Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, SfQTe bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
The Torkzadeh Law Firm
Reza Torkzadeh, SBN: 249550; Eugenia Steele, SBN: 149207; Tracy Horn, SBN2258170
18650 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300. Irvine CA 92612 E-FILED
TELEPHONENO; 310.935.1111 FAX No; 310.935.0100 4/20/2921 10147 PM _ I
ATTORNEY FOR (Name); Plaintiff Anita Reyes Superlor Court of California
county 0f Fresno
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO
. . . .. By: A. Ramos, Deputy
CIVII DIVISIon
1130 O Street
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINT‘FF/PET‘TIONER:
Anita Reyes
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTI State Center Community College District
CASE NUMBER:
OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
19CECG03826
g Ploin’riff(s)
request o
D Defendonfis)
Pretrial
D Cross—comploinonfls)
Discovery Conference filed by
D Cross—defendonHS)
State Center Community on
D O’rher(s)
04/15/202]
Opposi’rion to
This opposition relates To: College District
D A dispute regarding 0 request forproducfion of documents, se’r propounded on
D A dispute regarding form or special interrogatories, seT propounded on .
D A dispute regarding o deposition subpoena directed of fordeposition scheduled for
D A dispute regarding a deposi’rion notice, production of documen’rs QT o deposition or deposifion questions
related To The deposition of scheduled for
D A dispute regarding monetary, issue, evidence or Terminating sanctions related to
D Privilege isThe basis for ’rherefusal ’roproduce documents 0nd o privilege log isof’roched which complies
with Local Rule 2.1 .17(B).
The parties hove engaged in The following meaningful meet 0nd confer efforts prior To filing This opposition:
(Describe in detail OIImeet 0nd confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via
These efforTs.)
While Plaintiff agrccs that negotiations havc occurred, including tclcphonc calls and multiple cmailcd versions of
proposed drafts, Plaintiff idsagrees with Defendant‘s claim she has agreed to the "necessity" of this exam 0r to any 0f the
additional terms contained in the draft stipulation To be clear, Plaintiff Views the negotiations as a whole - either there
is an agreement as t0 all terms 0r there is no agreement. Plaintiff has been very patient t0 date With multiple draft
versions 0f the stipulation, and has made it clear that she is not required t0 stipulate t0 this examination. This
examination will be two days of testing that will drain Plaintiff both physically and mentally. Knowing that Defendant
refuses t0 agree at the utset, before any testing has commenced, that the PREDOMINANT purpose behind the test is not
to attack her credibility has given Plaintiff pause.
Admittedly there is an element 0f credibility being tested in any physical 0r mental examination that a Plaintiff submits
to during litigation. However, the PREDOMINANT purpose may not be t0 test Plaintiff‘s credibility. It is abundantly
clear to Plaintiff that Defendant's concern is the ease With Which it can use the exam results to attack her credibility at
trial.Plaintiff also knows that she is not required to voluntarily agree t0 an exam under these conditions. Plaintiff‘s
position has been, and remains, very simple. If Defendant is unwilling t0 agree that the PREDOMINANT purpose
behind the exam is not to attack her credibility, then Plaintiff is unwilling t0 voluntarily agree t0 any such exam.
PCV-71 R0549 OPPOSITION T0 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno County Superior Court
Mandatory Local Rule 2'] '1 7
A brief summary of why the requested discovery should be denied, including the facts 0nd legol arguments in
support isos follows:
(Excepfing a privilege log ifchecked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or of’rochments shall be
ofiachedj
Ploinfiff Takes umbroge of Defendant's misstatements to This Court regarding who? Plaintiff hos 0nd hos not
agreed to. Plaintiffhos not agreed To the examination, or ony of The terms that Defednonf repeatedly states
she hos agreed to.Plaintiff hos certainly engaged in negotiations but hos olso been very clear thoT there is no
agreement To ony of The Terms obsen’r Defednont‘s agreement to include The proposed Ionguoge. Fur’rher,
Ploin’riff is no’r "desiring for the Parties ’ro stipulate from the outse’r tho’r ’rhe purpose of The neuropsych exom is not
To test Plaintiff's credibility" Gs stated by Defendant. Plaintiff hos been very clear That The PREDOMINANT purpose
of The exom is not To test Ploinitff's credibility. Nothing about Plaintiff's proposed language is misleading nor
would if be confusing ’ro o jury. While evaluation of effort moy cerToinly be on element considered in The overol
score, Plaintiff is not required To voluntarily submit ’ro on exom where the predominant purpose is to test her
credibility. If Defendant was focusing on the oc’ruol purpose of o neuropsychologicol exam, and not its cleor
desire To use iT to attack Plaintiff's credibility,iT would hove To conceed That the PREDOMINANT purpose behind
This exam is not to TesT Plaintiff‘s credibility. A neuropsychologicol evaluation is c1 method through which dOTO is
acquired about o subject's cognigifive, motor, behavioral, linguistic, 0nd executive functioning. The
predominant purpose Therefore being to use That doto to provide information regarding o possible diagnosis of
o cognigifive deficiT or potential imaired abilities of the subject. Admifiedlty, Those findings may lead To on
argument ogoins’r o subjects credibility. However, 0T the outset before ony Testing hos commenced, The
predominant purpose may no’r be To require Plaintiff to submit to This testing in on effort to o’rfock her credibility.
Furthermore, yes, Plaintiff does hove The right to assert language that the predominant purpose behind This
examination con not be to Test Plaintiff's credibility for Two reasons, First, iT is well established case low despite
DefendonT‘s ofiempf To distinguish Testing for o sexual harassment cose vs. o ploinfiff claiming bodily injury. The
Testing remains the some. Second, Defendant wishes for Plaintiff to stipulate To c Test tho’r she is not comfortable
submitfing To. Tho’r is how o negofiofion works 0nd yes Plaintiff is allowed To require cer’roin language if
Defednonf wishes for her To agree To any of The Terms in the drofT stipulation. Defendant is more concerned
with being able To attack Plainfiff's credibility before the Test hos even been conducted. Plaintiff is doing her
best to protect herself 0nd ensure the testing thof she moy stipulate To is not being conducted for the
predominant purpose of oficcking her credibility. No ploinfiff would ever voluntarily submit To o Two doy
neuropsychologicol examination where the Defednont is not willing to agree the predominon’r purpose is not To
o’rfock her credibility. Plaintiff hos been reasonable in discussing all other terms ond if Defednonf insists on not
including The Ionguoge, Then Plaintiff would 03k tho’r Defednon’r be required To file on appropriate motion
where the Ploinfiff con properly brief The issue in greo’rer detail.
understood
IT is That The filing of The Request for 0 PretrialDiscovery Conference Tolls The Time for filing o
motion to compel discovery on The disputed issues for the number of days between The filing of ’rhe request
0nd issuance by The Court of o subsequent order pertaining To The discovery dispute.
PorTy received the REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE On: 04/15/2021
Date
Pursuant To Local Rule 2.1 .1 7(A) (1 ), This opposition is being filed within five (5)court doys of service of the request
for o Pretrial Discovery Conference, extended five (5) clays for service by mail, and hos been served on The
opposing party.
Opposing Porfy WOS served with 0 copy of The OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Oh: 04/20/2021
Date
| declare under penalty of perjury under The lows of The S’ro’reof California tho’r the foregoing istrue 0nd correct.
04/20/2021
Dore
Tracy R. Horn
Type or Prim Nome
WM)?“
Signdtufe of Party or Attorney for Porfy
PCV-71 R054 9 OPPOSITION To REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno Counfy SUperior Court
Mandatory Locol Rule 2.1 .1 7
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the County of Orange, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not
a party t0 the Within action. My business address is 18650 MacArthur B1Vd., Ste. 300, Irvine,
California 92612.
On April 20, 2021, I served the foregoing documents described as:
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
0n the interested parties in this action as follows:
Anthony N. DeMaria, Esq.
DEMARIA LAW FIRM
1690 W. Shaw Avenue, Ste. 220
Fresno, CA 93711
E-Service:
Anthony N. DeMaria: ademaria(chemarialawfirm.com
Mayra Torres: mtorres@demarialawfirm.com
Nicole Tucker: ntucker§themarialawfirm.com
Teri Maxwell: tmaxwell@demarialawfirm.corn
XXX (Email) by transmitting via e-mail the documents listed above t0 the person(s) at
the e-mail address(es) set forth above.
I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 20, 2021, at Irvine, California.
’JPV'
wag] p.
Tracy R. Horn
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, SfQTe bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY The Torkzadeh Law Firm Reza Torkzadeh, SBN: 249550; Eugenia Steele, SBN: 149207; Tracy Horn, SBN2258170 18650 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300. Irvine CA 92612 E-FILED TELEPHONENO; 310.935.1111 FAX No; 310.935.0100 4/20/2921 10147 PM _ I ATTORNEY FOR (Name); Plaintiff Anita Reyes Superlor Court of California county 0f Fresno SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO . . . .. By: A. Ramos, Deputy CIVII DIVISIon 1130 O Street Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINT‘FF/PET‘TIONER: Anita Reyes DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTI State Center Community College District CASE NUMBER: OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19CECG03826 g Ploin’riff(s) request o D Defendonfis) Pretrial D Cross—comploinonfls) Discovery Conference filed by D Cross—defendonHS) State Center Community on D O’rher(s) 04/15/202] Opposi’rion to This opposition relates To: College District D A dispute regarding 0 request forproducfion of documents, se’r propounded on D A dispute regarding form or special interrogatories, seT propounded on . D A dispute regarding o deposition subpoena directed of fordeposition scheduled for D A dispute regarding a deposi’rion notice, production of documen’rs QT o deposition or deposifion questions related To The deposition of scheduled for D A dispute regarding monetary, issue, evidence or Terminating sanctions related to D Privilege isThe basis for ’rherefusal ’roproduce documents 0nd o privilege log isof’roched which complies with Local Rule 2.1 .17(B). The parties hove engaged in The following meaningful meet 0nd confer efforts prior To filing This opposition: (Describe in detail OIImeet 0nd confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via These efforTs.) While Plaintiff agrccs that negotiations havc occurred, including tclcphonc calls and multiple cmailcd versions of proposed drafts, Plaintiff idsagrees with Defendant‘s claim she has agreed to the "necessity" of this exam 0r to any 0f the additional terms contained in the draft stipulation To be clear, Plaintiff Views the negotiations as a whole - either there is an agreement as t0 all terms 0r there is no agreement. Plaintiff has been very patient t0 date With multiple draft versions 0f the stipulation, and has made it clear that she is not required t0 stipulate t0 this examination. This examination will be two days of testing that will drain Plaintiff both physically and mentally. Knowing that Defendant refuses t0 agree at the utset, before any testing has commenced, that the PREDOMINANT purpose behind the test is not to attack her credibility has given Plaintiff pause. Admittedly there is an element 0f credibility being tested in any physical 0r mental examination that a Plaintiff submits to during litigation. However, the PREDOMINANT purpose may not be t0 test Plaintiff‘s credibility. It is abundantly clear to Plaintiff that Defendant's concern is the ease With Which it can use the exam results to attack her credibility at trial.Plaintiff also knows that she is not required to voluntarily agree t0 an exam under these conditions. Plaintiff‘s position has been, and remains, very simple. If Defendant is unwilling t0 agree that the PREDOMINANT purpose behind the exam is not to attack her credibility, then Plaintiff is unwilling t0 voluntarily agree t0 any such exam. PCV-71 R0549 OPPOSITION T0 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno County Superior Court Mandatory Local Rule 2'] '1 7 A brief summary of why the requested discovery should be denied, including the facts 0nd legol arguments in support isos follows: (Excepfing a privilege log ifchecked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or of’rochments shall be ofiachedj Ploinfiff Takes umbroge of Defendant's misstatements to This Court regarding who? Plaintiff hos 0nd hos not agreed to. Plaintiffhos not agreed To the examination, or ony of The terms that Defednonf repeatedly states she hos agreed to.Plaintiff hos certainly engaged in negotiations but hos olso been very clear thoT there is no agreement To ony of The Terms obsen’r Defednont‘s agreement to include The proposed Ionguoge. Fur’rher, Ploin’riff is no’r "desiring for the Parties ’ro stipulate from the outse’r tho’r ’rhe purpose of The neuropsych exom is not To test Plaintiff's credibility" Gs stated by Defendant. Plaintiff hos been very clear That The PREDOMINANT purpose of The exom is not To test Ploinitff's credibility. Nothing about Plaintiff's proposed language is misleading nor would if be confusing ’ro o jury. While evaluation of effort moy cerToinly be on element considered in The overol score, Plaintiff is not required To voluntarily submit ’ro on exom where the predominant purpose is to test her credibility. If Defendant was focusing on the oc’ruol purpose of o neuropsychologicol exam, and not its cleor desire To use iT to attack Plaintiff's credibility,iT would hove To conceed That the PREDOMINANT purpose behind This exam is not to TesT Plaintiff‘s credibility. A neuropsychologicol evaluation is c1 method through which dOTO is acquired about o subject's cognigifive, motor, behavioral, linguistic, 0nd executive functioning. The predominant purpose Therefore being to use That doto to provide information regarding o possible diagnosis of o cognigifive deficiT or potential imaired abilities of the subject. Admifiedlty, Those findings may lead To on argument ogoins’r o subjects credibility. However, 0T the outset before ony Testing hos commenced, The predominant purpose may no’r be To require Plaintiff to submit to This testing in on effort to o’rfock her credibility. Furthermore, yes, Plaintiff does hove The right to assert language that the predominant purpose behind This examination con not be to Test Plaintiff's credibility for Two reasons, First, iT is well established case low despite DefendonT‘s ofiempf To distinguish Testing for o sexual harassment cose vs. o ploinfiff claiming bodily injury. The Testing remains the some. Second, Defendant wishes for Plaintiff to stipulate To c Test tho’r she is not comfortable submitfing To. Tho’r is how o negofiofion works 0nd yes Plaintiff is allowed To require cer’roin language if Defednonf wishes for her To agree To any of The Terms in the drofT stipulation. Defendant is more concerned with being able To attack Plainfiff's credibility before the Test hos even been conducted. Plaintiff is doing her best to protect herself 0nd ensure the testing thof she moy stipulate To is not being conducted for the predominant purpose of oficcking her credibility. No ploinfiff would ever voluntarily submit To o Two doy neuropsychologicol examination where the Defednont is not willing to agree the predominon’r purpose is not To o’rfock her credibility. Plaintiff hos been reasonable in discussing all other terms ond if Defednonf insists on not including The Ionguoge, Then Plaintiff would 03k tho’r Defednon’r be required To file on appropriate motion where the Ploinfiff con properly brief The issue in greo’rer detail. understood IT is That The filing of The Request for 0 PretrialDiscovery Conference Tolls The Time for filing o motion to compel discovery on The disputed issues for the number of days between The filing of ’rhe request 0nd issuance by The Court of o subsequent order pertaining To The discovery dispute. PorTy received the REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE On: 04/15/2021 Date Pursuant To Local Rule 2.1 .1 7(A) (1 ), This opposition is being filed within five (5)court doys of service of the request for o Pretrial Discovery Conference, extended five (5) clays for service by mail, and hos been served on The opposing party. Opposing Porfy WOS served with 0 copy of The OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Oh: 04/20/2021 Date | declare under penalty of perjury under The lows of The S’ro’reof California tho’r the foregoing istrue 0nd correct. 04/20/2021 Dore Tracy R. Horn Type or Prim Nome WM)?“ Signdtufe of Party or Attorney for Porfy PCV-71 R054 9 OPPOSITION To REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Fresno Counfy SUperior Court Mandatory Locol Rule 2.1 .1 7 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the County of Orange, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the Within action. My business address is 18650 MacArthur B1Vd., Ste. 300, Irvine, California 92612. On April 20, 2021, I served the foregoing documents described as: PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: Anthony N. DeMaria, Esq. DEMARIA LAW FIRM 1690 W. Shaw Avenue, Ste. 220 Fresno, CA 93711 E-Service: Anthony N. DeMaria: ademaria(chemarialawfirm.com Mayra Torres: mtorres@demarialawfirm.com Nicole Tucker: ntucker§themarialawfirm.com Teri Maxwell: tmaxwell@demarialawfirm.corn XXX (Email) by transmitting via e-mail the documents listed above t0 the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth above. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 20, 2021, at Irvine, California. ’JPV' wag] p. Tracy R. Horn