Repofter
5 for the State of California, CSR No. 12525, Registered
6 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: That the
7 witness in, the foregoing deposition was first duly sworn
8 by me to testify to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
9 nothing but the truth in the foregoing cause; that the
10 . deposition was taken before me at the time and place
11 herein named; that the said deposition was reported by me
12 in shorthand and transcribed through computer-aided
13 transcription, under my direction; and that the foregoing
14 is a true record of the testimony elicited at proceedings
15 had at said deposition.

L
1!
16 I do further certify that I am a
1*%3
17 disinterested person and am in no way interested in the
18 outcome of this action or connected with or related to

,/1
19 any of the parties in this action or to their
20 respective counsel.
t#r
21 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my

8,
22 hand this 16th day of May , 2011 ·
23
%1
bl
24
UI>Lv 74-
U
It,j . 25 HEIDI J. JOHNSON, RPR, CSR NO. 12525
74
. '.24*/5
EXHIBIT B
.. CERTIFIED COPY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Plaintiff, )
)
VS.
No. 37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
a Delaware corporation and DOES

)
Defendants.
)
DEPOSITION OF ARLENE E. POLLARD, LCSW, a witness
herein, noticed by Paul, Plevin, Sullivan &
Conhaughton, LLP, at 401 B Street, Tenth Floor,
San Diego, California, at 10:06 a.m., on Friday,
May 6, 2011, before Jeannette M. Kinikin,
CSR 11272,
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
HEADQUARTERS:
6055 E WASHINGTON BLVD., 8'TH FLOOR
*CE 14
800.697.3210 323.888.6300
mic 323.888.6333 • www,hutchings.com
1 confirming that Ms. Etnyre has no objection to your 10:09
2 testifying fully and truthfully regarding your treatment
3 of her. Do you see that?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. And you're aware of that correspondence as 10:10
6 we117
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. All right.
9 MR. ROGERS: And if we don't mind, just as
10 housekeeping, I would like to keep the original. If we 10:10
11 can make a copy during the break, that would be great.
12 MS. WILSON: Of course.
13 MR. ROGERS: I appreciate it. I really do
14 appreciate you letting me do that.
15 MS. WILSON: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. It makes 10:10
16 sense.
17 Q. And as lona as we're on exhibits. I'll iust
18 show you another document, and you can tell me if you've
19 seen this before or not. But this is the --
20 Mr. Kondrick's desianation of exnerts. And vou are 10:10
21 listed here as one of the experts that he expects to
22 call at_trial._ But my_understanding is that he has iust
23 identified you as a treating physician. not as a
24 retained expert who's going to give independent expert
25 6pinions. 10:11

800-697-3210
1 Is that your understanding as well? [EXH-3] 10:11
2 A. This is new information to me so --
3 Q. Okav.
4 A. I'm seeina it for the first time.
5 Q. Okay. Well, let me just ask you a different 10:11
6 question then, which is, did you have any communications
7 with Mr. Kondrick about your deposition?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. Did he -- did he ever communicate in any
10 way, whether by letter or talking to you or through his 10:11
11 client, that he was expecting you to do anything other
12 than testify to your treatment of Ms. Etnyre7
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Okay. So what did you do to prepare for
15 this deposition? 10:11
16 A. I took about 30 or 40 minutes and scanned my
17 chart records.
18 Q. Okay. And that's -- and does your chart
19 consist of everything that you have that has to do with
20 Ms. Etnyre7 10:12
21 A. It does.
22 Q. Okay. And I've also scanned your chart. And
23 there's a lot of handwritten notes in there. I'm
24 assuming those are all your notes; is that correct?
25 A. That's correct. 10:12

800-697-3210
.
1 Q. Okay. And you had previously produced your 10:12
2 file in response to a douple of different subpoenas, one
3 earlier in the litigation, and one just a short time
4 ago. Do you recall that?
5 A. I do. 10:12
6 Q. And is it your understanding, that in those two
7 productions of your file, that you produced the entire
8 file that you had on Ms. Etnyre?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Okay. And do you keep any separate file on 10:12
11 Ms. Etnyre other than the one you produced that would
12 have like, for example, communications with Mr. Kondrick
13 in it?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Everything about Ms. Etnyre is in the 10:13
16 file you've already produced?
17 A. This is a complete file.
18 Q. Okay. Are you still treating Ms. Etnyre?
19 A. No.
20 Q. When did you stop treating her? 10:13
21 A. I last saw her, I believe. October 28th. 2610.
22 Q. Okay. And what was the reason you stopped
23 treating her7
24 A. It was an unplanned termination. Yes. __It_was
25 October 28th. 10:13
Hutchings C6urt Reporters - Global Legal Services Page 11

800-697-3210
.
1 background. Just starting from college, just where you 10:20
2 went, what your degrees are?
3 A. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Social
4 Work from San Diego State. Do you want the date7
5 Q. Yes. 10:20
6 A. 1974.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. And I have a Master of Science in Social Work
9 from San Diego State for 1976.
10 Q. Okav. And anv other degrees, licenses? 10:20
11 A. I'm_a_licensed_clinical social _worker .
12 Q. And what does that involve to obtain that
13 license?
14 A. Two years of full-time _supervised_postgraduate
15 experience. passina a written comprehensive exam and an 10:21
16 oral board comprehensive exam.
17 Q. Okav. And I'm not that familiar with your
18 field beina a licensed clinical social worker. so I
19 wanted__to ask_you_ a_little bit about essentially what-_-
20 what vour role is in the treatment of a patient? 10:21
21 A. I do counseling and psychotherapy in private
22 practice. I treat individuals. couples and families.
23 And I have a general practice.
24 Q. Okay. And what do you generally -- I mean,
25 looking at sort of the body of -- and you call them 10;21

800-697-3210
.

1 resources, if there are community services available 10:23
2 that I think would be a useful adjunct to the therapy, I
3 do often make referrals.
4 Q. Okay. And do you do any type of expert _work_or
5 do vou iust treat people? 10:24
6 A. I do no expert work.
7 Q. Okay. ,
8 A. I iust treat people.
9 Q. Okay. And do you do what we call -- and I'm
10 sure vou call it the same thing -- forensic work where 10:24
11 you come in and vou're not the treater but you come in
12 to try to analyze what the problem is that the
13 individual is havin«7
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. All right. Going back now to your 10:24
16 education. Did we cover everything in terms of your
17 degrees and your the experience that you had in order to
18 get your license7
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. With regard to your work history, can 10:24
21 you just give me kind of a broad brush background as
22 best you can. And it's not intended to be a memory
23 test. It's really just a general -- general idea is all
24 I need.
25 A. Okay. I've been in private practice since 10:24

800-697-3210
. .
1 Q. Okay. 10:38
2 A. Generally, no.
3 Q. And do you give your patients, clients
4 practical advice, for example -- for example,

I +
5 recommending they get a lawyer if you think there's a 10:38
6 basis for litigation7
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And do you have lawyers that you've
9 identified that you refer people to7
10 A. Some, yes. 10:38
11 Q. And how did you come up with a group of lawyers
12 that you refer people to7
13 A. It's a cumulative list that has been cultivated
14 over the years of attorneys that I've worked with
10:39
15 previously, attorneys I've had previous clients that
16 worked with and had good professional positive
17 el*eriences.
18 Q. Okay. Okay. Well, let's talk about
19 Ms. Etnyre. My understandina is you started treatina
20 her on October 17th, 2007; is that correct? 10:39
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. And what did you understand -- well, let
23 me just back up and ask you, how -- how did she come to
24 you? Was she referred to you by someone7
25 A. She was referred to me by a friend of hers. 10:39

800-697-3210
. .
1 this examination, and I have no problem with it, is -- 11:29
2 Mr. Kondrick's not here, but it's at Mr. Kondrick's
3 election that he's not here.
4 MS. WILSON: Exactly.
5 MR. ROGERS: Okay. 11:29
6 MS. WILSON: And I will put that on the record,
7 which is -- actually, maybe you should since you got the
8 call.
9 MS. LISTUG KLICK: Yeah. We received a fax and
10 from -- and we can attach this as an exhibit if you'd 11:29
11 like -- from Mr. Kondrick that he wouldn't be joining us
12 today and we could go forward.
13 MS. WILSON: We should probably get that at a break
14 and attach it.
15 MS. LISTUG KLICK: We also got a call from his 11:29
16 office to let us know that we had gotten the fax.
17 MR. ROGERS: Iappreciate it. Thanks.
18 MS. WILSON: Of course.
19 Q. Okay. Let me trv to ask vou the question in a
20 better wav. From vour exoerience with Ms. Etnyre.-do 11:30
21 you have any expectation one way or another of whether a
22 day or two after the assault if -- and she's spending a
23 social day with the alleged assailant and two other
24 individuals, would you expect that when she had the
25 opportunity to not participate in continued sight-seeing 11:30

800-697-3210
. .
1 and drinkina because she gets-back to.her_hotel late at 11:30
2 night, do you have anv expectation of whether or not she
3 would at that point sav, I'm going to bed or I'm going
4 to keep aoina and drinkina and aoing to the pub with
5 evervone? 11:30
6 A. I think it would be entirely possible that she
7 would continue with the socializing.
8 Q. Why is that?
9 A. Because she was raised in a family where there
10 was some Dhysical abuse. and it was verv common that it 11:31
11 was completely ignored by the parents on multiple
12 occasions._ And appearances were kept un and life went
13 on and functions continued. So that would have been the
14 precedent.
15 Q. Okay. 11:31
16 A. If I had to speculate.
17 Q. Yes. And vou are speculating on that?
18 A. I am.
19 Q. Okay. Did Ms. Etnyre describe to you any of
20 those subsequent events on the business trip? 11:31
21 A. No.
22 Q, When she said she was stressed for the rest of
23 the business trip, did she describe why she was
24 stressed?
25 A. What I remember is that, after the occurrence, 11:31

800-697-3210
1 that a fair statement? 12:05
2 A. No· Because I think the factual data that was
3 pertinent and contributing were times when she had no
4 income, no health insurance coverage, long lapses of
5 time when she was off for psychotr6pic medications, and 12:05
6 her symptoms were much worse because she couldn't afford
7 to fill the prescriptions because she had no health
8 insurance and couldn't afford to buy the medication. So
9 it was a number of things.
10 Q. And I guess what I'm driving at is. you didn't 12:05
11 make a factual determination of whether or not she was
12 assaulted: vou accepted her interDretation of _the events
13 that she was assaulted, correct7
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. So you're treatina_her_based on her 12:05
16 perception --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- that she's assaulted?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you draw any conclusion as to whether 12: 05
21 in fact she believed she was assaulted?
22 A. She absolutely believed it.
23 Q. And have you had experience with patients who,
24 for whatever psychological reasons may exist, would
25 change their perception of events from the time they 12:06

800-697-3210
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP CMICKEY") MINHAS
1 Q. These are notes in connection with the 14:17
2 mediation?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I'm not going to go into those except for
5 the fact that she reported to you that she told the 14:17
6 mediator that some of personal statements she'd made for
7 assault weren't true but were made because she wanted
8 out of his group. Did she -- do you recall her saying
9 that?
10 A. I did not. When I reviewed my records prior to 14:18
11 today, I did not remember her saying that.
12 Q. Do vou have a recollection in general of her
13 sayina_ I made zip some of the _ facts related to the
14 assault in order to aet transferred out of Mr. Minhas'
15 group? 14:18
16 A. No. That was_ never mv impression.
17 Q. Okay._ _Do you have any explanation for why you
18 wrote that in your notes?
19 A. I don't recall specifically. But I do know
20 that she was in no wav insinuatina that the assault had 14:18
21 not happened or that it had happened differently than
22 she portrayed it. as I recall.
23 Q. Now. obviously it is saying that she -- that
24 she --__ some of the statements that_ she made for assault
25 weren't true, so there had to be somethina she was 14:19

800-697-3210
.
1 saying that she had used to aet transferred in 14:19
2 connection with the assault that were not true. But do
3 you have any recollection of what those things were?
4 A. I do not. But if it had been somethina that
5 led me to question the voracity. I think I would recall 14:19
6 that.
7 Q. And on 4-21-08, your notes for that date --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- about halfway down the page, it indicates
10 that her attorney, Mr. Kondrick, told her not to look 14:20
11 for a job because she was -- or Kondrick's filing a
12 workers' comp claim?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Do you have a recollection of her making that
15 statement7 14:20
16 A. No. But I'm sure she made it or I -- it
17 wouldn't be in my notes.
18 Q. Okay. Do you have a recollection -- I mean,
19 during this timeframe, in April of '08, was Ms. Etnyre
20 able to work to your knowledge? 14:20
21 A. It fluctuated from time-to-time. There were
22 and I think it was complex in that there were pr6bably
23 times when she, as per my notes, looking for jobs,
24 applying for jobs, going through temporary agencies
25 because financially she felt like she had to. 14:21

800-697-3210
f
***
1
4 of the State of California that the f6regoing is true
5 and Correct.
7 Executed at , California,
8 on
10
11
ARLENE E. POLLARD, LCSW

12
M 13
!1
14
15
16
17
18
:54 k 19
'A;
, 4/'
20
21
22
23
1 1
24
A 4
25
209

800.697.3210
.
3 I, Jeannette Kinikin, CSR 11272, do hereby declare:
7 to Section 2093(b) and 2094 of the Code.of Civil
8 Procedure;
13
16
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawd
19 and correct.
20
20th
21 WITNESS my hand this day of A.N..744,4
/ COUR'l
........ 4-,0
May 2011
22 ,
2 04/ .4.:
% rn ;
23
5 U i TRANSCRIPT : M :
E t i CERfIFICATION f Y' 5
:It* 0
.:»:
Je nette Kinikin, CSR 11272 %.....
2
SEAL /
4845058;85
210

800.697.3210
EXHIBIT C
Forensic Psychiatry & Medicinsk the Expert Page 1 of 5
Ask the Expert
The Role of a Forensic Psychiatrist in Legal Proceedings
Harold J. Bursztajn, M.D.
Dr. Harold J. Bursztajn, Associate Clinical Professor and Co-Director, Program in Psychiatry and the
Law, Harvard Medical School at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, practices both as a
clinician and as a forensic psychiatrist consulting to attorneys and institutions,
What is a forensic psychiatrist?
A forensic psychiatrist is a medical doctor with, first, the additional training of a psychiatrist, and then
with special training and experience (forensic) in the application of psychiatric knowledge to
questions posed by the legal system. A forensic psychiatrist may also have a clinical practice.
However, when acting in the capacity of a forensic specialist, he or she is not providing therapy to
alleviate the patient's suffering or to help the patient be free and healthy, but an objective evaluation
for use by the retaining institution, attorney, or court.
What kinds of determinations do forensic psychiatrists make in civil proceedings?
Forensic psychiatrists are involved in a range of particularized competency determinations, including

the competence to make wills, dispose of property, or refuse medical treatment. In custody disputes
they may be called upon to assess how autonomous and authentic the expressed wishes of a child of a
certain age can be. They evaluate and testify in cases of alleged emotional harm and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD). Here it is necessary to reach a deep understanding ofthe person's life history,
so as to identify prior experiences that may have created a special vulnerability to trauma (as opposed
to prior impaired functioning), as well as to distinguish genuine trauma from faking, malingering,
exaggerating, or misattributing. Forensic psychiatrists are involved in worksite issues such as workers'
compensation, supervisory negligence, disability discrimination, and sexual harassment. On the
environmental front, they are helping to define the limits of product liability and stress caused by fear
of illness. They also are trained in the use of the psychological autopsy to determine cause of death.
Forensic psychiatrists use their special knowledge ofthe medical-legal interface to testify in cases of
medical malpractice, including the explosion of accusations of sexual exploitation of patients by
health professionals. Informed consent, which involves subtle questions of competence, can be a
crucial factor in determining liability. In one recent case, I testified on behalf of a woman who
(together with her family) was awarded $1.5 million in damages (including interest) because of the
consequences of her physicians' failure to engage her in an informed-consent process before
performing a cesarean section.
6/15/2011
http://www. forensic-psych.com/articles/artAskexp01.php
Forensic Psychiatry & Medicin the Expert Page 2 of 5
What about criminal cases?
Although few defendants win a verdiut of"not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) in court, a larger
number receive a stipulated NGRI on the basis of a forensic psychiatric evaluation. In an even wider
range of cases, a defendant's mental state can make a major difference as to whether a jury finds the
necessary premeditation, or malice aforethought, to warrant conviction for (say) first-degree murder,
as opposed to a lesser charge. The same considerations may be brought to bear in sentencing
fecommendations as well.
The forensic psychiatric consultation can also be a vital aid to determining whether a client is
perjuring himself, or is competent to confess. For example, a schizophrenic man spent nine years in
prison in Florida for a double murder to which he had made a false, coerced confession which an
expert forensic psychiatric consultation couldhave revealed to be invalid. Last year my testimony
helped win acquittal for a psychotically depressed man who had confessed to embezzling city funds
that he had never taken.
What are some of the other services a forensic psychiatrist can offer me?
In addition to the highly visible role of expert witness, the forensic psychiatrist performs numerous
consultative services out of the public eye. These include client management witness evaluation,
witness preparation, jury selection, and establishing witness credibility. You can decide in each
individuai case which of these services will be most helpful to your client But it helps to engage in an
ongoing dialogue with the consulting expert.
Won't my clients balk at hiring a forensic psychiatrist?
Often they will, because they don't understand the value ofthe fofensic psychiatrisis contribution.
Trial attorneys, even when they themselves are ccsnvinced of the need to retain a forensic expert, often
must work hard to persuade the client that this additional investment is necessary. Specifically, a
plaintiff who is suing for emotional damages may be reluctant to talk about traumatic experiences that
carry a stigma. This fear and inhibition tend to be expressed in a stereotypical devaluation of
psychiatry. The client thinks, "It won't get me much, and it probably will cause me trouble." On the
defense side, clients who are already unhappy about being sued or prosecuted typically displace and
vent their anger by objecting, if not to the attorney's, then to the expert's fees.
What if my client says, "Isn't one psychiatrist as good as another? Why not get a "hired gun"
who will do the job in the least time and give us the opinion we're looking for?"
Although the popular stereotype of the "hired gun" is largely a historical anachronism, it still
conditions the way clients view expert witnesses. The hired guns that are still around can sometimes
save money for a hard-pressed attorney and can mislead a jury when.the opposing side has not
retained a psychiatrist who has done an in-depth forensic evaluation. However, in my experience they
6/15/2011
http://www. forensic-psych. com/articles/artAskexp01.php
are never effective when rebutted by an expert with a deep understanding based on meticulous
evaluation of the available medical/legal evidence.
What if my client says, "Why not just have my treating psychiatrist do the evaluation for the
court?"
If there ever was a case of a client being penny-wise and pound-foolish, it is here. The client who
makes this request has no idea -- until it happens -- how devastating it can be to sacrifice the
confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship and have one's formerly empathic ally reporting on one's
innermost experience in court. How can the client ever trust a therapi st enough to enter into therapy
again?
Not Only that, but the use of a treating psychiatrist in place of a forensic psychiatrist has, in my
experience, generally damaged the client's case. That is because the forensic psychiatrist's specialized
expertise "trumps" the clinician's less well-informed opinion. In every civil action in which I've
served as expert for the defense while the plainti ff has offered only the report of a treating clinician,
the case has been summarily dismissed, settled for nuisance value, or yielded a trial award far below
the plaintiffs expectations. This just happened in a suit against a hospital for alleged sexual
misconduct by a nurse and supervisory negligence. The judge essentially said, "The defense has an
expert's report; the plaintiff doesn't. Case dismissed."
In a criminal case, the defense attorney who retains the treating clinician as an expert witness may be
in for a rude shock. The treating clinician may tum out to be prejudiced against the defendant merely
by virtue ofthe act the defendant has committed. Having been trained in medical school to " first, do
no harm," the general psychiatrist may become so preoccupied with the harm done to the victim or to
society as to lose sight of the harm being done to the clienVdefendant.
A therapist engages in an empathic exploration of the patient's subjective point of view, which entails
a degree of emotional identification and a "Willing suspension of disbelief." A forensic psychiatrist,
by c6ntrast, undertakes an objective investigation of cause-and-effect. relationships, using multiple
perspectives and information sources. The two roles are so incompatiblethat the American Academy
of Psychiatfy and the Law considers it unethical to combine them when the alternative of a forensic
psychiatrist who is notthe treating psychiatrist is available.
How, then, can I convince my client to expend limited funds to retain a forensic psychiatric
expert?
First, by explaining that, whether or not you retain such an expert, your client's adversary may well do
so. As you probably have observed, forensic psychiatrists are a growing presence throughout the legal
system, working behind the scenes as well as on the witness stand to inform attorneys, judges, and
juries about why people do what they do. Next, emphasize that forensic expertise is effective. I've
never testified on the losing side in a case in which the opposing side has failed to put forward a
forensic psychiatric expert of its own, or has hired a psychiatrist who performed a perfunctory
examination, the st¢reotypical "hired gun."
6/15/2011
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artAskexp01.php
How does a forensic psychiatrist go about conducting an evaluation?
A properly conducted forensic evaluation is an extended, in-depth process. It entails multiple

interviews, detailed review and comparison of what the examinee has communicated on different
occasions, microanalysis of the data (with consideration ofsequence, tone, and nonverbal behavior),
and cross-checking with corroborative evidence (interviews with relevant others, police and medical
records, other expert witness reports, and psychological testing).
This evaluation must be conducted with subtlety and delicacy. The examinee not only may falsify or
misattribute, but also may minimize or deny symptoms oftraumatic stress or exhibit amnesia or
denial of past events wh6se remembrance evokes such stress. Thus, people under stress may forget
details that subsequently emerge, or they may embellish their memories and engage in wishful
thinking. Neither of these distortions ipso facto constitutes malingering or perjury.
The essence of forensic psychiatry lies in creating a working alliance with the person being examined
for the limited purposes of the examination. It is to have the person be a collaborator (albeit
sometimes a reluctant, conflicted, or inhibited one) in reconstructing the mental, emotional, and
physical states in question.
What does a forensic psychiatric consultation cost?
Because a forensic psychiatric consultation/evaluation is a nonclinical procedure requiring additional

training and skill, it carries a higher fee than general psychiatry. A typical forensic psychiatric hour
costs between $250 and $500 an hour. Time billed generally includes review, examination,
preparation, travel, and testimony. This can be an expensive service. You must evaiuate whether, ina
particular case, the benefit is worth the additional cost. You can do this by having an initial review by
a forensic psychiatrist before deciding whether to proceed with a full-scale evaluation. Such a review
can help y6u prioritize the available forensic psychiatric services within your budgetary limits. At the
same time, as experienced attorneys well know, it is necessary to secure funding from the client
before authorizing services.
Will a forensic psychiatrist accept a contingency fee?
Not if the psychiatrist is practicing according to the ethical guidelines published by the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Contingency fees are ruled out because they compromise the
objectivity of the evaluation. Attorneys who pressure an expert witness to work on a contingency
basis are, in effect, asking the expert to engage in unprofessional and unethical conduct.
Can I be held liable for not retaining a forensic psychiatrist if my client loses the case?
I have been retained in several cases of legal malpractice based on an attorney's failure to obtain a
forensic psychiatric consultation. The defense has prevailed in cases where it could be established
that, had a f6rensic psychiatrist been retained, there would have been no finding helpful to the client.
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artAskexp01.php 6/15/2011
As with other forms of negligence, there is no liability if there is no damage. The case would hinge,
therefore, on whether a forensic consultation would likely have been helpful to the clienfs case.
Copyright on this material is retained by Harold J, Bursztajn, M.D. Permission is granted by Dr.
Bursztajn to reprint this article in its entirety, including this copyright notice and the by-line, for
educational purposes only. Expressed written consent from Dr. Bursztajn must be obtained before
reproduction of this article for any other purpose.
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artAskexp01.php 6/15/2011
EXHIBIT D
.
1 H. Paul Kondrick, Esq. (State Bar No. 88566)

H. Paul Kendrick, a Professional Corporation
2 3130Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103-5803
3
Telephone: (619) 291-2400
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
4 Attorney for Plaintiff COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL

10
Plaihtiff, ) PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S.
11
) ETNYRE'S, EXPERT WITNESS
V.
) DESIGNATION AND
12
) ACCOMPANYING DECLARATION
SANDIP C'MICKEY") MINHAS, individually, ) OF EXPERT WITNESSES [CODE
13 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware ) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, § 20341
corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, )
14
5 Judge: Hon. Jay M. Bloom
Department: DC-70
15 Defendants.
) Complaint Filed: November 2,2009

16

17
Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE ["ETNYRE"1, designates the following experts who

18
are expected to offer expert opinions at trial as follows:
19
1. Gene R. Konrad, Certified Public Accountant, 5151 Shoreham, Suite 100, San
20
Diego, CA. 92122, telephone: 858-692-5776;

21
1 Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D., University of San Diego, School of Business

22
Administration, Olin Hall, 313, San Diego, CA., telephone: 619-2604858;

23
3, Each ofplaintiffs treating and evaluating physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists

24
or attending professionals or other health care providers, as appropriate, who are known to
25
counsel through discovery or otherwise, in particular, the following:

26
DeeAhn Wong, M.D.,
27 345 Saxony Rd., Suite 201
Encinitas, CA 92024
28 Tele: 760-753-7341 (office)
Fax:- 760-753-6403 or 760-753-7341;
-1-
Plaintifrs Initial Expert Wit Designation
. .
1 Arlene Pollard
7777 Alvarado, Suite 711

2 La Mesa, CA 91941
Tele: 619-460-4322
3 Fax: 619-460-4322
4
4. Plaintiffalso reserves the right to call all experts listed by or on behalf of any
5
other parties to this lawsuit as well as any expert yet to be identified herein. Plaintiff
6
incorporates herein by reference the information supplied by the other parties, or to be supplied
7 by the other parties;
8
5. Plaintiff further reserves the right to augment expert witness designation and
9
declaration by adding the name and address of any expert which defendants subsequently retain;
10
6. Plaintiff further reserves the right to amend the general substance of the
11
anticipated testimony of all designated expert witnesses as below set forth;
12
7. Plaintiff further reserves the right to call at trial any expert witness, regardless of
13
whether the expert has previ6usly been designated by any party, to impeach the testimony of an
14 expert offered by any other party at trial;
15
8. Plaintiffs designated experts will be made available for deposition at a date, time
16 and location mutually convenient to all parties and the designated witness; and
17
9. Plaintifffurther reserves the right to supplement this list or offer other expert
18 testimony as their needs become apparent.
19
H. Paul Kondrick,
A Professional Corporation:
20
21
22
Dated: December 30,201 By·: /2 H. Paul Kondrick -
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY
23 S. ETNYRE
24 DECLARATION
25 L H. Paul Kondrick, declare as follows:
26
1. Pursuant to Code Of Civil Procedure, f 2034, and otherwise, plaintiff,
27
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE rETNYRE"], hereby designates Gene R. Koorad as an expert
28 witness in the above-entitled action. Mr. Konrad is expected to testify as to causation and
Plaintifs Initial Expert Wit Designation

.
1 economic issues and damages sustained, suffered by, or otherwise caused to plaintiff, El'NYRE,
2 including butnot limited to lost income, employment benefits such as vacation, health and life
3 insurance and retirement, whether stock or other retirement benefits and/or options, taxes and
4 tax obligations, including penalties, and the like, and other direct or indirect economic losses
5 and monetary damages sustained or experienced by plaintiff, ETNYRE. Mr. Konrad will be
6 sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral examinatiob
7 concerning the testimony that he is expected to give at trial including his opinion testimony and
8 the bases therefor.
9 a. Mr. Konrad was a partner in Hutchinson & Bloodgood, Certified Public

10 Accountants, located in San Diego, CA. He was also previously a partner in Peterson &
11 Company, Certified Public Accountants, and tax senior wilh Seidman & Seidman He has more
12 than twenty (20) years experience as a certified public accountant Mr. Konrad participates in
13 various professional activities including, but not limited to: the American Institute ofCertified
14 Public Accountants, California C.PA. Society; California C.P.A. Society, San Diego Chapter;
15 NEX[A International. Mr. Konrad has been retained as an expert witness in various civil
16 actions and other proceedings, including employment disputes relative to lost wages,
17 compensation and benefits, including retirement and pension issues, whether based on
18 employment contract, discrimination or other causes of action or claims,
19 b. Mr. Konrad's fee forproviding deposition testimony is expected to be $275.00
20 per hour. He reserves the right to adjust his expert witness fee.
21 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, f 2034, and otherwise, plaintiff, ETNYRE,

22 further designates Johanna Hunsaker, PAD. Dr. Hunsaker is expected to testify as to issues
23 relating to human resources and employee relations, including but not limited to the various
24 employment, personnel, payroll, benefits, wage and industrial relations issues such as, but not
25 limited to, personnel management industrial relations/personnel relations, scope and
26 reasonableness or Sirness of procedures, and employee rights in the workplace. The issues will
27 further include business organizations, organizational and management structures, policy-
28 making especially hom a human resource standpoint and personn¢1 policy-malcing
-3- Plabriers Initial Expert Wit Designation
.
1 implementation, as appropriate. Dr. Hunsaker will be sufficiently familiar with the pending
2 action to submit to a meaningful oral examination concerning the testimony that she is expected
3 to give at trial including her opinion testimony and the bases therefor.
4 She will further opine in relation to employment, personnel and industrial relations
5 issues including but not limited to personnel management, induslrial relations/personnel
6 relations, including reasonable investigation, including scope and reasonableness/fairness of
7 procedures, and employee rights in the WOIkplace. The issues will further include business
8 organizations, organizational and management structures, policy-making, especially from a
9 human resource standpoint personnel policy-making implementation, the roles ofmanagement
10 and broads ofdirectors, organizational and management structures and policy-making,
11 especially from a human resource standpoint.
12 She will further more specifically opine relative to the following, as appropriate:
13 • In relation to defendants' conduct toward and treatment of plaintiff whether it/he
14 Adhered to its/his own guidelines or policies, especially those on which
15 defendant's employees relied;
16 · Whether deRndant (employer) followed its policies, practices and procedures in

17 its dealings with plaintiff, in particular relative to the terms, conditions and
18
privileges ofher employment;
19 • Whether plaintiffs employment termination or discharge was grossly or

20 otherwise disproportionate to the discipline, corrective measures or punishments
21 meted out to similarly, or substantially similar, situated employees;
22 • Whether the defendant employer significantly or otherwise deviated from its
23
ordinary personnel procedures in the plaintiffs case;
24 . The objective criteria of a peiformance improvement plan and whether
25 defennt, QUALCOMM, adhered to its own policies, practices, procedures and
26 guidelines relative to any performance improvement plan insofar as its conduct
27
toward and treatment of plaintiff;
28 .
Workplace investigation standards, including any investigations defective their
4- Plaintiffs Initial Expert Wit Designation
1
inception, design, methods, execution and findings;
2
• The roles or responsibilities ofhuman resources and employee relations
3
personnel;
4
• The objective criteria of an appropriate or reasonable investigation of
5 basassment;
6
• The objective criteria of an appropriate or reasonable investigation of
7 misconduct;
8
• Course and scope of employment including in relation to business trips and
9
social events, such as so-called "team building" events as may be referenced and
10
applicable to the present matter;
11
• The objective parameters reasonably expected of sexual harassment including
12
sexually hostile, abusive or polluted workenvironment;
13
• Whether an employee can reasonably consent to sexual advances, harassment or
14
assault, especially battery, from the hands or actions of the employee's
15
immediate supervisor or other person(s) in positions of power or authority over
16 the employee;
17
· What reasonably and/or objectively constitutes unwanted sexual advances or
18
verbal/sexual conduct of a sexual nature;
19
• Whether defentignts should have known, specifically on an objective basis, that
20
plaintif was subjected to a work environment that could be considered hostile or
21
abusive, including whether a supervisor engaged in the conduct, or the employer
22
[QUALCOMM Incorporated] or supervisor(s) or agent(s) 1mew, or should have
23
known ofthe conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
24 action;
23
• Whether there was an objectively, sexually hostile or abusive wofk environment
26
as opposed to a subjectively hostile or abusive work environmenti
27
• Whether defendant (employer) took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
28
from occurring, including the prompt, full, and fair investigation of all
-5- Plaintiff's Initial Expert Wit Designation

.
1 harassment complaints or reports ofharassment;
• Whether defendant (employer) failed to follow State laws or regulation with

regardtoittreatment ofplaintiff due to her medical condition or physical or
4 mental disability or condition, including but not limited to engaging in a timely,
5 good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine
6
effective reasonable accommodations, ifany, in response to a request for
7 reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a 1mown physical
8 or mental disability or known medical condition;
9 • The employer's limitations, ifany, on employee discipline, including

10 termination; and
11 • Whether defendant complied with its reasonable personnel policies, or whether

12 there was a violation of those policies.
13 a. Dr. Johanna Hunsaker isprofessor ofManagement and Organizational Behavior

14 at the University of San Diego where she has been on faculty since 1981. Dr. Hunsaker
15 previously taught at San Diego State University and the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee.
16 Her degrees include: Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Urban Education, Buginess
17 Administration and Sociology; M.S. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Philosophical and
18 Cultural Foundations ofEducation; B.S. University of Wisconsin, Madison English and
19 Education.
20 Dr. Hunsaker taught internationally in France, Germany, Hong Kong, and Saipan in the
21 Northern Marianas Islands. At the University of San Diego, she has concentrated on effective
22 t,wnhing and curriculum development, designed new courses and practiced innovative teaching
23 techniques. She consistently ranks inthetop 10 percent ofprofessors inthe School of Business.
24 Hunsaker has published over 50 articles, including a book on gender issues in the workplace,
25 Strategies and Skillsfor Managerial Women. Much of her professional life has been committed
26 to supporting women in leadership positions. She has served as a trainer, a consultant, and haR
27 been an expert witness in court cases concerning sexual harassment and workplace
28 discrimination.
-6-
Plaintiffs Initial Expert Wit Designalion
1 b. Dr. Hunsaker's fee for providing deposition testimony is $300.00 per hour. She
2 too reserves the right to adjust her expert witness fee.
3 4. I declare under penalty of Peijury under the laws of the State of California that
4 the foregoing is true and correct except as to those matters stated on information, belief or
5 opinion, and as to those matters, I believe the same to be true.
6 Executed this 30® day of December 2010, at San Diego, Cal,)rniH. Paul Kbndrick
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) FILED
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200 By: Anthony Shirley, Depu¥
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
JUN 24'11 0403:29
7
8
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

9

INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF
12 LODGMENT OF NON-CALIFORNIA
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS
13 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, MOTIONS IN LIMINE
40, inclusive, Date: July 1, 2011
Time: 8:45 am.
15
Defendants. Dept: 70
17 Trial I)ate: July 1, 2011
18
19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Qualcomm Incorporated hereby lodges the
21 following non-California authorities in support of its motions in limine:
22 1. Green v. Los Angeles Counly Superintendent OfSchools (9th Cir. 1989) 883 F.2d
23 1472;
24 2. Harpring v. Continental Oil Co. (5th Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 406, cert. denied (1981)
25 454 U.S. 89;
26 3. Moorhouse v. Boeing Co. (IE.D. Pa. 1980) 501 F.Supp. 390,393 affd. (3rd Cir.
27 1980) 639 F.2d 774.
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN & Notice of Lodgment ofNon-CA Authorities ISO
CONNAUGHTON LLP Qualcomm's Motions In Limine
1 .
1 Dated: June 24, 2011 PA VIN, SULLIVAN &

C U ONL
2
3 B
I L C. SULLIVAN
4 MELI A LISTUG KLICK
J. FOX

6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Notice of Lodgment of Non-CA Authorities ISO 2
CONNAUGHTON UP Qualcomm's Motions In Limine
.
1
MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
2 MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470)
EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106)
3 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
401 B Street, Tenth Floor JUN 24'11 PM03:
Telephone: 619-237-5200
5 Facsimile: 619-615-0700 FILED
6 Attorneys for Defendant JUN 2 4 2011

7 By: Anthony Shirley, Depuv
8
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

10
12 Plaintiff, PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE
13 V.
Dept: 70
14 SANDIP ("MICKEY*') MINHAS, Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
15 Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through Trial Date: July 1, 2011
40, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
ORIGINAL
Proof of Service
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
..
1 I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age
2 of eighteen, employed in the County of San Diego, State of California, and not a party to the
3 within-entitled action. My business address is P.O. Box 12037, San Diego, California, 92101.
4 On June 24,2011 I served a true copy ofthe within:
5 • DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE

TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING DISMISSED CLAIMS [1 of 81
6
• DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED EVENTS INVOLVING
7
SEXUAL CONDUCT WHERE MINHAS AND ETNYRE WERE NOT
8
PRESENT [2 of 81
• DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG KLICK IN SUPPORT OF
9 DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF EVENTS INVOLVING UNRELATED
10 ALLEGED SEXUAL CONDUCT [2 of 81
11
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED EXTRANEOUS EVENTS [3 of
12 81
. DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
13 TO EXCLUDE THE BLOODY CLOTHING [4 of 81
14
DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
15
TO EXCLUDE TO EXCLUDE THE BLOODY CLOTHING [4 of 81
16 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT, JOHANNA HUNSAKER PH.D.'S
TESTIMONY [5 of 81
17
18
TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT, JOHANNA HUNSAKER PH.D.'S
19 TESTIMONY [5 of 81
20 TO EXCLUDE THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JANE MACK-
BAKER [6 of 81
21
. DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
22
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE [7 of 81
23 DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE [7 of 81
24
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXPERT OPINIONS OF DR.
25
DEEANN WONG AND ARLENE POLLARD [8 of 81
26 • DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG KLICK IN SUPPORT OF
27 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXPERT OPINIONS OF DR.
DEEANN WONG AND ARLENE POLLARD [8 of 81
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
Proof of Service
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
' I.
1 • DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF

LODGMENT OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
2 ITS MOTIONS IN LIMINE
3
by delivering for personal service to the following:
4
H. Paul Kondrick, a Professional Corporation Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP

5
7
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
E-Mail: kondrick@msn.eom E-Mail: izilberman@wokt.com
8
Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant Sandip Minhas
Place of delivery is San Diego, California. Executed this 24th day of June 2011, at San
9
Diego, California.
10
I hereby certify that I am employed by Accutech Messenger Service, San Diego,

11
California, at whose direction the personal service was made.

12
ju'U
13
14
ESSE}ER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
Proof of Service
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
.
DO NOT
FILE
SEE
VOLUME
2.
SDSC ADM-171(Rev. 7-03)

37 2009 00101537 Cu Oe CTL - Roa 309 - 05 16 17 - 1510712829633

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

37 2009 00101537 Cu Oe CTL - Roa 309 - 05 16 17 - 1510712829633

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Court of California

County of San Diego

C208_C3309/7 Reg_Date: 05/09/2017

SDSC ADM- 171(Rev. 7-03)

CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Diego, CA 92101

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (619) 450-7073

PLAINTIFF(S)/PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S) Courtney S Etnyre

DEFENDANT(SYRESPONDENT(S): Sandip Minhas et.al.

Short Title: Etnyre vs. Minhas

TYPE OF HEARING DATE TIME DEPT JUDGE

Settlement Conference (Civil) 06/28/2011 09:30 am C-73 Steven R. Denton

SUPCT CIV-700 (Rev. 12-06) Page: 1

SHORT TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas

MELISSA L KUCK LEONID ZILBERMAN

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

10 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL

11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT QUALCOMM

12 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING

3 Pursuant to the Court's rulings on Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated's ("Qualcomm")

9 conduct or Qualcomm's investigation of that conduct. However, Qualcomm anticipates that

11 claims that have already been summarily adjudicated in favor of Qualcomm.

22 437c(n)(1), which provides, in pertinent part:

23 If a motion for summary adjudication is granted, at the trial ofthe

2 This language does not anticipate relitigation of issues which have

Plaintiff worked as a paralegal in the patent department starting in

1 another manager in July 2006. Plaintiff filed a worker's

1 relevance to the claims on trial.

2 Accordingly, Etnyre should be precluded from presenting evidence, witnesses or

7 accommodation such as reduced schedule, and her termination).

8 A. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Etnyre's Failed Claims is Irrelevant and Must be

15 2006, and should be excluded for this additional reason.

16 B. Testimony or Evidence Regarding Etnyre's Failed Claims Would be Extremely

17 Prejudicial and a Waste of Time.

21 prejudice, or of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."

22 If Etnyre is allowed to relitigate her summarily adjudicated claims it would be a waste of

4 issues, and misleading the jury is too great.

20 Etnyre's administrative leave or temlination.2 Specifically, Qualcomm seeks to exclude the

Dated: June 24, 2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DATE: 01/21/2011 TIME: 11:00:00 AM DEPT: C-70

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Randa Trapp

CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL CASE INIT. DATE: 11/02/2009

EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil)

EVENT TYPE: Summary Judgment / Summary,Adjudiciatibn (Cipl),

APPEARANCES -,R*St P' * 41 s

Michael C. Sullivan, specially appearing forcoOnd61.Malissa«Klick, present for Defendant(s).

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by defendant Qualcomm Jpcorporated is GRANTED as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DATE: 06/09/2011 TIME: 02:02:00 PM DEPT: C-70

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Randa Tfapp

CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 11/02/2009

37-200940101537 ETNYRE v. MINHAS

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by defendant Qualcomm Incorporated is GRANTED in

Defendant identified 10 issues for the court to adjudicate:

DATE: 06/09/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE.CTL

Summary adjudication is granted as to Issues #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Summary adjudication is

DATE: 06/09/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

CASE TITLE: Etnyre vs. Minhas CASE NO: 37-200940101537-CU-OE-CTL

DATES: 06/09/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 3

APPEARANCES -,RSt P' 41 s