82 MTC RPD1
82 MTC RPD1
82 MTC RPD1
1 be set forth more fully in the parties’ Joint Statement regarding this discovery dispute, which will be
2 filed on or before January 9, 2008.
3 After Defendant served initial responses, Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant
4 in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes without having to burden this Court. As Defendant has
5 admitted, Plaintiff has tried to be “flexible” with Defendant in extending deadlines and narrowing
6 request language. Plaintiff even gave technological advice on optical scanning, OCR functions, and cost-
7 efficient purchase of Adobe Acrobat 8.0.
8 In return, Defendant has made a mockery of the meet and confer process and abused Plaintiff’s
9 good will by breaking specific commitments it had made to Plaintiff and upon which Plaintiff had relied.
10 Defendant’s supplemental response as compared to its initial response raises new objections, contains
11 overbroad objections, contains new refusals to produce, etc. After hours and hours expended in
12 extensive meet and confer letters and calls, Defendant’s supplemental responses represent a step
13 backward from Defendant’s initial responses. The parties are further apart now than they were ever
14 before. None of this had been indicated by Defendant in prior meet and confer discussions and comes as
15 an unpleasant surprise to Plaintiff.
16 In fact, only four days before the final December 21 production deadline, Defendant suddenly
17 demanded Plaintiff pay $3,765 in reimbursement of Kern County’s copy costs. If Defendant was not in
18 receipt of such payment, Defendant stated it would not produce any documents at all on December 21.
19 As Defendant admits, it had not previously raised this issue with Plaintiff at all.
20 Plaintiff initially agreed to pay out of desperation, but after researching case law and upon being
21 further informed by Defendant for the first time that “Many of the documents you have requested have,
22 at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case”, Plaintiff hesitated to pay such a substantial
23 and possibly wasteful sum. Unlike Defendant Kern County, Plaintiff is an individual and cannot easily
24 bear such a cost.
25 Plaintiff requested Defendant produce originals for inspection and copying at Plaintiff’s office,
26 as had originally been requested in Plaintiff’s requests for production. Defendants refused and have
27 suspended production.
28
1 Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 37-251, this motion will be based on the Joint Statement
2 to be submitted by Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN after meeting and conferring with Defendant
3 COUNTY OF KERN in this case on or before January 9, 2008.
4
5 Respectfully submitted on December 21, 2007.
6
7 /s/ Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
8 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013
9 Telephone: (213) 992-3299
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
10 Email: elee@LOEL.com
11 /s/ Joan Herrington, SB#178988 (as authorized 12/21/07)
BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
12 5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
13 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
14 Email: jh@baelo.com
Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28