Preview
x
Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220
Kyle Z. Pineo, California Bar No. 317320 FILED
BERDING & WEIL LLP SAN MATEO COUNTY
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 OCT 11 2018
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925-838-2090
Facsimile: 925-820-5592
Gletk otfy Mt
fhagen@berdingweil.com
kpineos berdingweil.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALI TAGHAVI
---—-_-__. cH
17, Civ.
bis
Deslatonn Support SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
(i | i ane
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ll ALI TAGHAVI, an individual. No. 17CIV04570
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A.
HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
13 VS. MOTION TO COMPEL STANFORD’S
FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST
14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR. FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND
UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit TWO
15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD
UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan D Date: November 2018
16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept. Law and Motion
17 Defendants.
18 Complaint Filed: October 4;'2017
Trial Date December-17, 2018
19 ~
20 °
21 J, Fredrick A. Hagen, declare as follows:
22 1 I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and
23 am an attorney with the law firm of Berding & Weil LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Ali
24 Taghavi (“Plaintiff”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff's motion for an order
25 compelling Defendant Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) to provide
26 further responses to plaintiff's requests for production of documents, sets one and two.
27 2. On May 24, 2018, Mr. Taghavi served Requests for Production of Documents to
28 the Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, Set One (“Set One”) on Defendant Stanford.
-l-
2BERDING
196 alot
‘Walsh
& WEILSestoLLP
Cat on
DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO.
cb
—eee
Lae.
ves
&
ddd
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq. These inspection demands
comprised request Nos. 1 through 38 (Exhibit “A”, served and filed herewith) and called for the
production of documents regarding the WELL Project and Mr. Taghavi’s involvement in the
WELL Project. Written responses to these demands pursuant to Civ. Proc. Sections 2031.210,
2301.220, 2031.230, and 2031.240 were due on or before July 2, 2018, but the deadline was
extended a few months.
3 On July 11, 2018, Stanford responded to Mr. Taghavi’s first set of requests for
production of documents, producing some of the requested documents. Stanford produced
further documents on August 7, 2018. (See Exhibit “B”, served and filed herewith.) As
10 explained more fully in the attached Separate Statement of Issues, Stanford’s responses to
i Request Nos. 1-2, 4-14, and 16-38 were deficient in the following respects: Stanford made
12 improper nuisance objections (Nos. 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 36-38), responded evasively or
13 incompletely (Nos. 5, 11, 14, and 16-35), and failed to provide a privilege log.
14 4 On July 18, 2018, Mr. Taghavi served Requests for Production of Documents to
15 the Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, Set Two (“Set Two”) on Defendant
16 Stanford, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq. These inspection
17 demands comprised request Nos. 1 through 13 (Exhibit “C”, served and filed herewith) and
18 called for the production of documents showing compensation packages received by 12 Stanford
19 professors from Stanford or Amway during a four-year period and money received by Stanford
20 from Amway during the last ten years.
21 5 Written responses to these demands were due on or before August 17, 2018, under
22 sections 2031.210, 2301.220, 2031.230, and 2031.240 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On August
23 16, 2018, Defendant Stanford served its responses (see Exhibit “D”, served and filed herewith),
24 which, as explained more fully in the Separate Statement of Disputed Issues, Demand Nos. 1
25 through 13 were deficient in the following respects: Stanford refused to produce any documents
26 based on boilerplate objections. Stanford also objected and refused to produce documents based
27 on privacy rights, without providing a privilege log, even though a stipulated protective order is
28 in place to protect disclosure of confidential information.
-2-
BERDING
RISNeathae & vdWEIL 0LLP
ae 34556 DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
“Wolo Cree, Clini
STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO
6. As for Set One, on August 13, 2018, counsel for Mr. Taghavi sent a meet and
confer letter (Exhibit “E”, served and filed herewith) to Stanford’s counsel indicating that its Set
One responses were deficient in that they failed to include a privilege log and included
boilerplate nuisance objections and evasive responses including insufficient statements of
compliance and improper confidentiality objections. Mr. Taghavi requested further responses and
provided an August 17, 2018 deadline for Stanford to indicate whether they would provide such
responses.
7 On September 5, 2018, Stanford’s counsel responded to Mr. Taghavi’s meet and
confer communication with a letter defending its objections to Request Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13,
10 and 36-38 based on overbreadth and relevance (Exhibit “F”, served and filed herewith). On
Il October 3, 2018, counsel for Mr. Taghavi and Stanford met and conferred by telephone to discuss
12 Set 1 and Set 2, and both counsel sent summary emails regarding their discovery arguments.
13 (See Exhibit “G” for Taghavi’s email and Exhibit “H” for Stanford’s email, served and filed
14 herewith.) Stanford’s counsel subsequently indicated that the parties had come to an impasse
15 (Exhibit “T’, served and filed herewith).
16 8 On September 18, 2018, a meet and confer letter was sent to Stanford setting a
17 September 21, 2018 deadline to provide further responses to Set Two and produce a privilege
18 log. (Exhibit “J”, served and filed herewith.)
19 9 On September 19, 2018, Stanford sent a response letter arguing that the Set 2
20 discovery requests were overbroad, indiscriminate in scope and time, not relevant or likely to
21 lead to admissible evidence, and infringed on privacy rights. (Exhibit “K”, served and filed
22 herewith.)
23 10. On September 19, 2018, Mr. Taghavi sent a meet and confer response addressing
24 the overbroad, scope and time, relevance, and confidentiality objections. (Exhibit “L”, served
25 and filed herewith.)
26 11. On October 2, 2018, I emailed Stanford’s counsel requesting a further response.
27 (Exhibit “M”, served and filed herewith.)
28 12. On October 2, 2018, Stanford’s counsel emailed a response demanding Mr.
-3-
BERDING
BIEN otdon & WEIL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
‘alot Cec, calbia Sicss0
5596
STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO
Taghavi’s counsel to narrow the scope of discovery. (Exhibit “N”, served and filed herewith.)
13. That same day, I sent an email confirming a meet and confer teleconference for
October 3, 2018. (Exhibit “O”, served and filed herewith.)
14. Stanford’s counsel confirmed the teleconference in an email later that day.
(Exhibit “P”, served and filed herewith.)
15. On October 3rd, counsel for both parties met and conferred by phone but were
unable to resolve the discovery dispute. Stanford’s counsel emailed me a summary (Exhibit “G”
to, served and filed herewith), and I emailed a summary, noting, among other things, that
9 throughout the meet and confer process, Stanford’s counsel failed to address the stipulated
10 protective order and its effect on minimizing confidentiality concerns. (Exhibit “H”, served and
11 filed herewith.) Stanford’s counsel discussed Set One and Set Two in an email on October 3,
12 2018, noting that the parties were at an impasse. (Exhibit “I”, served and filed herewith.)
13 16. As a result of Stanford’s willful refusal to serve full and complete verified
14 responses to these inspection demands, Mr. Taghavi is unable to proceed with meaningful
15 discovery, proceed with depositions, or effectively prosecute this action and prepare for trial.
16 17. The documents requested in Set One go to the heart of the issues raised in this
17 case and seek documents related to the WELL Project. Stanford initially hired Mr. Taghavi to
18 handle public relations for the WELL Project, which began under a 2014 gift agreement between
19 Stanford and Amway. [See Taghavi declaration, filed herewith.] The documents related to the
20 WELL Project are necessary for Mr. Taghavi to show that Amway threatened to cancel the
21 funding for the WELL Project ($10 million) unless: (1) Stanford agreed to override Mr.
22 Taghavi’s decision not to allow Amway to expand publicity beyond the limits of the underlying
23 gift agreement between Amway and Stanford; and (2) Stanford agreed to allow Amway to direct
24 the study to focus on the benefits of dietary supplements.
25 18. The documents requested in Set Two are necessary to show that the motivation for
26 Stanford professors working on the WELL Project to agree to whatever Amway demanded,
27 including termination of Mr. Taghavi to get him out of the way so Amway could breach the
28 publicity limitations under the gift agreement between Stanford and Amway. Or giving in to
-4-
BERDING & WEILLLP
27SNotdanebhd Ste98596 DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
‘alt Cec, Callen
STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO.
Amway’s demands to change focus of the WELL Project from a study of general well being to
focus on the benefits of taking dietary supplements. For example, if 50% of a given professors’
total compensation comes from the $1.5 million annual gift from Amway, that would help
explain why Stanford professors agreed to Amway’s unethical demands.
19. Stanford’s counsel and I stipulated by email to an October 11, 2018 deadline to
file the instant motion. (See Exhibit “Q”, served and filed herewith.)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed in Walnut Creek, California
on October 11, 2018.
10
11
r(f
FREDRICK A. HAGEN
12
13
14 X:\wdocs\8236\9 1 \PLD\00961659.DOCX
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5-
BERDING
2175 &BdWEIL 569LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Wala Nada Set 9336
Grek iifomie
STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO
EXHIBIT A
$236.4
Eo —
Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220
BERDING & WEIL LLP
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925/838-2090 -
Facsimile: 925/820-5592
fhagen@berdingweil.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALI TAGHAVI, an individual
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
ll ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570
12 Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S
13 vs. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit UNIVERSITY
15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD
UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan [SET ONE]
16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
17 Defendants.
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff ALI TAGHAVI
20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD
21 JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
22 SET NUMBER: One (1)
23 Plaintiff and propounding party Ali Taghavi hereby requests that Defendant and
24 responding party Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) provide
25 complete and straightforward responses to each of this first set of requests for production, within
26 thirty (30) days from the date of service, under Section 2031.010, et seq., of the California Code
27 of Civil Procedure.
28 Propounding Party further requests that Responding Party produce the requested items for
-l-
BERDING
Dyes‘nt cacann & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
Cet Cate Se 896 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
inspection, copying, and/or photographing at the offices of Berding & Weil LLP, 2175 North
California Boulevard, Suite 500, Walnut Creek, California, under Section 2031.010, et seq., of
the California Code of Civil Procedure, by 10:00 a.m. on July 2, 2018.
DEFINITIONS
A The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” or “WRITING” or “WRITINGS”
shall include all writings as defined by Section 250 of the California Evidence Code and Section
2016.020 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION, whether handwritten, typed, printed, photocopied, photographed, or any other
means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation and
10 shall include data and metadata stored on servers, computers, mobile phones, personal wireless
ll devices, including without limitation computer files, programs, and any other information media;
12 data stored on removable magnetic or optical media, including but not limited to magnetic tape,
13 floppy disks, and recordable optical disks; data and metadata used for electronic data interchange,
14 audit trails, emails, text messages, tweets, social media, digitized pictures and video, including
15 but not limited to data stored in MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group), JPEG (Joint Pictures
16 Expert Group), and GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) formats; digitized audio, and voice mail.
17 B, The term “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” means information
18 of all kinds created, maintained and/or utilized by computers and/or networks, including all non-
19 identical copies of such information. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION includes,
20 but is not limited to, software (whether private, commercial or work-in-progress), programming
21 notes or instructions, and input and/or output used or produced by any software or utility
22 (including electronic mail messages and all information referencing or relating to such messages
23 anywhere on a computer or a network, word processing documents and all information stored in
24 connection with such documents, electronic spreadsheets, user created electronic documents,
25 email, databases including all records and fields and structural information, charts, graphs and
26 outlines, arrays of information and all other information used or produced by any software),
27 operating systems, source code of all types, programming languages, linkers and compilers,
28 peripheral drivers, batch files, any and all ASCII files, and any and all miscellaneous files and/or
-2-
BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
ccs Cabonia6
THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
file fragments, regardless of the media on which they reside and regardless of whether such
electronically stored information consists of an active file, deleted file or file fragment.
ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION includes any and all information stored on
computer memories, hard disks, floppy disks, removable storage media, or on or in any other
vehicle for digital data storage and/or transmittal. ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION also includes the file, folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to, or
associated with, any physical storage device associated with the information described above.
Cc The term “YOU” and “YOUR?” refers to and includes defendant Trustees of The
Leland Stanford Junior University, a California nonprofit corporation, doing business as Stanford
10 University (“Stanford”), including without limitation the Stanford School of Medicine and the
i Stanford Prevention Research Center and any affiliated entity, Stanford’s agents, employees,
12 insurance companies, their agents, their employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and
13 anyone else acting on Stanford’s behalf.
14 D The terms “RELATING TO” or “RELATE TO” mean and include constituting,
15 containing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, incorporating, alluding to, responding to, referring
16 to, connected with, commenting on, with respect to, arising from, about, regarding, discussing,
17 showing, describing, mentioning, analyzing, evidencing, or in any way pertaining to, whether the
18 reference or relationship provides support for, or contradicts, any alleged fact or conclusion that
19 is the object of such reference or relationship.
20 E. The term “PERSON” or “PERSONS” shall mean and refer to and include any
21 natural person or private or public organization of any form, including without limitation a firm,
22 association, business, partnership, trust, company, corporation, or public entity.
23 F, The term “AMWAY” shall mean and refer to and include Alticor, Inc., Amway
24 Corporation of Ada, Michigan, Nutrilite Products, Inc., and/or the Nutrilite Health Institute or
25 related or affiliated entities.
26 G The term “PROJECT” shall mean and refer to the Wellness Living Laboratory
27 Project or “WELL Project” (also sometimes known as the Well for Life Project), which was
28 and/or is funded by AMWAY through an unrestricted gift to Stanford and/or The Nutrilite Health
3-
BERDING & WEIL
Sec s08LLP86 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
‘Won rc valiCoo THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
Institute Wellness Fund and was and/or is directed by the Stanford Prevention Research Center
(“SPRC”).
H The term “COMMUNICATION” or “COMMUNICATIONS” shall mean and
refer to any form of communication or correspondence, oral or written, including without
limitations emails, voicemails, texts, faxes, letters, memoranda, notes, and similar formats.
L Whenever used herein, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall
include the singular.
INSTRUCTIONS
Propounding Party requests that YOU:
10 1 Produce all non-privileged DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, or
11 control, including all DOCUMENTS in the possession, custody, or control of YOUR agents,
12 representatives, attorneys, investigators, consultants, independent contractors, and experts.
13 2. Produce each and every copy of a DOCUMENT where a copy contains any
14 commentary or notation that does not appear on the original or other copies.
15 3 Produce all prior drafts, as well as the final version of all DOCUMENTS.
16 4 Propounding party requests that for each DOCUMENT that is withheld under
17 claim of privilege, YOU provide:
18 a. A statement of the basis upon which the privilege is claimed and whether
19 or not the subject matter of the DOCUMENT is limited to legal advice or information
20 provided for the purpose of securing legal advice;
21 b. The number of each request to which the DOCUMENTS are responsive;
22 c. The name and title of the sender and the name and title of the recipient of
23 the DOCUMENT;
24 d The place, approximate date, and manner of recording or preparing of the
25 DOCUMENT;
26 €. The name of each person or persons participating in the preparation of the
27 DOCUMENT; and
28 f. The name and title, if any, of each person to whom the contents of the
-4-
BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
‘tina rc Ca 8
THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
DOCUMENT has been communicated by copy, exhibition, reading, or summarization.
5 You are required by Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280 (b) to either produce the
documents as kept in the usual course of business, or have the documents organized and labeled
to correspond to each category specified in this Request.
6. If any of the documents demanded cannot be produced, after a diligent and good
faith search because it has been lost, destroyed, or misplaced, you must identify each such
document and specify for each the reason for your inability to produce such document and state
whatever information, knowledge or belief you have concerning the non-produced document,
including the identity of any PERSON who has or may have possession, custody or control of
10 such document.
iW 7. You may comply with this request by appearing at the time and place set forth in
12 this request for inspection and production with the documents and things sought to be produced.
13 If you make such an appearance, you shall notify the law offices of Berding & Weil LLP no later
14 than forty-eight (48) hours before the time scheduled for
15 production of the documents that a personal appearance will be made with the demanded records.
16 8 In the alternative, you may comply with this request by mailing to the
17 propounding party’s counsel all documents and things called for in this request.
18 REQUESTS
19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
20 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PROJECT.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all work performed by Ali Taghavi at
23 Stanford and/or for the PROJECT.
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
25 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi’sperformance reviews at Stanford.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
27 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford and
28 Alticor regarding the PROJECT.
5.
shewING
‘Walt
& ‘aesWI
eei Cain mae506 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
o~
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, including without limitation all
personnel files and/or files regarding the investigation of Mr. Taghavi’s claims of wrongful
termination.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
All insurance policies, declaration pages, endorsement pages, certificates of enrollment
for policies that may potentially provide coverage or indemnity for any claim asserted by
Propounding Party in this action.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
10 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford
ll personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation
12 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney,
13 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen,
14 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner,
15 and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith
16 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
18 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the
19 PROJECT, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel
20 John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska,
21 Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise
J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or
23 from Alticor personnel R. Keith Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine
24 Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford
27 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding Ali Taghavi, including without limitation
28 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney,
-6-
BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF AL] TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
Ged Calan sa86
‘inNenana THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen,
Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner,
and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith
Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford
personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation
COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. loannidis, Catherine A. Heaney,
Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen,
10 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner,
11 and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith
12 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
14 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO organizational charts for all information technology
15 or information services departments or positions RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention
16 Research Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or
17 The Nutrilite Health Institute Fund for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO storing emails or other electronic date regarding
20 DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention Research
21 Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or The
22 Nutrilite Health Institute Wellness Fund, for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
24 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the establishment or endowment of the R. H.
25 Rehnborg Chair of Disease Prevention and/or R. H. Rehnborg Chair of Preventative Medicine.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
27 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies and/or guidelines RELATING TO
28 corporate-funded research projects and/or policies that applied to AMWAY’s funding of the
-7-
BERDING
mre (sea & WEIL SeLLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
Ca Callen396 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
PROJECT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the Form Interrogatories—
Employment that were served with the set of requests for production.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Robert
Harrington and John Joannidis RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from John
10 Joannidis RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
1 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from jioannid@stanford.edu or any private or public
12 email used by or on behalf of John Ioannidis.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
14 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Catherine
15 Heaney RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
16 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from cheaney@stanford.edu or any private or public
17 email used by or on behalf of Catherine Heaney.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Sandra J.
20 Winter RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
21 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from sjwinter@stanford.edu or any private or public email
22 used by or on behalf of Sandra J. Winter.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
24 Ail DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Ann Hsing
25 RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without limitation
26 COMMUNICATIONS to or from annhsing@stanford.edu or any private or public email used by
27 or on behalf of Ann Hsing.
28 Ml
-8-
BERDING
Bist & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF AL] TAGHAVI!’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF
slim east
Gre Caan 3896 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Elise J. Wang
RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without limitation
COMMUNICATIONS to or from wangej@stanford.edu or any private or public email used by or
on behalf of Elise J. Wang.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Judith (Jodi)
Prochaska RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from jpro@stanford.edu or any private or public email
10 used by or on behalf of Judith (Jodi) Prochaska.
i RE! UEST. IR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
12 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Marcia
13 Stefanick RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
14 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from stefanick@stanford.edu or any private or public
15 email used by or on behalf of Marcia Stefanick.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Lisa
18 Henriksen RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
19 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from lisa.henriksen@stanford.edu or any private or public
20 email used by or on behalf of Lisa Henriksen.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Michaela
23 Kiernan RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without
24 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from mkiernan@stanford.edu or any private or public
25 email used by or on behalf of Michaela Kiernan.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
27 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from
Preview
x Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220 Kyle Z. Pineo, California Bar No. 317320 FILED BERDING & WEIL LLP SAN MATEO COUNTY 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 OCT 11 2018 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 925-838-2090 Facsimile: 925-820-5592 Gletk otfy Mt fhagen@berdingweil.com kpineos berdingweil.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ALI TAGHAVI ---—-_-__. cH 17, Civ. bis Deslatonn Support SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (i | i ane IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ll ALI TAGHAVI, an individual. No. 17CIV04570 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 13 VS. MOTION TO COMPEL STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST 14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR. FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit TWO 15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan D Date: November 2018 16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept. Law and Motion 17 Defendants. 18 Complaint Filed: October 4;'2017 Trial Date December-17, 2018 19 ~ 20 ° 21 J, Fredrick A. Hagen, declare as follows: 22 1 I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and 23 am an attorney with the law firm of Berding & Weil LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Ali 24 Taghavi (“Plaintiff”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff's motion for an order 25 compelling Defendant Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) to provide 26 further responses to plaintiff's requests for production of documents, sets one and two. 27 2. On May 24, 2018, Mr. Taghavi served Requests for Production of Documents to 28 the Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, Set One (“Set One”) on Defendant Stanford. -l- 2BERDING 196 alot ‘Walsh & WEILSestoLLP Cat on DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO. cb —eee Lae. ves & ddd pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq. These inspection demands comprised request Nos. 1 through 38 (Exhibit “A”, served and filed herewith) and called for the production of documents regarding the WELL Project and Mr. Taghavi’s involvement in the WELL Project. Written responses to these demands pursuant to Civ. Proc. Sections 2031.210, 2301.220, 2031.230, and 2031.240 were due on or before July 2, 2018, but the deadline was extended a few months. 3 On July 11, 2018, Stanford responded to Mr. Taghavi’s first set of requests for production of documents, producing some of the requested documents. Stanford produced further documents on August 7, 2018. (See Exhibit “B”, served and filed herewith.) As 10 explained more fully in the attached Separate Statement of Issues, Stanford’s responses to i Request Nos. 1-2, 4-14, and 16-38 were deficient in the following respects: Stanford made 12 improper nuisance objections (Nos. 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 36-38), responded evasively or 13 incompletely (Nos. 5, 11, 14, and 16-35), and failed to provide a privilege log. 14 4 On July 18, 2018, Mr. Taghavi served Requests for Production of Documents to 15 the Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, Set Two (“Set Two”) on Defendant 16 Stanford, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq. These inspection 17 demands comprised request Nos. 1 through 13 (Exhibit “C”, served and filed herewith) and 18 called for the production of documents showing compensation packages received by 12 Stanford 19 professors from Stanford or Amway during a four-year period and money received by Stanford 20 from Amway during the last ten years. 21 5 Written responses to these demands were due on or before August 17, 2018, under 22 sections 2031.210, 2301.220, 2031.230, and 2031.240 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On August 23 16, 2018, Defendant Stanford served its responses (see Exhibit “D”, served and filed herewith), 24 which, as explained more fully in the Separate Statement of Disputed Issues, Demand Nos. 1 25 through 13 were deficient in the following respects: Stanford refused to produce any documents 26 based on boilerplate objections. Stanford also objected and refused to produce documents based 27 on privacy rights, without providing a privilege log, even though a stipulated protective order is 28 in place to protect disclosure of confidential information. -2- BERDING RISNeathae & vdWEIL 0LLP ae 34556 DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL “Wolo Cree, Clini STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO 6. As for Set One, on August 13, 2018, counsel for Mr. Taghavi sent a meet and confer letter (Exhibit “E”, served and filed herewith) to Stanford’s counsel indicating that its Set One responses were deficient in that they failed to include a privilege log and included boilerplate nuisance objections and evasive responses including insufficient statements of compliance and improper confidentiality objections. Mr. Taghavi requested further responses and provided an August 17, 2018 deadline for Stanford to indicate whether they would provide such responses. 7 On September 5, 2018, Stanford’s counsel responded to Mr. Taghavi’s meet and confer communication with a letter defending its objections to Request Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 10 and 36-38 based on overbreadth and relevance (Exhibit “F”, served and filed herewith). On Il October 3, 2018, counsel for Mr. Taghavi and Stanford met and conferred by telephone to discuss 12 Set 1 and Set 2, and both counsel sent summary emails regarding their discovery arguments. 13 (See Exhibit “G” for Taghavi’s email and Exhibit “H” for Stanford’s email, served and filed 14 herewith.) Stanford’s counsel subsequently indicated that the parties had come to an impasse 15 (Exhibit “T’, served and filed herewith). 16 8 On September 18, 2018, a meet and confer letter was sent to Stanford setting a 17 September 21, 2018 deadline to provide further responses to Set Two and produce a privilege 18 log. (Exhibit “J”, served and filed herewith.) 19 9 On September 19, 2018, Stanford sent a response letter arguing that the Set 2 20 discovery requests were overbroad, indiscriminate in scope and time, not relevant or likely to 21 lead to admissible evidence, and infringed on privacy rights. (Exhibit “K”, served and filed 22 herewith.) 23 10. On September 19, 2018, Mr. Taghavi sent a meet and confer response addressing 24 the overbroad, scope and time, relevance, and confidentiality objections. (Exhibit “L”, served 25 and filed herewith.) 26 11. On October 2, 2018, I emailed Stanford’s counsel requesting a further response. 27 (Exhibit “M”, served and filed herewith.) 28 12. On October 2, 2018, Stanford’s counsel emailed a response demanding Mr. -3- BERDING BIEN otdon & WEIL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ‘alot Cec, calbia Sicss0 5596 STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO Taghavi’s counsel to narrow the scope of discovery. (Exhibit “N”, served and filed herewith.) 13. That same day, I sent an email confirming a meet and confer teleconference for October 3, 2018. (Exhibit “O”, served and filed herewith.) 14. Stanford’s counsel confirmed the teleconference in an email later that day. (Exhibit “P”, served and filed herewith.) 15. On October 3rd, counsel for both parties met and conferred by phone but were unable to resolve the discovery dispute. Stanford’s counsel emailed me a summary (Exhibit “G” to, served and filed herewith), and I emailed a summary, noting, among other things, that 9 throughout the meet and confer process, Stanford’s counsel failed to address the stipulated 10 protective order and its effect on minimizing confidentiality concerns. (Exhibit “H”, served and 11 filed herewith.) Stanford’s counsel discussed Set One and Set Two in an email on October 3, 12 2018, noting that the parties were at an impasse. (Exhibit “I”, served and filed herewith.) 13 16. As a result of Stanford’s willful refusal to serve full and complete verified 14 responses to these inspection demands, Mr. Taghavi is unable to proceed with meaningful 15 discovery, proceed with depositions, or effectively prosecute this action and prepare for trial. 16 17. The documents requested in Set One go to the heart of the issues raised in this 17 case and seek documents related to the WELL Project. Stanford initially hired Mr. Taghavi to 18 handle public relations for the WELL Project, which began under a 2014 gift agreement between 19 Stanford and Amway. [See Taghavi declaration, filed herewith.] The documents related to the 20 WELL Project are necessary for Mr. Taghavi to show that Amway threatened to cancel the 21 funding for the WELL Project ($10 million) unless: (1) Stanford agreed to override Mr. 22 Taghavi’s decision not to allow Amway to expand publicity beyond the limits of the underlying 23 gift agreement between Amway and Stanford; and (2) Stanford agreed to allow Amway to direct 24 the study to focus on the benefits of dietary supplements. 25 18. The documents requested in Set Two are necessary to show that the motivation for 26 Stanford professors working on the WELL Project to agree to whatever Amway demanded, 27 including termination of Mr. Taghavi to get him out of the way so Amway could breach the 28 publicity limitations under the gift agreement between Stanford and Amway. Or giving in to -4- BERDING & WEILLLP 27SNotdanebhd Ste98596 DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ‘alt Cec, Callen STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO. Amway’s demands to change focus of the WELL Project from a study of general well being to focus on the benefits of taking dietary supplements. For example, if 50% of a given professors’ total compensation comes from the $1.5 million annual gift from Amway, that would help explain why Stanford professors agreed to Amway’s unethical demands. 19. Stanford’s counsel and I stipulated by email to an October 11, 2018 deadline to file the instant motion. (See Exhibit “Q”, served and filed herewith.) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed in Walnut Creek, California on October 11, 2018. 10 11 r(f FREDRICK A. HAGEN 12 13 14 X:\wdocs\8236\9 1 \PLD\00961659.DOCX 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5- BERDING 2175 &BdWEIL 569LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Wala Nada Set 9336 Grek iifomie STANFORD’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, SETS ONE AND TWO EXHIBIT A $236.4 Eo — Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220 BERDING & WEIL LLP 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 925/838-2090 - Facsimile: 925/820-5592 fhagen@berdingweil.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ALI TAGHAVI, an individual SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ll ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S 13 vs. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF 14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit UNIVERSITY 15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan [SET ONE] 16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff ALI TAGHAVI 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD 21 JUNIOR UNIVERSITY 22 SET NUMBER: One (1) 23 Plaintiff and propounding party Ali Taghavi hereby requests that Defendant and 24 responding party Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) provide 25 complete and straightforward responses to each of this first set of requests for production, within 26 thirty (30) days from the date of service, under Section 2031.010, et seq., of the California Code 27 of Civil Procedure. 28 Propounding Party further requests that Responding Party produce the requested items for -l- BERDING Dyes‘nt cacann & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF Cet Cate Se 896 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE inspection, copying, and/or photographing at the offices of Berding & Weil LLP, 2175 North California Boulevard, Suite 500, Walnut Creek, California, under Section 2031.010, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, by 10:00 a.m. on July 2, 2018. DEFINITIONS A The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” or “WRITING” or “WRITINGS” shall include all writings as defined by Section 250 of the California Evidence Code and Section 2016.020 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, whether handwritten, typed, printed, photocopied, photographed, or any other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation and 10 shall include data and metadata stored on servers, computers, mobile phones, personal wireless ll devices, including without limitation computer files, programs, and any other information media; 12 data stored on removable magnetic or optical media, including but not limited to magnetic tape, 13 floppy disks, and recordable optical disks; data and metadata used for electronic data interchange, 14 audit trails, emails, text messages, tweets, social media, digitized pictures and video, including 15 but not limited to data stored in MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group), JPEG (Joint Pictures 16 Expert Group), and GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) formats; digitized audio, and voice mail. 17 B, The term “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” means information 18 of all kinds created, maintained and/or utilized by computers and/or networks, including all non- 19 identical copies of such information. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION includes, 20 but is not limited to, software (whether private, commercial or work-in-progress), programming 21 notes or instructions, and input and/or output used or produced by any software or utility 22 (including electronic mail messages and all information referencing or relating to such messages 23 anywhere on a computer or a network, word processing documents and all information stored in 24 connection with such documents, electronic spreadsheets, user created electronic documents, 25 email, databases including all records and fields and structural information, charts, graphs and 26 outlines, arrays of information and all other information used or produced by any software), 27 operating systems, source code of all types, programming languages, linkers and compilers, 28 peripheral drivers, batch files, any and all ASCII files, and any and all miscellaneous files and/or -2- BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF ccs Cabonia6 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE file fragments, regardless of the media on which they reside and regardless of whether such electronically stored information consists of an active file, deleted file or file fragment. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION includes any and all information stored on computer memories, hard disks, floppy disks, removable storage media, or on or in any other vehicle for digital data storage and/or transmittal. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION also includes the file, folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to, or associated with, any physical storage device associated with the information described above. Cc The term “YOU” and “YOUR?” refers to and includes defendant Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, a California nonprofit corporation, doing business as Stanford 10 University (“Stanford”), including without limitation the Stanford School of Medicine and the i Stanford Prevention Research Center and any affiliated entity, Stanford’s agents, employees, 12 insurance companies, their agents, their employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and 13 anyone else acting on Stanford’s behalf. 14 D The terms “RELATING TO” or “RELATE TO” mean and include constituting, 15 containing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, incorporating, alluding to, responding to, referring 16 to, connected with, commenting on, with respect to, arising from, about, regarding, discussing, 17 showing, describing, mentioning, analyzing, evidencing, or in any way pertaining to, whether the 18 reference or relationship provides support for, or contradicts, any alleged fact or conclusion that 19 is the object of such reference or relationship. 20 E. The term “PERSON” or “PERSONS” shall mean and refer to and include any 21 natural person or private or public organization of any form, including without limitation a firm, 22 association, business, partnership, trust, company, corporation, or public entity. 23 F, The term “AMWAY” shall mean and refer to and include Alticor, Inc., Amway 24 Corporation of Ada, Michigan, Nutrilite Products, Inc., and/or the Nutrilite Health Institute or 25 related or affiliated entities. 26 G The term “PROJECT” shall mean and refer to the Wellness Living Laboratory 27 Project or “WELL Project” (also sometimes known as the Well for Life Project), which was 28 and/or is funded by AMWAY through an unrestricted gift to Stanford and/or The Nutrilite Health 3- BERDING & WEIL Sec s08LLP86 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF ‘Won rc valiCoo THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE Institute Wellness Fund and was and/or is directed by the Stanford Prevention Research Center (“SPRC”). H The term “COMMUNICATION” or “COMMUNICATIONS” shall mean and refer to any form of communication or correspondence, oral or written, including without limitations emails, voicemails, texts, faxes, letters, memoranda, notes, and similar formats. L Whenever used herein, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular. INSTRUCTIONS Propounding Party requests that YOU: 10 1 Produce all non-privileged DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, or 11 control, including all DOCUMENTS in the possession, custody, or control of YOUR agents, 12 representatives, attorneys, investigators, consultants, independent contractors, and experts. 13 2. Produce each and every copy of a DOCUMENT where a copy contains any 14 commentary or notation that does not appear on the original or other copies. 15 3 Produce all prior drafts, as well as the final version of all DOCUMENTS. 16 4 Propounding party requests that for each DOCUMENT that is withheld under 17 claim of privilege, YOU provide: 18 a. A statement of the basis upon which the privilege is claimed and whether 19 or not the subject matter of the DOCUMENT is limited to legal advice or information 20 provided for the purpose of securing legal advice; 21 b. The number of each request to which the DOCUMENTS are responsive; 22 c. The name and title of the sender and the name and title of the recipient of 23 the DOCUMENT; 24 d The place, approximate date, and manner of recording or preparing of the 25 DOCUMENT; 26 €. The name of each person or persons participating in the preparation of the 27 DOCUMENT; and 28 f. The name and title, if any, of each person to whom the contents of the -4- BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF ‘tina rc Ca 8 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE DOCUMENT has been communicated by copy, exhibition, reading, or summarization. 5 You are required by Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280 (b) to either produce the documents as kept in the usual course of business, or have the documents organized and labeled to correspond to each category specified in this Request. 6. If any of the documents demanded cannot be produced, after a diligent and good faith search because it has been lost, destroyed, or misplaced, you must identify each such document and specify for each the reason for your inability to produce such document and state whatever information, knowledge or belief you have concerning the non-produced document, including the identity of any PERSON who has or may have possession, custody or control of 10 such document. iW 7. You may comply with this request by appearing at the time and place set forth in 12 this request for inspection and production with the documents and things sought to be produced. 13 If you make such an appearance, you shall notify the law offices of Berding & Weil LLP no later 14 than forty-eight (48) hours before the time scheduled for 15 production of the documents that a personal appearance will be made with the demanded records. 16 8 In the alternative, you may comply with this request by mailing to the 17 propounding party’s counsel all documents and things called for in this request. 18 REQUESTS 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 20 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PROJECT. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all work performed by Ali Taghavi at 23 Stanford and/or for the PROJECT. 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 25 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi’sperformance reviews at Stanford. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 27 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford and 28 Alticor regarding the PROJECT. 5. shewING ‘Walt & ‘aesWI eei Cain mae506 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE o~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, including without limitation all personnel files and/or files regarding the investigation of Mr. Taghavi’s claims of wrongful termination. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All insurance policies, declaration pages, endorsement pages, certificates of enrollment for policies that may potentially provide coverage or indemnity for any claim asserted by Propounding Party in this action. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 10 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford ll personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation 12 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, 13 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, 14 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, 15 and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith 16 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 18 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the 19 PROJECT, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel 20 John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, 21 Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or 23 from Alticor personnel R. Keith Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine 24 Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford 27 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding Ali Taghavi, including without limitation 28 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, -6- BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF AL] TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF Ged Calan sa86 ‘inNenana THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. loannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, 10 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, 11 and/or John “Jack” Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith 12 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 14 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO organizational charts for all information technology 15 or information services departments or positions RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention 16 Research Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or 17 The Nutrilite Health Institute Fund for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO storing emails or other electronic date regarding 20 DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention Research 21 Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or The 22 Nutrilite Health Institute Wellness Fund, for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 24 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the establishment or endowment of the R. H. 25 Rehnborg Chair of Disease Prevention and/or R. H. Rehnborg Chair of Preventative Medicine. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 27 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies and/or guidelines RELATING TO 28 corporate-funded research projects and/or policies that applied to AMWAY’s funding of the -7- BERDING mre (sea & WEIL SeLLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF Ca Callen396 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE PROJECT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the Form Interrogatories— Employment that were served with the set of requests for production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Robert Harrington and John Joannidis RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from John 10 Joannidis RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without 1 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from jioannid@stanford.edu or any private or public 12 email used by or on behalf of John Ioannidis. 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 14 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Catherine 15 Heaney RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without 16 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from cheaney@stanford.edu or any private or public 17 email used by or on behalf of Catherine Heaney. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Sandra J. 20 Winter RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without 21 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from sjwinter@stanford.edu or any private or public email 22 used by or on behalf of Sandra J. Winter. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 24 Ail DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Ann Hsing 25 RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without limitation 26 COMMUNICATIONS to or from annhsing@stanford.edu or any private or public email used by 27 or on behalf of Ann Hsing. 28 Ml -8- BERDING Bist & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF AL] TAGHAVI!’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES OF slim east Gre Caan 3896 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, SET ONE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Elise J. Wang RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from wangej@stanford.edu or any private or public email used by or on behalf of Elise J. Wang. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Judith (Jodi) Prochaska RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from jpro@stanford.edu or any private or public email 10 used by or on behalf of Judith (Jodi) Prochaska. i RE! UEST. IR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 12 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Marcia 13 Stefanick RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without 14 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from stefanick@stanford.edu or any private or public 15 email used by or on behalf of Marcia Stefanick. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Lisa 18 Henriksen RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without 19 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from lisa.henriksen@stanford.edu or any private or public 20 email used by or on behalf of Lisa Henriksen. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from Michaela 23 Kiernan RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, the PROJECT and/or AMWAY, including without 24 limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from mkiernan@stanford.edu or any private or public 25 email used by or on behalf of Michaela Kiernan. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 27 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS to or from