Motion to Compel in ALI TAGHAVI vs. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al| Trellis.Law

On October 04, 2017 a Order of Examination was filed involving a dispute between Taghavi, Ali, and Alticor, Inc., A Michigan Corporation, Does 1-10, Inclusive, The Leland Stanford Junior University, A California Nonprofit Corporation, for (36) Unlimited Wrongful Termination in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220
BERDING & WEIL LLP
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925-838-2090 FMATFC’»
I L E g
Facsimile; 925—820—5592 SAN LTGUNTY
fhagen@berdingweil.com Q CT 2 4 2018
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALI TAGHAVI
6

:7- r—-—A
17— CIV—Msm
MPAo
Memorandum
1454765
ofPo ints and Authorities
inOpp}
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I
WWWWHJ Iwmwmmmmwwm Fm--
. _ /
.

11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570 Bu

12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO EEHA

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
13 vs. MENTAL EXAMINATION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
UNIVERSITY, a California nonproﬁt FRED A. HAGEN
15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD
UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan
16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Date: November 6, 201 8
Time: 9:00 a.m.
17 Defendants. Dept: Law and Motion
18 Trial Date: December 17, 201 8

20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Plaintiff, Ali Taghavi, hereby opposes the motion of Defendant Leland Stanford Junior

22 University (“Stanford”) to compel Plaintiff’s mental examination. The allegations of emotional

23 distress are not so unusual as to require a four-hour mental examination. The fact that Mr.

24 Taghavi testiﬁed at his deposition that he was stillsuffering from emotional distress was likely

25 the result of his employment relationship with the Town of Poﬁola Valley being separated at the

26 time of his deposition.

27 Stanford did not make a good faith effort to meet and confer prior to ﬁling the motion.

28 The parties exchanged emails on September 26 and the motion was ﬁled on September 28. For

BERDING WEIL LLP
mm: BM Sum
217s N,
[

soo
warm aux. cummi- 9456
PLAINTIFF’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING MENTAL EXAMINATION
example, Mr. Taghavi is Willing to stipulate that the emotional distress he suffered is not over and

above the emotional distress typically suffered as the result of the type 0f wrongful termination

alleged in this case and that Mr. Taghavi will not be presenting an expert to testify regarding his
#w

emotional distress.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Defendant Stanford’s wrongful termination of an employment
OOQQUI

contract with Plaintiff Ali Taghavi. Mr. Taghavi ﬁled a wrongful termination action against

Stanford and Defendant Alticor, Inc. (“Amway”) alleging that Amway interfered with Mr.

\O Taghavi’s employment with Stanford, in party, by threatening to cancel funding of a $10 million

10 research proj ect unless Mr. Taghavi was removed. [Declaration of Frederick A. Hagen, ﬂ 2.]

11 Stanford hired Mr. Taghavi in the summer of 2015 to handle communications, and other

12 tasks related to the Wellness Living Laboratory Project (“WELL Projec ”), Which was funded by

13 a series of éupposedly unrestricted gifts ($1.5 million per year) from Defendant Alticor, Inc.

14 (“Amway”). [Hagen Decl., ﬂ 3.] Per written agreement (“Agreement”) between the Defendants,

15 Stanford was t0 have unrestricted control over application of the funds for the WELL Project.

16 [Hagen Decl., 114.] The Agreement also limited each party’s rights to publicity arising from the

17 WELL Proj ect and Stanford’s relationship with Amway. [1d,]

18 After Amway commenced making yearly payments to Stanford under the Agreement,

19 Amway began demanding that Stanford expand publicity, alter the scope and cede control of the

20 WELL Project in a manner contradictory to Stanford’s pre—existing protocols and the applicable

21 Agreement between the Defendants. [Hagen Dec1., ﬂ 5.] When Mr. Taghavi denied such requests,

22 per the direction of his superiors at Stanford and pursuant to his mandate to ensure the integrity

23 0f the process and protect Stanford’s reputation as an independent research institution, Amway
24 threatened to cancel future payments under the “unrestricted gift” agreement. [Hagen Decl., ﬂ 5.]

25 Ultimately, Stanford conceded and agreed to expand the scope of the WELL Project and to allow
26 Amway to promote its partnership with Stanford. [Hagen Decl., 115.] At or around the same time,

27 Mr. Taghavi began to receive critical feedback inconsistent with his previous reviews of his work

28 for the Proj ect. He was abruptly terminated by Stanford within a few weeks. [Hagen Decl., 1]5.]

BERDINGWEIL LLP
l
-2-
2175 N. Califand- Blvd Suit: 500
Wuhan beck. Califunh 9-156
PLAINTIFF’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING MENTAL EXAMINATION
While Plaintiff alleges mental and emotional distress, said distress isof “garden variety”

that would be expected to be sustained by any reasonable person who had been terminated from

their position for doing the job they were hired to do. [Hagen Dec1., 1]6.] There has been no
UI-PUJN

showing or demonstration 0n the part Stanford that Plaintiffs injuries are of an exceptional

nature and no good cause demonstrated to justify the compelling of a forced mental examination.

NON
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Defendant Has Failed to Meet and Confer in Good Faith and has failed to
Demonstrate Good Cause Required For Mental Examination.

Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2032.310 et seq. authorize a mental examination only by leave of

10 court, and only under certain conditions, including a showing of good cause. (See Code Civ.

11 Proc. § 2032.320.) Good cause requires a showing of relevancy t0 the subject matter and speciﬁc

12 facts justifying discovery. (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833.) Good cause is

13 such that would “satisfy an impartial tribunal that the request may be granted Without abuse of

14 the inherent rights of the adversary.” (Id.)

15 The mental exam requested by Defendant does not meet the requirements under section

16 2032.220 0f the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that Defendant has failed to demonstrate

17 good cause for the examination. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding mental and

18 emotional distress have not been shown by Defendant to be of an extraordinary nature that would

19 justify the compelling of a forced mental examination. Furthermore, plaintiff’s deposition

20 testimony was affected by his recent separation from his then current employer, reviving his

21 emotional distress symptoms. [Hagen Dec1., 1]6.]

22 Stanford failed to meet and confer in good faith. The parties exchanged meet and confer

23 emails on September 26 regarding various issues, such as the fact Mr. Taghavi was not alleging

24 emotional distress over and above what normally would attend the type of wrongful termination

25 alleged in the complaint. Before the parties completed exploring alternatives suggested in the

26 emails, Stanford ﬁled this motion 0n September 28. [Hagen Decl., ﬂ 7.]

27 Mr. Taghavi isWilling to stipulate that he is making no claim for mental and emotional

28 distress over and above what a person normally would experience attendant to the type of

BERDING]
WEIL LLP -3-
2m N‘ cumm- mvd Sun: goo
wmmx emek. Cantatas: 9456
PLAINTIFF’ S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING MENTAL EXAMINATION
wrongful determination alleged in the pleadings and that he will offer no psychiatric testimony at

trialin support of any claimed emotional distress. (See Code Civil Proc. § 2032.320(b), (0).)

B. Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Mental Examination Must Be
Denied Because Stanford Has Not Provided the Required Separate Statement
Under Applicable California Rules of Court.
Stanford failed to provide a separate statement as required by Rule 3.1345 of the

California Rules of Court. That rule provides, in relevant pan, that a Separate Statement is
\OWQONUI-h

required for a motion to compel a medical examination over an object. (Cal. Rules of Ct, Rule

3.1345(a)(6).)

Stanford failed to follow statutory provisions regarding the inclusion of the separate

10 statement of issues in dispute, and its motionl for order compelling mental examination should

11 therefore be denied.

12 IV. CONCLUSION
13 Mr. Taghavi respectfully requests this Court should deny Stanford’s motion for a mental

14 examination. First, Stanford’s failed to make a good faith effort to meet and confer. Second,

15 Stanford failed to show that Plaintiff’s mental and erhotional distress is extraordinary to the

16 extent that it would require the imposition of an invasive and forced mental examination.

17 Moreover, Mr. Taghavi is willing to stipulate that he is not alleging emotional distress over and

18 above what would normally accompany the type of wrongful termination alleged in the pleadings

19 and that he is not presenting psychiatric evidence at trial.

20 Finally, the motion should be denied because Stanford failed to comply With California

21 Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(6) by not including a separate statement in its motion for order

22 compelling mental examination.

23 Dated: October 24, 2018 BERDING & WEIL LLP
24

26
EVA, Jp—
Fred’A. Hagen
Attorney for Plaintiff Ali Taghavi

28 X:\Wdocs\8236\9 1\PLD\00963565 .DOC

BERDING WEIL LLP
2m N. customs. Elva 5m zoo
I

wmm Creek. customi- 9456
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING MENTAL EXAlVﬂNATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case Name: Ali Taghavi v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, et al.
Case No: San Mateo County Superior Court Case No.: 17CIV04570

I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. My business address is
2175 N. California B1Vd., Suite 500, Walnut Creek, California 94596. I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party to the Within action.

On October 24, 2018 I served the within:

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING MENTAL
EXAMINATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION
OF FRED A. HAGEN

on the party[ies] listed below, addressed as follows:

10
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
11
E Bv First Class Mail/Ordinarv Business Practices [C.C.P. SS 1013, 1013a]. By causing
12 a true copy thereof to be enclosed in a sealed envelope or package, addressed to the
party[ies] as stated on the attached service list. I am readily familiar with the ﬁrm's
13 business practice for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for mailing with
the United States Postal Service. Under the ﬁrm's practice, mail is deposited in the
14 ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service at Walnut Creek,
California, that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that upon motion

15 of the patty served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter
date on the envelope or package is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing.
16
Ll Bv Personal Service [C.C.P. S 1011]. By causing a true copy thereof to be hand—
17 delivered in a sealed envelope or package addressed t0 the party[ies] as stated on the
attached service list.
18
E Bv Overnight Delivery [C.C.P. 8 1013, 1013a]. By causing a true copy thereof to be
19 enclosed in a sealed envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with all
delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the party[ies] as stated 0n the attached
20 service list. I am readily familiar with the ﬁrm’s business practice for collection and
processing of overnight deliveries for deposit in a box or other facility regularly
21 maintained by the express service carrier to receive documents. Under the ﬁnn’s practice,
overnight deliveries are deposited in the ordinary course of business With the express
22 service carrier at Walnut Creek, California, that same day.

23 I declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed October 24, 201 8, at Walnut Creek, California.
24

25 By; ﬂ ‘

Clarice Lankford
26

BERDING & WEIL, LLP SERVICE LIST
217s N Calmomia Blvd Sun: son
Walnut Creek, nalivomia uses
SERVICE LIST
Case Name: Ali Taghavi v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, ez‘ al.

Case N0: San Mateo County Superior Court Case No.2 17CIV04570

Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons, Esq. Karen J. Kubin, Esq.
Amber A. Eklof, Esq. Morrison & Foerster LLP
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 425 Market Street
275 Battery St, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
San Francisco, CA 941 11 Tel: (415) 268—7000 / Fax: (415) 268—7522
Tel: (415) 875-4131 / Fax: (415) 986—8054 kkubin@mofo.com
misom@grsm.c0m
aeklof
\OOOQON
rsm.com Co—Counsel for Defendant
ALTICOR, INC.
Attorneys for Defendant
TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND [VIA U.s. MAIL]
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
10 erroneously sued as The Leland
Stanford Junior University
11
[VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY]
12
David P. Zins, Esq.
13 Morrison & Foerster LLP
707 Wilshire B1vd., Suite 6000
14 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
Tel: (213) 892-5200 / Fax: (213) 892-5454
15 dzins@mofo.com

16 Co—Counsel for Defendant
ALTICOR, INC.
17
[VIA U.s. MAIL]
18

19
misom@grsm.com; aeklof@grsm.com; kkubin@mofo.com; dzins@mofo.com
20

21 X:\Wdocs\8236\91\PLDPOS\00839266.DOCX

BERDING 8 WEIL, LLP SERVICE LIST
1175 N California Blvd Sﬂﬂe Eon
Walnut Creek. Calllomla 94596

Case Info

Judge

John L. Grandsaert Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 24, 2018

Case Filing Date

October 04, 2017

County

Parties

ALTICOR, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION Defendant
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE Defendant
EKLOF, AMBER A. Attorney for the Defendant
HAGEN, FREDRICK A Attorney for the Plaintiff
KUBIN, KAREN J. Attorney for the Defendant
TAGHAVI, ALI Plaintiff
THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION Defendant
David Zins Attorneys for Defendants
Marcie Fitzsimmons Attorneys for Defendants
Kyle Pineo Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Order of Examination: ALI TAGHAVI vs. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties