Preview
18CV325565
Santa Clara — Civil
R. Burgiaga
Boris Treyzon, Esq. (SBN 188893) Electronically Filed
btreyzon@actslaw.com by Superior Court of CA,
Slav Kasreliovich, Esq. (SBN 256807) County of Santa Clara,
skasreliovich@actslaw.com on 8/14/2019 4:30 PM
Joseph Finnerty, Esq. (SBN 298678) Reviewed By: R. Burciaga
Jfinnerty@actslaw.com Case #18CV325565
Michael Patrick Kelly, Esq (SBN 311045) Envelope: 3263609
mkelly@actslaw.com
ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP
16001 Ventura Blvd, Suite 200
Encino, California 91436
Telephone: (424) 288-4367 | Fax: (424) 288-4368
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12
is HAYLEY HODSON, an individual; Case No.: 18CV325565
14 Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni
VS. Dept: 8
1S
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, a California
16 Nonprofit Organization; NATIONAL PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE STATEMENT
17 (aka the “NCAA”); and DOES 1-100,
18
Action Filed: March 26, 2018
Defendants. Trial Date: Not yet set
19
Hearing Informatio
20 Date: August 16, 2019
Time: 9:00A.M.
21 Dept: 8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 _
PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
I PLAINTIFF MET AND CONFERRED IN GOOD FAITH AND PROVIDED
RESPONSES TO ALL OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY
Hayley Hodson was a world-class volleyball player, even as a high schooler. In 2014,
Hayley was the top recruit in the nation coming out of high school and was training with the United
States Women’s National Volleyball team while she was still a high school student. Coming out
of high school, Hayley had a choice. She could forgo college and turn pro or continue her
education while competing as an NCAA student-athlete. Based on Defendant Stanford and the
NCAA’s representations that safety of their student athletes was their priority, Hayley chose to
enroll at Stanford University and continue her volleyball career as an NCAA-Student Athlete.
10 Unfortunately, Stanford and the NCAA failed to honor their commitments to Hayley and her
1h health.
12 While participating as a Student-Athlete at Stanford University, Hayley suffered her first
13 concussion during practice on November 9, 2015. Hayley suffered the head injury during an
14 unconventional and dangerous drill that was performed in practice at the direction of her Stanford
15 volleyball coaches. The next day, Hayley was diagnosed with a concussion, symptomatic. Despite
16 Hayley’s symptoms, Stanford and the NCAA rushed Hayley back to play, placing her at increased
17 risk for further brain injury. Less than three weeks later, Hayley suffered another brain injury when
18 she was struck in the face on November 27, 2015 after a UCLA player spiked the ball, which hit
19 Hayley directly in her head. After her second injury, Hayley began to deteriorate mentally and
20 physically. This ultimately forced Hayley to medically retire due to her brain injuries.
21 Upon service of her complaint, Defendant Stanford continued its negative treatment of
22 Hayley by propounding over two-hundred interrogatories before the case was even at-issue.
23 Plaintiff's counsel appeared at the Court’s status conference on July 11, 2019, wherein the Court
24 informed Counsel for Defendant Stanford that it was unclear what discovery requests were still at
25) issue given Hayley’s further responses.' Defendant Stanford’s counsel responded that Plaintiff
26 failed to respond to some of the special interrogatories.
27
1 Following initial discovery efforts and subsequent meet and confer process, personnel changes occurred in
28
Plaintiff's law firm.
~~ 2
PLAINTIFF'S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
On August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs counsel emailed counsel for Defendant Stanford to inquire
which of the two hundred plus special interrogatories did Stanford contend were deficient after
Plaintiff provided further responses. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of
Plaintiff counsel’s email to Defense counsel concerning outstanding discovery).
On August 6, 2019, Defendant Stanford's counsel replied that it was everything that was
“not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiff's further supplemental responses...” from
Stanford’s last meet and confer letter, and everything addressed in their meet and confer letter for
the second set of special interrogatories. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy
of Defense Counsel’s August 6, 2019 email). This response offered absolutely no guidance to
10 Plaintiffs counsel as to what issues Defendant Stanford still had with Plaintiff's further responses
11 to special interrogatories, making it impossible for Plaintiff to know what information Defendant
12 Stanford still required.
13 While Defendant’s position with respect to Plaintiff's responses to Special Interrogatories,
14 Set Two was clear, Defendant failed to meet and confer in response to Plaintiff's substantive
15 further responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One at all. In fact, Hayley served
16 further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One on February 1, 2019. To this day, counsel for
17 Stanford has not engaged in meaningful meet and confer with respect to Hayley’s responses.
18 In an effort to show good faith, Plaintiff provided further responses to both sets of Special
19 Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories Set Two, such that al/ 247 of the Special
20 Interrogatories would be answered on August 13, 2019. Plaintiffs counsel invited Defense counsel
21 to discuss Plaintiffs responses in advance of the IDC if she felt that certain responses remained
22 deficient. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Counsel’s August
23 13, 2019 email to Defense counsel attaching Plaintiff's verified discovery responses).
24 In response, instead of simply acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff's responses or setting
25 aside a date for further meet and confer, Defense counsel stated that she assumed Plaintiff's further
26 responses were still deficient and that Defendant would still be seeking sanctions. (Attached hereto
27 as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of Defense counsel’s email to Plaintiff's counsel in
28 response to Plaintiff's further discovery responses). Which of the 247 interrogatories are still at
3
PLAINTIFF'S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
issue or why Defendant Stanford is seeking sanctions, like many things Defendants are doing in
this case, remain a mystery.
In sum, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer in good faith with Defendant Stanford to
resolve all discovery disputes per the Court’s instruction. Counsel for Stanford failed to put forth
an ounce of effort to meet and confer regarding its position on discovery. The reality is, contrary
to Defense counsel’s repeated accusations, Plaintiff provided detailed factual responses to
Defendant’s overburdensome discovery requests - which are 247 and counting all propounded
before the case is at-issue.
Defendant Stanford cannot be rewarded for its refusal to participate in the discovery
10 process in good faith. Defendant’s conduct is intended solely to bully and harass a brain injury
11 victim, As a result, Plaintiff respectfully requests that sanctions not be awarded as they are not
12 warranted against Plaintiff under the circumstances. Plaintiff has acted in good faith to attempt to
13 resolve any and all discovery disputes over the past several months and remains willing to do so,
14 with the Court’s guidance, should additional disputes exist.
15 It is Plaintiff’s position that there are no outstanding discovery issues between the parties,
16 however, Plaintiff's remain open to the Court’s suggestions should Defendant Stanford take issue
17 with Plaintiff's most recent good faith responses.
18
19
DATED: August 14, 2019 ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO LLP
20
EE
21
22 By:
BORIS TREYZON
23
SLAV KASRELIOVICH
24 JOSEPH FINNERTY
MICHAEL KELLY
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff Hayley Hodson
26
27
28
—— 4
PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
EXHIBIT 1
From: Michael Kelly
To: “Alexandra Rambis"
Ce: Jee
Finnerty
‘Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:12:00 PM
Attachments: image003.pnq
Hi Ali,
| hope you've been well. I've been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's
responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and i want to make sure i have the most up-to-date
information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and
Confer fetter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiff's Further Supplemental Responses to
Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One {dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our
remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiff's most recent SROG, Set One
responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated.
Have a great night.
Thanks,
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
c's
ASR CCMEN TREYZON BAL. LLP
*PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS*
16001 Ventura Bivd., Suite 200
Encino, CA 91436
833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone)
424.288.4368 (Fax)
mkelly@actslaw.com
www.actslaw.com
This mats covered bythe Electron Communications Prac At 18 USC 2510-2521
and is legally privileged. This info is confidential
and is intended only forthe a
individual or entity named above. ifthe reader of ths message i not the ded recipwent,
YoU ae hereby acted that any dissemination, Distributionor convingof communication is
strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message.
From: Alexandra Rambis
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Joe Finnerty ; Michael Kelly
Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov
Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Hi Joe and Mike,
We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been
served with the deposition subpoena. Both counsei for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date
for the deposition, so ! just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward?
Thanks,
Ali
Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq.
Ls MANNING & Kass,
a ELLRoD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
801 S. Figueroa St., 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 80017
Tek 2 524.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6998 | Direct: 213.406.2529 | Mobile: 310.800.3030
ai atr@manringiip.com | Website: www.manninglip.com
Los Angeles | Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Dallas
This email message, including any documents, files or other attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
Confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. {f you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for deiivering this email message to the intended recipients), please notify the sender of the
delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you
EXHIBIT 2
From:
To: Michael Kelly
Cc: Joe
Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:29:36 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Atty.009 M&Cpaf
if
Aftv.018
M&C SROGS.02,paf
Hi Mike,
We served a meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's initial Special Interrogatory responses {Atty.009),
then Plaintiff's failure to provide supplemental Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.010), then a
meet and conifer letter re: the inadequacy of Plaintiff's supplemental Special Interrogatory responses
(Atty.015). | did not feel there was a need to send yet another meet and confer letter in response to
Plaintiff's further supplemental Special Interrogatory responses given that Plaintiff almost entirely
failed to provide any further responses when comparing the supplemental responses versus further
supplemental. | think if you review my most recent meet and confer letter then look at Plaintiff's
supplemental versus further supplemental responses, you will clearly see how deficient the
responses were. After providing Plaintiff with nearly 8 months to provide legitimate discovery
responses, it was clear that your firm was playing games in an attempt to prevent giving actual
proper substantive responses.
With respect to Plaintiff's responses to our special interrogatories, set two, Plaintiff again provided
the same wholly insufficient responses. We sent a meet and confer letter re: those responses and no
one ever provided us with any further responses after receiving our meet and confer letter.
if you would like to narrow down the outstanding issues, it is everything addressed in our most
recent meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses set one (Atty.015) that
was not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiff's further supplemental responses, as well as
everything addressed in our meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory responses, set
two.
From: Michael Kelly
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM
To: Alexandra Rambis
Cc: Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Hi Ali,
| hope you've been well. I’ve been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's
responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and | want to make sure | have the most up-to-date
information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and
Confer letter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiff's Further Supplemental Responses to
Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One (dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our
remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set
Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiffs most recent SROG, Set One
responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated.
Have a great night.
Thanks,
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
c's
BR COMEY TREYZON GAL, LF
*PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS*
16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200
Encino, CA 91436
833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone)
424.288.4368 (Fax)
mkelly@actslaw.com
www.actslaw.com
This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 184.5. 2510-2521
and is legally privileged. Ths info i confidential and is intended only for the use af the
individual oF entity named above. if the reader ofthis message isnot the intended recipient,
vou ae hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communeation Is
strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abie Cohen Treyzon Salo, LP and destioy the message.
From: Alexandra Rambis ; Michael Kelly
Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov
Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al
Hi Joe and Mike,
We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been
served with the deposition subpoena. Both counsel for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date
for the deposition, so | just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward?
Thanks,
Ali
Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq.
MANNING & Kass,
Gia ELLrop, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
801 S. Figueroa St., 15th Floor
Los Angetes, California 90017
Tel: 243.624.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6998 | Direct: 213.406.2529 | Mobile: 310.800.3030
Email: arr@manninglip.com | Website: www.manninglip.com
Los Angeies { Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Dallas
This email message, including any documents, files or other attachments, is for the sole use of the intended re cipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is st rictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient(s), please notify the sender of the
delivery error by replying to this
message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you
EXHIBIT 3
From: Michael Kelly
To “Alexandra Rambis"
Ce: Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:09:00 PM
Attachments: image002.pnq
Pif's Further Reponses to Def,Stank Twat
Stanfortis SROGs Set Two.pdf
Pif's Further Responses to 2,J.19 Stanford SROGS Set One.pdf
Verification
Srogs 8-12-19. pdf
Ali,
My understanding was that at the last status conference when asked by the Court as to what the
outstanding issues are, you stated that there were a number of interrogatories that were left
unanswered. | am attaching Plaintiff's further responses to Defendant Stanford’s Special
interrogatories, Set One as well as Plaintiff's responses to Special interrogatories, Set Two. These
two responses should remedy any issues the Parties have with respect to plaintiff's Special
Interrogatory responses as we have now answered all questions. Please let us know if you would like
to discuss in advance of the IDC.
A hard copy of the attached will foliow via US Mail.
Thanks,
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
=e
Ages TOME TREVEON @! 3. LP
*PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS*
16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200
Encino, CA 91436
833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone)
424.288.4368 (Fax)
mkelly@actslaw.com
www.actslaw.com
This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C, 2510-2521
{and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and is intended onty for the use of the
individual or entity named above. I the reader of this message isnot the intended recipient,
vouare hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is
“ticly prebibited, Please immediately notify Abie Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy she message:
From: Alexandra Rambis
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Michael Kelly
Ce; Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Hi Mike,
We served a meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's initial Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.009),
then Plaintiff's failure to provide supplemental Special interrogatory responses (Atty.010), then a
meet and confer letter re: the inadequacy of Plaintiff's supplemental Special Interrogatory responses
{Atty.015). | did not feel there was a need to send yet another meet and confer letter in response to
Plaintiff's further supplemental Special Interrogatory responses given that Plaintiff almost entirely
failed to provide any further responses when comparing the supplemental responses versus further
supplemental. | think if you review my most recent meet and confer letter then look at Plaintiff's
supplemental versus further supplemental responses, you will clearly see how deficient the
responses were. After providing Plaintiff with nearly8 months to provide legitimate discovery
responses, it was clear that your firm was playing games in an attempt to prevent giving actual
proper substantive responses.
With respect to Plaintiff's responses to our special interrogatories, set two, Plaintiff again provided
the same wholly insufficient responses. We sent a meet and confer letter re: those responses and no
one ever provided us with any further responses after receiving our meet and confer letter,
If you would like to narrow down the outstanding issues, it is everything addressed in our most
recent meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses set one (Atty.015) that
was not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiffs further supplemental responses, as well as
everything addressed in our meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's Special interrogatory responses, set
two.
From: Michael Kelly
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM
To: Alexandra Rambis
Ce: Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Hi Ali,
| hope you've been well. I’ve been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's
responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and | want to make sure | have the most up-to-date
information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and
Confer letter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiff's Further Supplemental Responses to
Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our
remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiffs Responses to Special interrogatories, Set
Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiffs most recent SROG, Set One
responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated.
Have a great night.
Thanks,
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
aie
Be
fees
AER COME THEYEON S805, 1.0F
*PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS*
16001 Ventura Bivd., Suite 200
Encino, CA 91436
833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone)
424.288.4368 (Fax)
mkelly@actslaw.com
www.actsiaw.com
This E-mail is covered by the Electrons: Communications Privacy Act, 18 U S.C. 2510-2521,
and is legally privileged. This info is confidential
and Is intended only fer the use f the
indvidual or entity named above. if the reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient,
‘you are hereby noted that any dissemination, Distribution ar copying of this communication Is
strietly prohtbited. Please immediately notiy Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message
From: Alexandra Rambis
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Joe Finnerty ; Michael Kelly
Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov
Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Hi Joe and Mike,
We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been
served with the deposition subpoena. Both counsel for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date
for the deposition, so | just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward?
Thanks,
Ali
Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq.
EL Manninc & Kass,
ei ELLRop, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
801 S. Figuerca St., 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tel: 213.624.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6999 | Direct: 213.406.2529 | Mobile: 310.800.3030
Emait: are@manninglip.com | Website: www,manninalip.com
Los Angeles | Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Datlas
This email message. including any documents, files or other attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient{s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient(s), please notify the sender of the
delivery error by repiying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you
EXHIBIT 4
From:
To: 7 Michael Kellv
Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Date: Tues oe August 13, 2019 2:30:45 PM
Attachments: image002.pnq
What about sanctions? | will need to review these responses, which I’m sure still have deficiencies,
but you have caused my client to incur a ridiculous amount of unnecessary expenses are a result of
your dilatory tactics.
From: Michael Kelly [mailto:mkelly@actsiaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:10 PM
To: Alexandra Rambis
Cc: Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Ali,
My understanding was that at the last status conference when asked by the Court as to what the
outstanding issues are, you stated that there were a number of interrogatories that were left
unanswered. | am attaching Plaintiff's further responses to Defendant Stanford’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One as well as Plaintiff's responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. These
two responses should remedy any issues the Parties have with respect to plaintiff's Special
Interrogatory responses as we have now answered ail questions. Please let us know if you would like
to discuss in advance of the IDC.
A hard copy of the attached will follow via US Mail.
Thanks,
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
acTs
ASF) OMEN TREYZON SALT. LA
*PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS*
16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200
Encino, CA $1436
833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone)
424.288.4368 (Fax)
mkelly@actslaw.com
www.actslaw.com
This E-mails covered by the Clectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521
ands legally privileged. This info ts confidentialand i intended only for the use of the
individual or enty named above. Ifthe reader of this message isnot the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is
Stritly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyton Salo, LP and destroy the message
From: Alexandra Rambis
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Michael Kelly
Ce: Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al.
Hi Mike,
We served a meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's initial Special interrogatory responses (Atty.009),
then Plain iff's failure to provide supplemental Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.010), then a
meet and confer letter re: the inadequacy of Plaintiff's supplemental Special Interrogatory responses
{Atty.015). | did not feel there was a need to send yet another meet and confer letter in response to
Plaintiff's further supplemental Special Interrogatory responses given that Plaintiff almost entirely
failed to provide any further responses when comparing the supplemental responses versus further
supplemental. | think if you review my most recent meet and confer letter then look at Piaintiff’s
supplemental versus further supplemental responses, you will clearly see how deficient the
responses were. After providing Plaintiff with nearly 8 months to provide legitimate discovery
responses, it was clear that your firm was playing games in an attempt to prevent giving actual
proper substantive responses.
With respect to Plaintiff's responses to our special interrogatories, set two, Plaintiff again provided
the same wholly insufficient responses. We sent a meet and confer letter re: those responses and no
one ever provided us with any further responses after receiving our meet and confer letter.
if you would like to narrow down the outstanding issues, it is everything addressed in our most
recent meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses set one {Atty.015) that
was not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiff's further supplemental responses, as well as
everything addressed in our meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory responses, set
two.
From: Michael Kelly
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM
To: Alexandra Rambis
Ce: Joe Finnerty
Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al
Hi Ali,
| hope you've been well. I've been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's
responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and | want to make sure | have the most up-to-date
information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and
Confer letter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiffs Further Supplemental Responses to
Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One (dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our
remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiff's Responses to Special interrogatories, Set
Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiff's most recent SROG, Set One
responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated.
Have a great night.
Thanks,
Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
ceeaeay Cc
ABR OUMEN TREYZON BALE, LL
*PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS*
16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200
Encino, CA 91436
833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone)
424.288.4368 (Fax)
mkelly@actslaw.com
www.actslaw.com
‘This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Aet, 16 U.S. 2510-2521
and istegaliy privileged. This info is confidential and is intended only forthe use of the
individal or entity narnes above. the reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient,
You are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying this communication is
Strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, iLP and destroy the message.
From: Alexandra Rambis
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Joe Finnerty ; Michael Kelly
Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov
Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al
Hi Joe and Mike,
We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been
erved with the deposition subpoena. Both counsel for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date
for the deposition, so | just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward?
Thanks,
Ali
Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq.
Mannine & Kass,
is ELLrop, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
804 Figueroa St, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tet: 213.624.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6999 | Direct: 213.406.2528 j Mobile: 310.800.3030
Email: atr@manninatip.com | Website: www manninglip.com
Los Angeles | Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Dallas
This email message, including any documents, files or other attachme.ts, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is stri ictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient is), please notify the sender of the
delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system, Thai nk you.
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not 4
party to the within action; my business address is: 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200, Encino, CA 91436.
On August 14, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as:
PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT
on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as
follows:
_—~ ——- ———______ aa
10 | Steven J. Renick, Esq.
| Jeffrey Lenkov, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Leland Stanford
11 | MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, Junior University
TRESTER, LLP
12 |
| 801 S. Figueroa St., 15" Floor
13 | Los Angeles, CA 90017
| Fax: (213) 624-6999
14 | sir@mannngllp.com
| JML@manninglip.com
15
Kathleen A. Stimeling, Esq.
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA, LLP Attorneys for Defendant NCAA
17
|| 456
San
Montgomery St., 16th Floor
Francisco, CA 94104
18 | Fax: (415) 275-8551
| “sume @rshe-law.com
19
20
21 (] BY MAIL: By placing a true and correct copy of the above-described document(s) in envelope(s),
addressed as set forth above, with first class postage pre-paid for delivery to the above-named persons at
22 the above-listed addresses and depositing such envelopes in a US mail collection box.
23 I gave the document(s
(] BY OVER NIGHT DELIVERY, VIA GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT:
24 to our overnight courier service for its daily pick-up for delivery to the offices of the addressee]
addressed as set forth above.
25
(1) BY PERSONAL SERVICE, VIA FIRST LEGAL ATTORNEY SERVICE: I gave said
26 documents to the firm’s regular attorney service with specific instructions to be personally delivered b
27 hand to the offices of the addressee, addressed as set forth above.
28 [1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE (Ex Parte): I personally delivered by hand to the attorney i
attendance at
PROOF OF SERVICE
(] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL BY AGREEMENT: Per agreement between counsels, J transmitted
said document(s) to the person(s) shown above by electronic mail to the email address shown above.
(1 BY FACSIMILE: I faxed said document(s) to the addressee, at the specified fax numbers cea
above.
>] COURTESY COPY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I transmitted courtesy copies of said
document(s) to the person(s) shown above by electronic mail to the email address shown above.
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
(-] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose
direction the service was made.
10
Executed on August 14, 2019, at Los Angeles, California,
il
122
13 SS CHAMBER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
18CV325565 Santa Clara — Civil R. Burgiaga Boris Treyzon, Esq. (SBN 188893) Electronically Filed btreyzon@actslaw.com by Superior Court of CA, Slav Kasreliovich, Esq. (SBN 256807) County of Santa Clara, skasreliovich@actslaw.com on 8/14/2019 4:30 PM Joseph Finnerty, Esq. (SBN 298678) Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Jfinnerty@actslaw.com Case #18CV325565 Michael Patrick Kelly, Esq (SBN 311045) Envelope: 3263609 mkelly@actslaw.com ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP 16001 Ventura Blvd, Suite 200 Encino, California 91436 Telephone: (424) 288-4367 | Fax: (424) 288-4368 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 is HAYLEY HODSON, an individual; Case No.: 18CV325565 14 Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni VS. Dept: 8 1S STANFORD UNIVERSITY, a California 16 Nonprofit Organization; NATIONAL PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE STATEMENT 17 (aka the “NCAA”); and DOES 1-100, 18 Action Filed: March 26, 2018 Defendants. Trial Date: Not yet set 19 Hearing Informatio 20 Date: August 16, 2019 Time: 9:00A.M. 21 Dept: 8 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 _ PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT I PLAINTIFF MET AND CONFERRED IN GOOD FAITH AND PROVIDED RESPONSES TO ALL OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY Hayley Hodson was a world-class volleyball player, even as a high schooler. In 2014, Hayley was the top recruit in the nation coming out of high school and was training with the United States Women’s National Volleyball team while she was still a high school student. Coming out of high school, Hayley had a choice. She could forgo college and turn pro or continue her education while competing as an NCAA student-athlete. Based on Defendant Stanford and the NCAA’s representations that safety of their student athletes was their priority, Hayley chose to enroll at Stanford University and continue her volleyball career as an NCAA-Student Athlete. 10 Unfortunately, Stanford and the NCAA failed to honor their commitments to Hayley and her 1h health. 12 While participating as a Student-Athlete at Stanford University, Hayley suffered her first 13 concussion during practice on November 9, 2015. Hayley suffered the head injury during an 14 unconventional and dangerous drill that was performed in practice at the direction of her Stanford 15 volleyball coaches. The next day, Hayley was diagnosed with a concussion, symptomatic. Despite 16 Hayley’s symptoms, Stanford and the NCAA rushed Hayley back to play, placing her at increased 17 risk for further brain injury. Less than three weeks later, Hayley suffered another brain injury when 18 she was struck in the face on November 27, 2015 after a UCLA player spiked the ball, which hit 19 Hayley directly in her head. After her second injury, Hayley began to deteriorate mentally and 20 physically. This ultimately forced Hayley to medically retire due to her brain injuries. 21 Upon service of her complaint, Defendant Stanford continued its negative treatment of 22 Hayley by propounding over two-hundred interrogatories before the case was even at-issue. 23 Plaintiff's counsel appeared at the Court’s status conference on July 11, 2019, wherein the Court 24 informed Counsel for Defendant Stanford that it was unclear what discovery requests were still at 25) issue given Hayley’s further responses.' Defendant Stanford’s counsel responded that Plaintiff 26 failed to respond to some of the special interrogatories. 27 1 Following initial discovery efforts and subsequent meet and confer process, personnel changes occurred in 28 Plaintiff's law firm. ~~ 2 PLAINTIFF'S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT On August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs counsel emailed counsel for Defendant Stanford to inquire which of the two hundred plus special interrogatories did Stanford contend were deficient after Plaintiff provided further responses. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff counsel’s email to Defense counsel concerning outstanding discovery). On August 6, 2019, Defendant Stanford's counsel replied that it was everything that was “not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiff's further supplemental responses...” from Stanford’s last meet and confer letter, and everything addressed in their meet and confer letter for the second set of special interrogatories. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of Defense Counsel’s August 6, 2019 email). This response offered absolutely no guidance to 10 Plaintiffs counsel as to what issues Defendant Stanford still had with Plaintiff's further responses 11 to special interrogatories, making it impossible for Plaintiff to know what information Defendant 12 Stanford still required. 13 While Defendant’s position with respect to Plaintiff's responses to Special Interrogatories, 14 Set Two was clear, Defendant failed to meet and confer in response to Plaintiff's substantive 15 further responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One at all. In fact, Hayley served 16 further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One on February 1, 2019. To this day, counsel for 17 Stanford has not engaged in meaningful meet and confer with respect to Hayley’s responses. 18 In an effort to show good faith, Plaintiff provided further responses to both sets of Special 19 Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories Set Two, such that al/ 247 of the Special 20 Interrogatories would be answered on August 13, 2019. Plaintiffs counsel invited Defense counsel 21 to discuss Plaintiffs responses in advance of the IDC if she felt that certain responses remained 22 deficient. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Counsel’s August 23 13, 2019 email to Defense counsel attaching Plaintiff's verified discovery responses). 24 In response, instead of simply acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff's responses or setting 25 aside a date for further meet and confer, Defense counsel stated that she assumed Plaintiff's further 26 responses were still deficient and that Defendant would still be seeking sanctions. (Attached hereto 27 as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of Defense counsel’s email to Plaintiff's counsel in 28 response to Plaintiff's further discovery responses). Which of the 247 interrogatories are still at 3 PLAINTIFF'S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT issue or why Defendant Stanford is seeking sanctions, like many things Defendants are doing in this case, remain a mystery. In sum, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer in good faith with Defendant Stanford to resolve all discovery disputes per the Court’s instruction. Counsel for Stanford failed to put forth an ounce of effort to meet and confer regarding its position on discovery. The reality is, contrary to Defense counsel’s repeated accusations, Plaintiff provided detailed factual responses to Defendant’s overburdensome discovery requests - which are 247 and counting all propounded before the case is at-issue. Defendant Stanford cannot be rewarded for its refusal to participate in the discovery 10 process in good faith. Defendant’s conduct is intended solely to bully and harass a brain injury 11 victim, As a result, Plaintiff respectfully requests that sanctions not be awarded as they are not 12 warranted against Plaintiff under the circumstances. Plaintiff has acted in good faith to attempt to 13 resolve any and all discovery disputes over the past several months and remains willing to do so, 14 with the Court’s guidance, should additional disputes exist. 15 It is Plaintiff’s position that there are no outstanding discovery issues between the parties, 16 however, Plaintiff's remain open to the Court’s suggestions should Defendant Stanford take issue 17 with Plaintiff's most recent good faith responses. 18 19 DATED: August 14, 2019 ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO LLP 20 EE 21 22 By: BORIS TREYZON 23 SLAV KASRELIOVICH 24 JOSEPH FINNERTY MICHAEL KELLY 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff Hayley Hodson 26 27 28 —— 4 PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT EXHIBIT 1 From: Michael Kelly To: “Alexandra Rambis" Ce: Jee Finnerty ‘Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:12:00 PM Attachments: image003.pnq Hi Ali, | hope you've been well. I've been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and i want to make sure i have the most up-to-date information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and Confer fetter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiff's Further Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One {dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiff's most recent SROG, Set One responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated. Have a great night. Thanks, Michael P. Kelly, Esq. c's ASR CCMEN TREYZON BAL. LLP *PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS* 16001 Ventura Bivd., Suite 200 Encino, CA 91436 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone) 424.288.4368 (Fax) mkelly@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com This mats covered bythe Electron Communications Prac At 18 USC 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and is intended only forthe a individual or entity named above. ifthe reader of ths message i not the ded recipwent, YoU ae hereby acted that any dissemination, Distributionor convingof communication is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message. From: Alexandra Rambis Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:52 PM To: Joe Finnerty ; Michael Kelly Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Hi Joe and Mike, We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been served with the deposition subpoena. Both counsei for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date for the deposition, so ! just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward? Thanks, Ali Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq. Ls MANNING & Kass, a ELLRoD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 S. Figueroa St., 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 80017 Tek 2 524.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6998 | Direct: 213.406.2529 | Mobile: 310.800.3030 ai atr@manringiip.com | Website: www.manninglip.com Los Angeles | Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Dallas This email message, including any documents, files or other attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain Confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. {f you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for deiivering this email message to the intended recipients), please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you EXHIBIT 2 From: To: Michael Kelly Cc: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:29:36 PM Attachments: image002.png Atty.009 M&Cpaf if Aftv.018 M&C SROGS.02,paf Hi Mike, We served a meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's initial Special Interrogatory responses {Atty.009), then Plaintiff's failure to provide supplemental Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.010), then a meet and conifer letter re: the inadequacy of Plaintiff's supplemental Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.015). | did not feel there was a need to send yet another meet and confer letter in response to Plaintiff's further supplemental Special Interrogatory responses given that Plaintiff almost entirely failed to provide any further responses when comparing the supplemental responses versus further supplemental. | think if you review my most recent meet and confer letter then look at Plaintiff's supplemental versus further supplemental responses, you will clearly see how deficient the responses were. After providing Plaintiff with nearly 8 months to provide legitimate discovery responses, it was clear that your firm was playing games in an attempt to prevent giving actual proper substantive responses. With respect to Plaintiff's responses to our special interrogatories, set two, Plaintiff again provided the same wholly insufficient responses. We sent a meet and confer letter re: those responses and no one ever provided us with any further responses after receiving our meet and confer letter. if you would like to narrow down the outstanding issues, it is everything addressed in our most recent meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses set one (Atty.015) that was not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiff's further supplemental responses, as well as everything addressed in our meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory responses, set two. From: Michael Kelly Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM To: Alexandra Rambis Cc: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Hi Ali, | hope you've been well. I’ve been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and | want to make sure | have the most up-to-date information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and Confer letter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiff's Further Supplemental Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One (dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiffs most recent SROG, Set One responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated. Have a great night. Thanks, Michael P. Kelly, Esq. c's BR COMEY TREYZON GAL, LF *PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS* 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 Encino, CA 91436 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone) 424.288.4368 (Fax) mkelly@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 184.5. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. Ths info i confidential and is intended only for the use af the individual oF entity named above. if the reader ofthis message isnot the intended recipient, vou ae hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communeation Is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abie Cohen Treyzon Salo, LP and destioy the message. From: Alexandra Rambis ; Michael Kelly Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al Hi Joe and Mike, We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been served with the deposition subpoena. Both counsel for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date for the deposition, so | just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward? Thanks, Ali Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq. MANNING & Kass, Gia ELLrop, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 S. Figueroa St., 15th Floor Los Angetes, California 90017 Tel: 243.624.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6998 | Direct: 213.406.2529 | Mobile: 310.800.3030 Email: arr@manninglip.com | Website: www.manninglip.com Los Angeies { Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Dallas This email message, including any documents, files or other attachments, is for the sole use of the intended re cipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is st rictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient(s), please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you EXHIBIT 3 From: Michael Kelly To “Alexandra Rambis" Ce: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:09:00 PM Attachments: image002.pnq Pif's Further Reponses to Def,Stank Twat Stanfortis SROGs Set Two.pdf Pif's Further Responses to 2,J.19 Stanford SROGS Set One.pdf Verification Srogs 8-12-19. pdf Ali, My understanding was that at the last status conference when asked by the Court as to what the outstanding issues are, you stated that there were a number of interrogatories that were left unanswered. | am attaching Plaintiff's further responses to Defendant Stanford’s Special interrogatories, Set One as well as Plaintiff's responses to Special interrogatories, Set Two. These two responses should remedy any issues the Parties have with respect to plaintiff's Special Interrogatory responses as we have now answered all questions. Please let us know if you would like to discuss in advance of the IDC. A hard copy of the attached will foliow via US Mail. Thanks, Michael P. Kelly, Esq. =e Ages TOME TREVEON @! 3. LP *PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS* 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 Encino, CA 91436 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone) 424.288.4368 (Fax) mkelly@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C, 2510-2521 {and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and is intended onty for the use of the individual or entity named above. I the reader of this message isnot the intended recipient, vouare hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is “ticly prebibited, Please immediately notify Abie Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy she message: From: Alexandra Rambis Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:29 PM To: Michael Kelly Ce; Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Hi Mike, We served a meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's initial Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.009), then Plaintiff's failure to provide supplemental Special interrogatory responses (Atty.010), then a meet and confer letter re: the inadequacy of Plaintiff's supplemental Special Interrogatory responses {Atty.015). | did not feel there was a need to send yet another meet and confer letter in response to Plaintiff's further supplemental Special Interrogatory responses given that Plaintiff almost entirely failed to provide any further responses when comparing the supplemental responses versus further supplemental. | think if you review my most recent meet and confer letter then look at Plaintiff's supplemental versus further supplemental responses, you will clearly see how deficient the responses were. After providing Plaintiff with nearly8 months to provide legitimate discovery responses, it was clear that your firm was playing games in an attempt to prevent giving actual proper substantive responses. With respect to Plaintiff's responses to our special interrogatories, set two, Plaintiff again provided the same wholly insufficient responses. We sent a meet and confer letter re: those responses and no one ever provided us with any further responses after receiving our meet and confer letter, If you would like to narrow down the outstanding issues, it is everything addressed in our most recent meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses set one (Atty.015) that was not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiffs further supplemental responses, as well as everything addressed in our meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's Special interrogatory responses, set two. From: Michael Kelly Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM To: Alexandra Rambis Ce: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Hi Ali, | hope you've been well. I’ve been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and | want to make sure | have the most up-to-date information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and Confer letter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiff's Further Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiffs Responses to Special interrogatories, Set Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiffs most recent SROG, Set One responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated. Have a great night. Thanks, Michael P. Kelly, Esq. aie Be fees AER COME THEYEON S805, 1.0F *PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS* 16001 Ventura Bivd., Suite 200 Encino, CA 91436 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone) 424.288.4368 (Fax) mkelly@actslaw.com www.actsiaw.com This E-mail is covered by the Electrons: Communications Privacy Act, 18 U S.C. 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and Is intended only fer the use f the indvidual or entity named above. if the reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, ‘you are hereby noted that any dissemination, Distribution ar copying of this communication Is strietly prohtbited. Please immediately notiy Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message From: Alexandra Rambis Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:52 PM To: Joe Finnerty ; Michael Kelly Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Hi Joe and Mike, We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been served with the deposition subpoena. Both counsel for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date for the deposition, so | just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward? Thanks, Ali Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq. EL Manninc & Kass, ei ELLRop, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 S. Figuerca St., 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: 213.624.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6999 | Direct: 213.406.2529 | Mobile: 310.800.3030 Emait: are@manninglip.com | Website: www,manninalip.com Los Angeles | Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Datlas This email message. including any documents, files or other attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient{s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient(s), please notify the sender of the delivery error by repiying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you EXHIBIT 4 From: To: 7 Michael Kellv Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Date: Tues oe August 13, 2019 2:30:45 PM Attachments: image002.pnq What about sanctions? | will need to review these responses, which I’m sure still have deficiencies, but you have caused my client to incur a ridiculous amount of unnecessary expenses are a result of your dilatory tactics. From: Michael Kelly [mailto:mkelly@actsiaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:10 PM To: Alexandra Rambis Cc: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Ali, My understanding was that at the last status conference when asked by the Court as to what the outstanding issues are, you stated that there were a number of interrogatories that were left unanswered. | am attaching Plaintiff's further responses to Defendant Stanford’s Special Interrogatories, Set One as well as Plaintiff's responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. These two responses should remedy any issues the Parties have with respect to plaintiff's Special Interrogatory responses as we have now answered ail questions. Please let us know if you would like to discuss in advance of the IDC. A hard copy of the attached will follow via US Mail. Thanks, Michael P. Kelly, Esq. acTs ASF) OMEN TREYZON SALT. LA *PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS* 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 Encino, CA $1436 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone) 424.288.4368 (Fax) mkelly@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com This E-mails covered by the Clectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 ands legally privileged. This info ts confidentialand i intended only for the use of the individual or enty named above. Ifthe reader of this message isnot the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is Stritly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyton Salo, LP and destroy the message From: Alexandra Rambis Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:29 PM To: Michael Kelly Ce: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al. Hi Mike, We served a meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's initial Special interrogatory responses (Atty.009), then Plain iff's failure to provide supplemental Special Interrogatory responses (Atty.010), then a meet and confer letter re: the inadequacy of Plaintiff's supplemental Special Interrogatory responses {Atty.015). | did not feel there was a need to send yet another meet and confer letter in response to Plaintiff's further supplemental Special Interrogatory responses given that Plaintiff almost entirely failed to provide any further responses when comparing the supplemental responses versus further supplemental. | think if you review my most recent meet and confer letter then look at Piaintiff’s supplemental versus further supplemental responses, you will clearly see how deficient the responses were. After providing Plaintiff with nearly 8 months to provide legitimate discovery responses, it was clear that your firm was playing games in an attempt to prevent giving actual proper substantive responses. With respect to Plaintiff's responses to our special interrogatories, set two, Plaintiff again provided the same wholly insufficient responses. We sent a meet and confer letter re: those responses and no one ever provided us with any further responses after receiving our meet and confer letter. if you would like to narrow down the outstanding issues, it is everything addressed in our most recent meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses set one {Atty.015) that was not wholly and completely responded to in plaintiff's further supplemental responses, as well as everything addressed in our meet and confer letter re: Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory responses, set two. From: Michael Kelly Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:13 PM To: Alexandra Rambis Ce: Joe Finnerty Subject: RE: Hodson v. Stanford, et al Hi Ali, | hope you've been well. I've been looking through the correspondence with respect to Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories and | want to make sure | have the most up-to-date information to help me sort through some of the outstanding discovery issues. Is there a Meet and Confer letter that addresses outstanding issues with Plaintiffs Further Supplemental Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One (dated February 1, 2019) or is the focus of our remaining meet and confer primarily directed at Plaintiff's Responses to Special interrogatories, Set Two. | am sorry if there was a letter sent with respect to Plaintiff's most recent SROG, Set One responses and | am missing it, but any insight you are able to provide would be truly appreciated. Have a great night. Thanks, Michael P. Kelly, Esq. ceeaeay Cc ABR OUMEN TREYZON BALE, LL *PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS* 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 Encino, CA 91436 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) (Telephone) 424.288.4368 (Fax) mkelly@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com ‘This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Aet, 16 U.S. 2510-2521 and istegaliy privileged. This info is confidential and is intended only forthe use of the individal or entity narnes above. the reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, You are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying this communication is Strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, iLP and destroy the message. From: Alexandra Rambis Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:52 PM To: Joe Finnerty ; Michael Kelly Ce: Kate Stimeling Esq. ; Jeffrey Lenkov Subject: Hodson v. Stanford, et al Hi Joe and Mike, We currently have the deposition of Plaintiff's father scheduled for August 6, 2019. He has been erved with the deposition subpoena. Both counsel for Stanford and NCAA are available on that date for the deposition, so | just want to confirm whether or not that deposition will be going forward? Thanks, Ali Alexandra R. Rambis, Esq. Mannine & Kass, is ELLrop, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 804 Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Tet: 213.624.6900 | Fax: 213.624.6999 | Direct: 213.406.2528 j Mobile: 310.800.3030 Email: atr@manninatip.com | Website: www manninglip.com Los Angeles | Irvine | San Diego | San Francisco | Phoenix | New York | Dallas This email message, including any documents, files or other attachme.ts, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is stri ictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient is), please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it and any attachments from your system, Thai nk you. PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss: I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not 4 party to the within action; my business address is: 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200, Encino, CA 91436. On August 14, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as: PLAINTIFF’S INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: _—~ ——- ———______ aa 10 | Steven J. Renick, Esq. | Jeffrey Lenkov, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Leland Stanford 11 | MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, Junior University TRESTER, LLP 12 | | 801 S. Figueroa St., 15" Floor 13 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | Fax: (213) 624-6999 14 | sir@mannngllp.com | JML@manninglip.com 15 Kathleen A. Stimeling, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA, LLP Attorneys for Defendant NCAA 17 || 456 San Montgomery St., 16th Floor Francisco, CA 94104 18 | Fax: (415) 275-8551 | “sume @rshe-law.com 19 20 21 (] BY MAIL: By placing a true and correct copy of the above-described document(s) in envelope(s), addressed as set forth above, with first class postage pre-paid for delivery to the above-named persons at 22 the above-listed addresses and depositing such envelopes in a US mail collection box. 23 I gave the document(s (] BY OVER NIGHT DELIVERY, VIA GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT: 24 to our overnight courier service for its daily pick-up for delivery to the offices of the addressee] addressed as set forth above. 25 (1) BY PERSONAL SERVICE, VIA FIRST LEGAL ATTORNEY SERVICE: I gave said 26 documents to the firm’s regular attorney service with specific instructions to be personally delivered b 27 hand to the offices of the addressee, addressed as set forth above. 28 [1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE (Ex Parte): I personally delivered by hand to the attorney i attendance at PROOF OF SERVICE (] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL BY AGREEMENT: Per agreement between counsels, J transmitted said document(s) to the person(s) shown above by electronic mail to the email address shown above. (1 BY FACSIMILE: I faxed said document(s) to the addressee, at the specified fax numbers cea above. >] COURTESY COPY BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I transmitted courtesy copies of said document(s) to the person(s) shown above by electronic mail to the email address shown above. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (-] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. 10 Executed on August 14, 2019, at Los Angeles, California, il 122 13 SS CHAMBER 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE