66 MTC ID - Reply - LeeE Declaration

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 1 of 30
1 Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013
3 Telephone: (213) 992-3299
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
4 Email: elee@LOEL.com
5
Joan Herrington, SB# 178988
6 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
5032 Woodminster Lane
7 Oakland, CA 94602-2614
Telephone: (510) 530-4078
8 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
Email: jh@baelo.com
9 Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
15
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN
16 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO
v. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
17 INITIAL DISCLOSURES; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
18 COUNTY OF KERN; et al.
Date: November 5, 2007
19 Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
20 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
21 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Date Set for Trial: August 26, 2008
22
23
I, the undersigned, declare and say, as follows:
24
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
25
California and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
26
California. I am one of the attorneys of record representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.
27
2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.’s Motion to
28
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1
1 Compel Initial Disclosures and Request for Sanctions. The facts stated herein are personally known to
2 me and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in
3 this declaration.
4 3. On March 8, 2007, I sent an email to Ms. Karen Barnes, Deputy County Counsel for the
5 County of Kern, relaying Dr. Jadwin’s request for access to his office in order to obtain materials needed
6 to prepare for an upcoming lecture he was to give. A true and correct copy of the email is attached
7 hereto as Exhibit 1, page 000002.
8 4. On March 13, 2007, Dr. Philip Dutt, Kern Medical Center (“KMC”) Acting Chair of
9 Pathology, sent an email to me asking Dr. Jadwin to specify the materials. A true and correct copy of the
10 email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, page 000001 - 000002.
11 5. On March 21, 2007, I sent an email to Ms. Barnes explaining that Dr. Dutt’s suggestion
12 was impractical and that Dr. Jadwin would need physical access to his computer. A true and correct
13 copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, page 000001.
14 6. On March 22, 2007, Ms. Barnes sent an email to me granting Dr. Jadwin’s request for
15 access to his computer and asking for Dr. Jadwin to set a date and time to go to KMC. A true and correct
16 copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, page 000001.
17 7. On March 25, 2007, I sent an email to Ms. Barnes informing her that Dr. Jadwin
18 preferred to go to KMC on March 28, 2007 at 2 p.m. A true and correct copy of the email is attached
19 hereto as Exhibit 1, page 000003.
20 8. On March 27, 2007, Ms. Barnes sent an email to me confirming March 28, 2007 at 2 p.m.
21 was fine. She asked that Dr. Jadwin report to the “medical staff office” in order to be escorted to the
22 pathology department. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, page 000003.
23 9. On March 29, 2007, I faxed a letter to Ms. Barnes detailing Dr. Dutt’s refusal to grant Dr.
24 Jadwin access to his computer files, thus forcing him to drive over 100 miles back to his home
25 essentially empty-handed. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, page
26 000004-000006.
27 10. On July 4, 2007, I sent an email to Mark Wasser, counsel for Defendants, stating that, in
28 light of Kern County’s decision not to renew his employment contract, Dr. Jadwin would like to retrieve

1 all of his personal items from his office at KMC. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto
2 as Exhibit 2, page 000001.
3 11. On August 15, 2007, I sent an email to Mr. Wasser asking for an explanation why it was
4 taking Kern County upwards of six weeks to permit Dr. Jadwin to retrieve his personal items. A true and
5 correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, page 000002.
6 12. On September 10, 2007, I sent an email to Mr. Wasser asking for an explanation why it
7 was taking Kern County upwards of 2 months to permit Dr. Jadwin to retrieve his personal items. A true
8 and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, page 000003.
9 13. On September 29, 2007, I sent an email to Mr. Wasser asking for an explanation why it
10 was taking Kern County nearly 3 months to permit Dr. Jadwin to retrieve his personal items. A true and
11 correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, page 000004.
12 14. On October 5, 2007, I faxed a meet and confer letter to Mr. Wasser regarding Defendants
13 threatened motion for protective order, citing Folsom v. Heartland Bank, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7814 (D.
14 Kan. 1999) at length. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, page 000001-
15 000001-000003.
16 15. On October 9, 2007, more than 2 weeks after Plaintiff had already filed the Motion to
17 Compel, Mr. Wasser faxed a letter to me proposing a stipulation that was similar to the stipulation which
18 Plaintiff had been proposing for more than a month and which Defendants had refused to even negotiate.
19 A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, page 000004-000008.
20 16. On October 10, 2007, Mr. Wasser sent an email to me asking whether I had had a chance
21 to review his “letter and proposed stipulation”. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as
22 Exhibit 3, page 000009.
23 17. Later that day, I sent an email to Mr. Wasser proposing revisions to Defendants’
24 stipulation. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, page 000010.
25 18. Later that day, Mr. Wasser sent a reply email to me rejecting the proposed revisions. A
26 true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, page 000010.
27 19. On October 26, 2007, Mr. Wasser sent an email to me that was sarcastic and
28 unprofessional. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 4, page 0000001.

1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
2 foregoing is true and correct.
3
4 Executed on October 26, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.
5
6
________________________________________
7 Eugene D. Lee
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE
EXHIBIT 1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Deputy County Counsel for

Kern County regarding Dr. Jadwin’s request for access to computer
files
EXHIBIT 2. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Defendant’s counsel
regarding Dr. Jadwin’s request to retrieve his personal items from his
office
EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ counsel’s correspondence with Plaintiff’s counsel
proposing stipulation
EXHIBIT 4. Defendants’ counsel’s email to Plaintiff’s counsel of October 26, 2007
EXHIBIT 1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Deputy County Counsel for

Kern County regarding Dr. Jadwin’s request for access to computer
files
Eugene D. Lee
From: Karen Barnes [barnesk@kernmedctr.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:58 AM
To: Eugene D. Lee
Subject: RE: Jadwin: Access to office
Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed
I will need to know a date and time.
>>> "Eugene D. Lee" <elee@LOEL.com> 03/21/07 3:44 PM >>>

Karen:
Dr. Jadwin has considered Dr. Dutt's suggested approach at great length, however, he's
concluded it would be simpler and easier if he were simply permitted access to his
office. It will be very time consuming, not to mention uncomfortable, for Dr. Jadwin to
have to inventory the personal items he needs access to. Dr. Jadwin has a lot of
personal information – including personal items predating his employment at KMC – stored
on his computer in the office. As you know, Dr. Jadwin’s involuntary suspension was
abruptly imposed with no prior warning, catching Dr. Jadwin unawares. During the nearly
four months since then, Dr. Jadwin has not once been permitted access to his personal
items at his office.
At this time, Dr. Jadwin would greatly appreciate being permitted momentary access to
his office to retrieve the personal items he needs from his office. Your prompt response
is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L a w O f f i c e o f E u g e n e L e e
e m p l o y m e n t l a w
5 5 5 W e s t F i f t h S t . , S t e . 3 1 0 0
L o s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 1 3
T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9
F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Dutt, MD [mailto:duttp@kernmedctr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:30 PM
To: Karen Barnes; Eugene D. Lee
Subject: Re: Jadwin: Access to office
Karen et al.:
1
Lee Decl 1 000001
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
What materials Document
does he need? Books? Handouts 66CME Filed
from 10/26/2007
courses? If Gene Page 8 of 30
Lee will give us specifics, maybe I can help without Dr. Jadwin having
to come here.
What is the title of the lecture or presentation?
Thank You,
Philip Dutt
Pathologist
Lab
Kern Medical Center
duttp@kernmedctr.com
* * * * * * * * * * CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT * * * * * * * * * *
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the
original message to us at the E-mail address above. Thank you
>>> "Eugene D. Lee" <elee@LOEL.com> 03/08/07 10:40 AM >>>

Karen:
Dr. Jadwin asked me to relay to you his request for access to his
office. He
needs certain materials in order to prepare for a lecture he will be
giving
soon. Please let me know what KMC's required procedure are.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L a w O f f i c e o f E u g e n e L e e
e m p l o y m e n t l a w
5 5 5 W e s t F i f t h S t . , S t e . 3 1 0 0
L o s A n g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 1 3
T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9
F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
2
Lee Decl 1 000002
Eugene D. Lee
From: Karen Barnes [barnesk@kernmedctr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:47 PM
To: Eugene D. Lee
Subject: RE: Jadwin: Access to office

Wednesday, March 28 at 2 p.m. is fine. Please have Dr. Jadwin report to the medical staff office. He should be familiar
with its location. From there someone will escort him to the pathology department.
>>> "Eugene D. Lee" <elee@LOEL.com> 03/25/07 11:34 PM >>>

Karen:
Dr. Jadwin would prefer Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 2:00 pm. Please confirm by reply email whether this date and time
will be acceptable to you.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
1
Lee Decl 1 000003
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/ 3 03/29/07 4:09 pm

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE
FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 03/29/2007
Pages: 3 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/County of Kern et al.
Comments:
Karen:
Transmitted herewith is a letter regarding Dr. Jadwin's visit to his

office at KMC yesterday and KMC's duty to preserve evidence.
Please contact me if you have questions.
Lee Decl 1 000004

To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 2/ 3 03/29/07 4:09 pm
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF ELEE@LOEL.GOM
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010 WEBSITE
March 29,2007
VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL
Ms. Karen S. Barnes 100011.001

Deputy County Counsel
Kern Medical Center
1830 Flower Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305-4197
Re: Dr. Jadwin's Access to His Personal Materials at KMC

Jadwin / County of Kern (USDC EDCA No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Ms. Barnes:
Following is brief summary of Dr. Jadwin's trip to KMC yesterday.
Dr. Jadwin arrived at KMC at 2:00 p.m. on March 28,2006 and proceeded to go to the Medical
Staff Office, as per your instructions. Steve, the KMC Head of Security escorted Dr. Jadwin
from there to his office. The locks to Dr. Jadwin's office had apparently been changed during Dr.
Jadwin's absence and Steve was therefore unable to open the door. Dr. Dutt then appeared and
proceeded to unlock Dr. Jadwin's office.
Upon entering his office Dr. Jadwin immediately noticed that his file cabinet and his desktop
computer were both missing. Regarding the missing filing cabinet, Dr. Dutt stated that he had
"needed it". When Dr. Jadwin said that the cabinet had been filled with his personal items,
including his personal scrubs, Dr. Dutt immediately denied it.
Dr. Jadwin mentioned that a Bluetooth transmitter for his personal wireless keyboard and mouse
had been attached to the back ofthe now-missing desktop computer. Dr. Dutt stated that it was
"easy to make a mistake" when personal and county property were mixed.
Regarding the missing computer, Dr. Dutt explained that the computer had been taken for use
with the microscopy camera. Dr. Jadwin mentioned to Dr. Dutt that the computer had contained
the personal and other information which Dr. Jadwin required for his Grand Rounds talk at
UCLA next month. Dr. Dutt then interrogated Dr. Jadwin, asking where he was giving the talk,
what the subj ect ofthe talk was going to be, what he needed from his computer, etc. Dr. Dutt
asserted that neither Dr. Jadwin nor I, his attorney, had been specific about what was needed. As
such, he asserted it was "our fault" that the computer files were unavailable.
Dr. Jadwin stressed that he was very short of time and needed the materials to prepare for the
lecture. When Dr. Jadwin explained that the items he sought were things that he needed to sort
Lee Decl 1 000005

To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Pg 3/ 3 03/29/07 4:09 pm
through on the computer to find, Dr. Dutt replied that this was something "for the attorneys to
sort out".
Dr. Jadwin then collected several personal items in a box and turned over several items to Dr.
Dutt that were County property. Steve escorted Dr. Jadwin off the campus.
At this point, Dr. Jadwin has very little time left to prepare for his grand rounds lecture. Dr.
Jadwin has irreplaceable case studies and images that he has collected through the years on his
computer. He requires immediate access to these and other personal files. As I had previously
explained to you in my email of March 21 :
It will be very time consuming, not to mention uncomfortable, for Dr. Jadwin to
have to inventory the personal items he needs access to. Dr. Jadwin has a lot of
personal information - including personal items predating his employment at
KMC - stored on his computer in the office.
Put another way, it does not seem reasonable to expect Dr. Jadwin to recall every single personal
file contained on his computer and specifY which exact files he requires, not to mention their
filenames and folder locations on his computer. This is why I had requested Dr. Jadwin be
permitted to personally access his office and retrieve the files from his computer. Apparently,
you had agreed in your reply email of March 22, when you requested I provide you with Dr.
Jadwin's preferred date and time.
Given the shortness of time, unless you have a different proposal in mind, I would request that
ALL of Dr. Jadwin's files contained on his computer be mailed to him on CDs by overnight
express mail.
On a closing note, I would like to remind you that KMC is under a strict legal obligation to
preserve and prevent spoliation of electronic evidence relating to Dr. Jadwin's lawsuit against the
County of Kern et al. This includes the emails and files contained on Dr. Jadwin's computer. I
am very disturbed to hear that Dr. Dutt has expropriated Dr. Jadwin's computer for other use and
that, apparently, no measures have been taken to backup or protect any ofthe data contained
thereon.
Your prompt response is appreciated.
cc: David F. Jadwin, DO
Lee Decl 1 000006

EXHIBIT 2. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Defendant’s counsel

regarding Dr. Jadwin’s request to retrieve his personal items from his
office
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:20 AM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Cc: 'Joan Herrington'
Subject: Dr. Jadwin: NPI issue/access to office

Mark:
Please see the below email which I had sent you on April 5, 2007 regarding an HR issue of Dr. Jadwin’s. Dr. Jadwin still
needs to know whether KMC has requested an NPI number for him. The request would have been handled by Medrium
Billing.
Dr. Jadwin would also like to retrieve personal items from his KMC office. Please advise what arrangements, if any, need
to be made so that he may access his office.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lee Decl 2 000001

Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: RE: Dr. Jadwin's personal property

Mark,
Your email states that Dr. Jadwin’s letter was not welcome, but perhaps KMC is also willing to acknowledge that Dr.
Jadwin has just cause to be frustrated by KMC’s continuing denial of his access to his personal things.
Dr. Jadwin lost access to his office in December of last year when he was abruptly escorted from the campus. He
requested access to retrieve his personal items on July 4, more than six weeks ago. He has yet to receive any
explanation for the delay. It is welcome news to hear that KMC is now working on Dr. Jadwin’s request, but perhaps KMC
can explain what exactly KMC is working on, what KMC is doing with his personal items and why this process has
required upwards of six weeks. By all accounts, this should have been a very simple matter of arranging a mutually
convenient date and time for Dr. Jadwin to come and retrieve his things.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lee Decl 2 000002

Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: Jadwin's personal property

Mark,
As stated before, given the previous loss of his personal things (of which he notified Dr. Dutt during his last visit), Dr.
Jadwin would prefer to be on-site to monitor the inventorying and packing of his personal things by a mover of his choice.
If the County had permitted him to do so, he would’ve been able to retrieve his items long ago. Instead, he has had to wait
for over two months and still has not been permitted to retrieve his things.
It should be noted that Dr. Jadwin lost access to his office in December of last year when he was abruptly escorted from
the campus. He requested access to retrieve his personal items on July 4, more than two months ago. He has yet to
receive any explanation for the delay. It is welcome news to hear that KMC is now working on Dr. Jadwin’s request, but
perhaps KMC can explain what exactly KMC is working on, what KMC is doing with his personal items and why this
process has required upwards of two months. By all accounts, this should have been a very simple matter of letting Dr.
Jadwin come and retrieve his things.
Since the County is not willing to simply let Dr. Jadwin retrieve his things and insists on shipping them to Dr. Jadwin,
please have the items sent to David F. Jadwin, Columbia Healthcare Analytics, Inc., 1010 N Central Ave, Ste 480,
Glendale, CA 91202 by a full-service moving company which will inventory, pack and transport the items directly to his
office. Dr. Jadwin would appreciate receiving his items as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lee Decl 2 000003

Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:20 AM
Subject: Your Unprofessional Emails

Mark,
Your email is, as usual, full of personal insults and accusations. This is unprofessional. Emails like this not only needlessly
increase the attorney fees which Plaintiff will ultimately seek from Defendants, they also demonstrate to the Court why
increased plaintiff attorney fees will be justified. I believe you are doing a disservice to your clients by sending emails like
this as we proceed toward trial.
I fail to see the constructive purpose behind your email. It is not a meet and confer communication. As you know, that
process has already ended and we’ve already filed the motion. If it is an attempt to resolve a misunderstanding, it is not
very effective. Insults and accusations rarely are.
Your email is also deceptive and refuses to take responsibility for the County’s behavior. The only reason the issue of
returning Dr. Jadwin’s property to him is “difficult” is because the County has chosen to make it so. The County could
have done any number of things to resolve this issue. The first thing that comes to mind is that the County could have said
“yes” when Dr. Jadwin asked for permission to come to the office and retrieve his things. But the County decided to
retaliate against and bully Dr. Jadwin in every way possible, including withholding his personal things from him. Dr. Jadwin
requested permission to retrieve his personal things on July 4, 2007. The County has taken three months to resolve what
should have been a simple matter. Dr. Jadwin has repeatedly asked for an explanation for the delay. The County refused
to give any.
Now the County is telling Dr. Jadwin that it has unilaterally decided to inventory and deliver his items on October 1. Dr.
Jadwin is traveling now and I’m having difficulty reaching him. I cannot confirm that October 1 will be a workable date on
such unreasonably short notice.
As for your accusation that I am to blame for the fact that the County has chosen to take three months to deal with a very
simple issue, that’s totally false. All I have done is forward Dr. Jadwin’s requests to you, the County’s lawyer. I have had
absolutely no contact with people at the County regarding this issue as you claim. I challenge you to provide proof to back
up your accusations. Give me names and emails. Demonstrate that this isn’t just more of the County’s attempts to avoid
responsibility for its conduct.
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1
Lee Decl 2 000004
EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ counsel’s correspondence with Plaintiff’s counsel

proposing stipulation
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/3 10/05/07 11 :37 pm

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE
FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 10/05/2007
Pages: 3 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Protective Order Meet and Confer
Comments:
Mark,
Transmitted herewith is Plaintiff's meet and confer letter regarding

Defendants' threatened motion for protective order. Please call me at
(213) 453-1781 if you wish to discuss this.
Sincerely.
Lee Decl 3 000001

To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 2/3 10/05/07 11 :37 pm
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF ELEE@LOEL.GOM
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010 WEBSITE
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
PRINCIPAL OF COUNSEL
October 5, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE
Mark Wasser 100011.001

Law Offices of Mark Wasser
400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order

Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mr. Wasser:
I am in receipt of your faxed letter of October 3 ("Fax").
According to the Fax, the employee-declarants state:
that this case arose out of work-related issues, does not involve any of the
employees in their personal or private lives, that they all believe their private lives
should be kept separate from their work careers, that they are all available at their
work addresses to be contacted in connection with this case and they do not want
Dr. Jadwin to know where they live.
In other words, the declarants have ordinary privacy concerns.
FRCP 26(a)(I) expresses the legislature's will that parties be provided witnesses' home contact
information notwithstanding privacy concerns. In Folsom v. Heartland Bank, the court ruled that
defendants have a duty to disclose the home contact information for witnesses under FRCP
26(a)(I):
The identified former and current employees directly worked on the loan between
plaintiffs and Heartland which is the subject of this litigation [. . . . J Such
individuals appear likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed
facts alleged with particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A) thus requires
Heartland to disclose their known addresses and telephone numbers, without
awaiting a discovery request. 'It may not satisfy this obligation by disclosing its
business address and phone number, unless it knows of no other address and
number.' Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 689 (D. Kan. 1996). RnIe
26(a)(l)(A) contemplates disclosure of the personal address and telephone
number of identified individuals.
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7814 (D. Kan. 1999) (emphasis added).
Lee Decl 3 000002

To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Pg 3/ 3 10/05/07 11 :37 pm
Ordinary privacy concerns do not trump Plaintiff's right to the witnesses' home contact
information as expressed by FRCP 26(a)(l). If you have caselaw suggesting otherwise, please
provide us such citations as part of your good faith meet and confer.
The Fax leaves a number of Plaintiff's questions unanswered. Defendants had stated in their fax
of October 1: "The stipulation you have proposed is not acceptable because it, like earlier
versions you have sent, proposes terms that modify the normal rules in ways we have never
written about or agreed to." Plaintiff still awaits clarification on what Defendants consider the
"normal rules".
Plaintiff's letter of October 1 had also asked: Which of the witnesses listed on Defendants
"Supplemental" Initial Disclosures are employees of Kern County as opposed to independent
contractors [and how can Plaintiff be sure which are encompassed within Defendants'
"representations"]? Plaintiff's proposed stipulation addresses this issue.
The Fax further states "Like you, we would like to avoid the need for a protective order."
Plaintiff would like to take this base of agreement one step further and revisit the idea of a
written stipulation. A written stipulation would avoid the need for Defendants' motion for
protective order while accomplishing the goals ofthe parties. Plaintiff has always been, and
remains, willing to negotiate a written stipulation with Defendants which completely obviates the
need for such a motion.
Plaintiff has already on numerous occasions provided Defendants with the draft stipulation as a
starting point for discussions. Please let us know if you require another copy.
We look forward to your response. Hopefully, we can avoid the need for a motion for protective
order by amicably resolving this among ourselves. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any
questions.
cc: Joan Herrington, Esq.
Lee Decl 3 000003

Oct 09 07 11 :49a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Mark 'Vasser
Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 5 (including cover page)
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: October 9, 2007
Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see the attached letter and stipulation. Thank you.
Lee Decl 3 000004

Law Offices of
MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite]] 00
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
mwasser@mark\lirasser.com
ffiwasser@mark\lirasser.com
October 9, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.
Dear Mr. Lee:
Our opposition to your motion to compel and our motion for protective order with
supporting declarations are finished and we were going to file them with the Coun
yesterday. However, because yesterday was a court holiday we decided to "{ait and file
them this morning. When I got to my office today, I found your letter that I received at
11 :23 p.m. last night.
As I have written before, I am tired of corresponding Vvith you about the initial
disclosures. ::-Jone of the letters either of us has written seem to have had any effect in
bringing this matter closer to resolution. You write that the parties agree "in principle".
Actually, I believe we disagree in principle. You want home addresses and we will not
provide them. Nothing we have exchanged indicates agreement. Nevertheless, and
against my better judgment, I will give it one more try.
I have prepared the enclosed stipulation. If it meets with your approval, please
sign it and return it. I will submit it to the Court for signature.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Barnes (via first class mail)

Joan Herrington (via first class mail)
Admitted to Practice in Californla and Nevada Lee Decl 3 000005

1 Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE
2 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 E-mail: eleerGlLOEL.com
5 Joan Herrington SB# 178988

BAY AREA EMPLOy:\1ENT LAW OFFICE
6 5032 Woodminister Lane
Oakland, CA 94602
7 Phone: (510) 530-4078
Fax: (510) 530-4725
8 E-mail: jh@baelo.com
Of Counsef to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
II Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
12 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento. CA 95814
13 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
14 E-mail: mwasserrw.markwasser.com
15 Bernard C. Barman, Sr.

KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
16 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
17 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
18 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
19
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kem, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
20 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy
21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
22 EASTER."'I DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
23
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ~ Case No.: 1:07-cv-26
24
STIPULATION RE: ADDRESS
~
Plaintiff,
25 INFORMATION FOR POTENTIAL
~
vs. "lTNESSES LISTED IN THE INITIAL
26 DISCLOSURES
~
COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
27 Complaint Filed: January 5,2007
Defendants. Trial Date: August 26, 2008
28 --------------)
STIPULATION RE: ADDRESS INFORMATION FOR POTENTIAL WITNESSES
LISTED IN THE PARTIES l"lITIAL DISCLOSURES
Lee Decl 3 000006

Oct 09 07 11 :50a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties here10 through their respective counsel
2 as follows:
3 1. Defendants shall make all employees identified in Defendants' initial disclosures
4 available to Plaintiff for deposition or informal interview on reasonable notice by request to
5 Defendants' counsel.
6 2. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with updated address and contact information,
7 if known, for any employees who leave County employment during the pendency of this case on
8 request by Plaintiff s counsel to Defendants' counsel.
9 3. Defendants' counsel shall accept service of all process and notices for all
10 employees.
11 4. The home addresses and personal contact information for all County employees
12 shall be protected and shall not be disclosed to Plaintiff and Defendants shall forebear filing a
13 motion for a protective order to protect that information.
14 5. Plaintiff shall take his motion to compel, presently set for hearing on November 5,
15 2007, off calendar.
16
17 Dated: October _ _, 2007 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
18
19 By: _
20 Eugene D. Lee
Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.
21
22 Dated: Octoher _ _, 2007 LAWOFFlCES OF MARKA. WASSER

23
24 By: _
25 Mark A. Wasser
26 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et a1.
27
28
STIPULAnON RE: ADDRESS INFORMATION FOR POTENTlAL WITNESSES
LISTED IN THE PARTIES lr.'ITlAL DISCLOSURES
2 Lee Decl 3 000007

1 ORDER
2 The parties having stipulated'as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing
3 therefore;
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: October _ _, 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
By: _
7
The Honorable Oliver W, Wanger
8 United States District Court Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE: ADDRESS lNFORMATION FOR POTENTIAL WTThESSES
LISTED IN THE PARTIES INITIAL DISCLOSURES
3 Lee Decl 3 000008

Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:10 AM
To: Eugene Lee
Subject: Good Morning.
Gene,
Have you had a chance to review my letter and proposed stipulation from yesterday?
Mark
Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
1
Lee Decl 3 000009
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:39 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Protective Order Meet and Confer
Gene,
Your proposed stipulation is not acceptable. I do not understand Paragraph 1 and will not agree to it. I wrote you several
days ago that the Defendants will not agree to your 5-day proposal. Hence, Paragraph 2 is not acceptable. The FRCP
provides for reasonable notice and that is adequate. As to Paragraph 3, if Plaintiff can serve by fax, so can the
Defendants. This is not a one-sided affair. Paragraph 4 is okay.
Whether our protective order is filed is a matter of timing. It has to be on file by Monday and we will file it Friday in the
absence of an agreement. I am leaving the office at 2:30 on Friday to out of town over the weekend. I wrote you earlier
and said I did not respond to threats and am not making one to you now. I am simply informing you of the schedule.
Save the editorial comments about “months of exhausting meet and confers” and “at long last”. Give me a break. I am
still waiting for correspondence from you that does not have a soapbox in it.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:19 PM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: Jadwin/KC: Protective Order Meet and Confer
Mark,
I am in receipt of your faxed letter of this afternoon.
After months of exhausting meet and confers and the filing of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, at long last Defendants have
come to the table to begin negotiating a written stipulation with Plaintiff. This is a long overdue turn of events which
Plaintiff welcomes. Perhaps Defendants’ motion for protective order will not need to be brought to the Court after all.
Because the stipulation you propose was provided in faxed form only, I took the liberty of converting your proposed
stipulation into an MS Word document and introducing Plaintiff’s changes to it. I suggest we exchange future drafts of the
stipulation in MS Word format so as to facilitate revisions. The revised form is attached hereto.
As you can see, Plaintiff is willing to forego disclosure of the home contact information of current Kern County employees
subject to certain conditions.
We look forward to your comments.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
1
Lee Decl 3 000010
EXHIBIT 4. Defendants’ counsel’s email to Plaintiff’s counsel of October 26, 2007

Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Joint Statement

Mark,
Your email is unprofessional as usual. The sarcasm is uncalled for.
This wouldn’t have been an issue if you hadn’t written such a blatantly one-sided draft of the Joint Statement. You
clearly aren’t acting in good faith and cannot be trusted.
I look forward to seeing the exhibits, which are part of the Joint Statement.
Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 7:25 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Joint Statement
Gene,
Fine. You have seen it. You wrote about half of it. I wrote the other half. It is attached to the motions already filed. But, I
will copy it, again, so you can read it, again. Again.
Mark
1
Lee Decl 4 000001

66 MTC ID - Reply - LeeE Declaration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

66 MTC ID - Reply - LeeE Declaration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 1 of 30

1 Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

EXHIBIT 1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Deputy County Counsel for

EXHIBIT 1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Deputy County Counsel for

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

I will need to know a date and time.

>>> "Eugene D. Lee" <elee@LOEL.com> 03/21/07 3:44 PM >>>

>>> "Eugene D. Lee" <elee@LOEL.com> 03/08/07 10:40 AM >>>

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

>>> "Eugene D. Lee" <elee@LOEL.com> 03/25/07 11:34 PM >>>

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 10 of 30

Transmitted herewith is a letter regarding Dr. Jadwin's visit to his

Please contact me if you have questions.

Lee Decl 1 000004

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 11 of 30

Ms. Karen S. Barnes 100011.001

Re: Dr. Jadwin's Access to His Personal Materials at KMC

Dear Ms. Barnes:

Following is brief summary of Dr. Jadwin's trip to KMC yesterday.

Lee Decl 1 000005

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 12 of 30

Your prompt response is appreciated.

cc: David F. Jadwin, DO

Lee Decl 1 000006

EXHIBIT 2. Plaintiff’s counsel’s correspondence with Defendant’s counsel

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

I look forward to hearing from you.

Lee Decl 2 000001

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

I look forward to your response.

Lee Decl 2 000002

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Lee Decl 2 000003

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ counsel’s correspondence with Plaintiff’s counsel

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 19 of 30

Transmitted herewith is Plaintiff's meet and confer letter regarding

Lee Decl 3 000001

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 20 of 30

Mark Wasser 100011.001

Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order

Dear Mr. Wasser:

I am in receipt of your faxed letter of October 3 ("Fax").

According to the Fax, the employee-declarants state:

In other words, the declarants have ordinary privacy concerns.

Lee Decl 3 000002

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 21 of 30

cc: Joan Herrington, Esq.

Lee Decl 3 000003

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 66 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 22 of 30

Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 5 (including cover page)

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: October 9, 2007

Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:

o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle

Please see the attached letter and stipulation. Thank you.

Lee Decl 3 000004

VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.