Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 57 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 5

I Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasserlaimarkwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN C01JNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxton Avenue. Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8. Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County Kern,
IPeter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
II Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Smith
and Roy ~
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IS
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ~ Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

17 Plaintiff. ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
18 vs. ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A
) PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: HOME
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., ) ADDRESSES
)
20 Defendants. ) Date: November 5, 2007

~
Time: 9:30 a.m. (date cleared by CRD)
21 Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse,
) Bakersfield Courtroom 8

~
22
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
23 ) Trial Date: August 26, 2008
)
24
------------)
25
26 Defendants submit this memorandum in support of their motion for a protective order
27 preventing the disclosure or discovery of employee home addresses to Plaintiff David Jadwin.

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE
I
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 57 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 5

1 I. THIS COURT MAY ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER ON A SHOWING

OF GOOD CAUSE
2
3 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows issuance of a protective order
4 to limit disclosure or discovery, Foltz v, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 33! F3d 1122,
5 1130 (9th Cir. 2003),
6 The party seeking a protective order has the burden of establishing good cause sufficient

7 to justify the protection requested. Id. Generally, the party must show that specific prejudice or

8 harm result in absence of the protective order. Id,

9 n. GOOD CAUSE EXSISTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PROTECETIVE

ORDER
10
!! II Rule 26(a)(l)(A) requires Defendants to disclose to Plaintiff the name and, if known, the I
! 2 II address telephone of to information about i
the ease. Defendants have done that. Defendants have disclosed to Plaintiff the name, address
13
and telephone number of each County employee who may be a witness in this case. The
14
addresses and telephone numbers that have been disclosed are the employees' actual- individual
15
- work addresses and telephone numbers. All potential witnesses are available at the addresses
16
that have been provided and through Defendants legal counsel.
17
In addition to the disclosures, Defendants have provided Plaintiff with VvTitten assurances
18
I that all employees be made available to Plaintiff upon request, that Defendants provide
19
Plaintiff with contact information on any employees who leave County employment during the
20
pendency of this case and that Defendants' counsel will accept service of all process and notices
21
on behalf of all Defendants and employees to ensure their availability to Plaintiff
22
The disclosures fully comply with Rule 26 and the assurances Defendants have provided
23
go substantially beyond the requirements of Rule 26. Plaintiff has more than he is entitled to
24
under the Rule.
25
Despite this, Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel disclosure of "home" addresses.
26
There is no justification for disclosing home addresses and the Defendants and employees object
27
to doing so. Hence, Defendants seek a protective order to protect the home addresses.
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE
2
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 57 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 5

Filed herewith are the declarations of Jennifer Abraham, Toni Smith, Michelle Burris,
2 Denise Long and Jane Thorton. All five individuals are Kern County employees and work at
3 Kern Medical Center where Plaintiff used to work. They all know Plaintiff and had substantial
4 contact with him during the course of his employment. For reasons of safety and privacy, they
5 do not want Plaintiff to know where they live.
6 Jennifer Abraham is a physician. Her declaration recites that Plaintiff assaulted her
7 verbally several times and physically assaulted another physician at Kern Medical Center. She
8 I, had several interactions considers to be emotional, confrontational I
9 and arrogant and does not trust him. She has privacy and safety concerns for her children and
10 family and does not want Plaintiff to know where she lives. She is available at her work address
11 and can be contacted through Defendants' legal counsel.
12 Jane Thornton is a SUJlerVl';or the Pathology Laboratory WhFfF used to
13 She considers him to be emotional and confrontational and does not want Plaintiff to know
14 where she lives. She considers her personal life to be private. She is available at the work
15 address that has been disclosed and through Defendants' legal counsel.
16 The other three employee, Toni Smith, Michelle Burris and Denise Long, all recite
17 privacy concerns and a desire to keep their work lives separate from their personal lives. None
18 of them want Plaintiff to know where they live and all are available at their work addresses and
19 through Defendants' legal counsel.
20 Defendants believe every employee listed in the initial disclosures would express similar
21 concerns if asked. Defendants only submitted five declarations for efficiency reasons.
22 Protecting employee home addresses will not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff has actual
23 addresses for every employee witness. Plaintiff also has individual telephone numbers. He has
24 the Defendants' assurances that all the employees will be made available. He has, in short,
25 guaranteed access to every employee witness. There is no reason to order superfluous
26 disclosures ofredundant personal address information, certainly not in the face ofthe privacy
27 and safety concerns that have been expressed.
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE
3
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 57 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 4 of 5

1 Plaintiff has alleged a hostile work environment. The Defendants have alleged that, to

2 the extent the work environment was hostile, Plaintiff was responsible for it. Emotions continue

3 to run strong over Plaintiff s behavior at Kern Medical Center. Several employees remain afraid

4 of him. There is no reason to risk taking those emotions from the workplace and injecting them

5 into individual, private lives - certainly not when Rule 26 has been fully satisfied through the

6 disclosures that have been made. One might ask why Plaintiff is so determined to learn where

7 individual employees live when he already has complete information with which to contact them.

8 PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUING DEMAND FOR "HOME" ADDRESSES

IS UNREASONABLE
9
10 Although Defendants have attempted to resolve this home address dispute through a

II prolonged exchange of correspondence with Plaintiff s counsel, issue remains unresolved an

. Plaintiffs dernaIJds ilUUilll) br;come more extreme as

13 unfolded. Plaintiff eontinues to seek an order compelling disclosure of home addresses as well

14 as sanctions against Defendants for refusing to disclose them. Despite the meet-and-confer

IS process on the initial disclosures, Plaintiff has just served a request for production of documents

16 on Defendants that also seeks discovery of home addresses. Plaintiff s position is manifestly not

17 in good faith and is entirely unjustified.

18 IV. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR RESONABLE

ATTORNEYS FEES
19

20
required by Rule 26 or the discovery rules and in light of the concerns that employees at Kern
21
Medical Center still harbor over Plaintiff s behavior and their personal safety, Defendants have
22
no alternative but to seek protection of their home addresses. Defendants should be awarded
23
their reasonable attorneys fees incurred in prosecuting this motion.
24
III
25
III
26
III
27
III
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE
4
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 57 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 5 of 5

1 Wherefore, Defendants request that this Court grant a protective order protecting the

2 home addresses of County employees from disclosure or discovery to Plaintiff.

3
4 Respectfully submitted,

5
6 Dated: October 12, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A WASSER

9 Mark A Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
10

11

12

13
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: EMPLOYEES' HOME ADDRESSE
5