Preview
Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220
BERDING & WEIL LLP
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, California 94596 a ILED
Telephone: 925-838-2090 SAN MATEO COUNTY
Facsimile: 925-820-5592
\\w /\
fhagen@berdingweil.com NOV 1 6 2018
Attomeys for Plaintiff Ci toh Vo
ALI TAGHAVI Wp
MY ale
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
ll ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570 ss
=
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S
D
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
13 vs. OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
STANFORD’S MOTION TO QUASH
14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit Date: November 26, 2018
15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD Time: 9:00 a.m.
UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan Dept.: Law and Motion
16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
17 Defendants. Complaint Filed: October 4, 2017
Trial Date: December 17, 2018 |
18
19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
20 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PROJECT.
21 STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING: iflz
22 Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. i958
(48S
23 (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter” if it
24 might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement
25 thereof. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48
26 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006,
27 1013.) Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information
28 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.)
-1-
BERDING & vdWEILSue S00LLP
RIS Callan ‘Callers PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN CPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S
‘aloe 4556
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give
Plaintiff the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting his
speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a
consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which
Plaintiff had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with
Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and seek
documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy theories,
could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims.
Plaintiff's request is.an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad
10 requests seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained
11 after Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims an
12 was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff
13 has propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively
14 produced over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound
15 discovery through less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to
16 conduct an unduly burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive.
7 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING:
18 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information
19 sought must be relevant to the “subject mai ” of the pending action or to the determination of a
20 motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend
21 itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone,
22 Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be
23 regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
24 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539,
25 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the
26 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject
27 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are
28 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.)
~2-
BERDING
BUEN & NdWEIL LLP
ele Caos
Cre Calor 959% PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S.
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained
in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford
continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford
for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint.
The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete
work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and
corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of
the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the
10 complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of
i this action and preparing for trial.
12 Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive
13 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust
14 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d
15 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it
16 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of
17 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer.
18 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.)
19 Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for
20 production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant
21 information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained
22 above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is
23 minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the
24 complaint.
25 Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was
26 not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not
27 mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be
28 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of
-3-
BERDING
a & vdWEILus 500LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S
alos 94596
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant
whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all work performed AMWAY,
STANFORD and/or the PROJECT.
STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING:
Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ.
Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might
reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.
10 (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
i 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)
12 Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information
13 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.)
14 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff
15 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting
16 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a
7 consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff
18 had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's
19 termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and
20 seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy
21 theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims.
22 Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests
23 seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after
24 Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims
25 an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has
26 propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced
27 over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through
28 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly
-4-
BERDING
“TSN & WEIL SeeLLP
Wate alae
Geek, Caio 586 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive.
TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING:
The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information
sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a
motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend
itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be
regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539,
10 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the
11 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject
12 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are
13 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.)
14 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is
15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained
16 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford
17 continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford
18 for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint.
19 The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete
20 work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and
21 corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of
the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the
23 complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of
24 this action and preparing for trial.
25 Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive
26 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust
27 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d
28 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it
-5-
BERDING & BdWEILSun S60LLP
218
‘Wale Can
Cree, CaisM58 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of
the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer.
(Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.)
Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for
production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant
information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained
above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is
minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the
complaint.
10 Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was
1 not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not
12 mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be
13 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of
14 documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant
15 whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings regarding the PROJECT.
18 STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING:
19 Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ.
20 Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might
21 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.
22 (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
23 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)
24 Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information
25 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.)
26 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff
27 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting
28 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a
-6-
BERDING
awe & WEIL. ue
Cred Cabfonda‘ee 84586
Walaa
PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff
had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's
termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and
seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy
theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims.
Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests
seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after
Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims
an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has
10 propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced
11 over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through
12 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly
13 burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive.
14 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING:
15 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information
16 sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a
7 motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend
18 itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone,
19 Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be
20 regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
21 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539,
22 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the
23 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject
24 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are
25 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.)
26 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained
28 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford
-1-
195 IRDING & WEIL LLP
Wat earCec, Calorie‘ate 90586 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S,
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford
for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint.
The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete
work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and
corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of
the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the
complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of
this action and preparing for trial.
Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive
10 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust
1 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d
12 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it
13 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of
14 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer.
15 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.)
16 Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for
17 production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant
18 information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained
19 above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is
20 minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the
21 complaint.
22 Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was
23 not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not
24 mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be
25 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of
26 documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant
27 whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims.
28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
-8-
PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S
i Cahors 9596
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between STANFORD and AMWAY
regarding the PROJECT.
STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING:
Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ.
Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might
reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.
(Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)
Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information
10 ought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.)
11 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff
12 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting
13 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a
14 consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff
15 had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's
16 termination, (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and
17 seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy
18 theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims.
19 Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests
20 seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after
21 Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims
22 an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has
23 propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced
24 over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through
25 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly
26 burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive.
27 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING:
28 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information
-9-
BERDING
Brena & ndWEI8
Walaa Geo. Cire ue
92556
PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a
motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend
itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be
regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539,
1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject
matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are
10 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.)
11 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is
12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained
13 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford
14 continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford
15 for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint.
16 The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete
17 work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and
18 corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of
19 the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the
20 complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of
21 this action and preparing for trial.
22 Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive
23 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust
24 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d
25 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it
26 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of
27 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer.
i
aol |
28 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) :
|
BERDING
BSN atin & WEIL. PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S
‘Wola Ce Cale 93596
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
|
Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for
production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant
information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained
above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is
minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the
complaint.
Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was
not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not
mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be
10 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of
Il documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant
12 whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
14 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, including without limitation
15 COMMUNICATIONS regarding the Mr. Taghavi's termination by STANFORD.
16 STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING:
17 Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ.
18 Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might
19 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.
20 (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
21 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)
22 Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information
23 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.)
24 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff
25 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting
26 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a
27 consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff
28 had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's
-li-
BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S
waPs nut calvanaa tS 945%
Choe, Caloo
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, cverbroad, and
seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy
theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims.
Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests
seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after
Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims
an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has
propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced
over 21,000 documents, (Fitzsimmons Dec!.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through
10 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly
11 burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive.
12 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING:
13 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information
14 sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a
15 motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend
16 itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone,
17 Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be
18 regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
19 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539,
20 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the
21 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject
22 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are
23 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.)
24 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is
25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained
26 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford
27 continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford
28 for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint.
-12-
BERDING & WEIL
Eynesepets SassoLLP. PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S
MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete
work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and
corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of
the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the
complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of
this action and preparing for trial.
Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive
demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust
that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles y. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d
10 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it
11 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of
12 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer.
13 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.)
14 Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for
15 production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant
16 information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained
17 above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is
18 minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the
19 complaint.
20 Stanfor
Preview
Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220 BERDING & WEIL LLP 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, California 94596 a ILED Telephone: 925-838-2090 SAN MATEO COUNTY Facsimile: 925-820-5592 \\w /\ fhagen@berdingweil.com NOV 1 6 2018 Attomeys for Plaintiff Ci toh Vo ALI TAGHAVI Wp MY ale SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ll ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570 ss = 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S D SEPARATE STATEMENT IN 13 vs. OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION TO QUASH 14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit Date: November 26, 2018 15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD Time: 9:00 a.m. UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan Dept.: Law and Motion 16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. Complaint Filed: October 4, 2017 Trial Date: December 17, 2018 | 18 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 20 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PROJECT. 21 STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING: iflz 22 Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. i958 (48S 23 (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter” if it 24 might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement 25 thereof. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 26 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 27 1013.) Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information 28 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.) -1- BERDING & vdWEILSue S00LLP RIS Callan ‘Callers PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN CPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S ‘aloe 4556 MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff's request is.an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad 10 requests seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained 11 after Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims an 12 was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff 13 has propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively 14 produced over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound 15 discovery through less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to 16 conduct an unduly burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive. 7 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING: 18 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information 19 sought must be relevant to the “subject mai ” of the pending action or to the determination of a 20 motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend 21 itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone, 22 Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be 23 regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the 24 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 25 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the 26 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject 27 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are 28 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.) ~2- BERDING BUEN & NdWEIL LLP ele Caos Cre Calor 959% PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S. MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the 10 complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of i this action and preparing for trial. 12 Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive 13 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust 14 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 15 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it 16 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of 17 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer. 18 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) 19 Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for 20 production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant 21 information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained 22 above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is 23 minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the 24 complaint. 25 Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was 26 not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not 27 mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be 28 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of -3- BERDING a & vdWEILus 500LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S alos 94596 MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all work performed AMWAY, STANFORD and/or the PROJECT. STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING: Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. 10 (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th i 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) 12 Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information 13 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.) 14 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff 15 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting 16 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a 7 consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff 18 had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's 19 termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and 20 seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy 21 theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims. 22 Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests 23 seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after 24 Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims 25 an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has 26 propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced 27 over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through 28 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly -4- BERDING “TSN & WEIL SeeLLP Wate alae Geek, Caio 586 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive. TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING: The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 10 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the 11 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject 12 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are 13 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.) 14 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is 15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained 16 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford 17 continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford 18 for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. 19 The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete 20 work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and 21 corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the 23 complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of 24 this action and preparing for trial. 25 Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive 26 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust 27 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 28 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it -5- BERDING & BdWEILSun S60LLP 218 ‘Wale Can Cree, CaisM58 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the complaint. 10 Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was 1 not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not 12 mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be 13 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of 14 documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant 15 whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings regarding the PROJECT. 18 STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING: 19 Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ. 20 Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might 21 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. 22 (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 23 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) 24 Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information 25 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.) 26 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff 27 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting 28 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a -6- BERDING awe & WEIL. ue Cred Cabfonda‘ee 84586 Walaa PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has 10 propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced 11 over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through 12 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly 13 burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive. 14 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING: 15 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information 16 sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a 7 motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend 18 itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone, 19 Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be 20 regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the 21 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 22 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the 23 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject 24 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are 25 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.) 26 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is 27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained 28 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford -1- 195 IRDING & WEIL LLP Wat earCec, Calorie‘ate 90586 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S, MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of this action and preparing for trial. Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive 10 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust 1 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 12 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it 13 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of 14 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer. 15 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) 16 Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for 17 production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant 18 information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained 19 above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is 20 minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the 21 complaint. 22 Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was 23 not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not 24 mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be 25 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of 26 documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant 27 whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims. 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: -8- PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S i Cahors 9596 MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between STANFORD and AMWAY regarding the PROJECT. STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING: Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information 10 ought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.) 11 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff 12 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting 13 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a 14 consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff 15 had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's 16 termination, (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, overbroad, and 17 seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy 18 theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims. 19 Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests 20 seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after 21 Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims 22 an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has 23 propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced 24 over 21,000 documents. (Fitzsimmons Decl.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through 25 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly 26 burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive. 27 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING: 28 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information -9- BERDING Brena & ndWEI8 Walaa Geo. Cire ue 92556 PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are 10 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.) 11 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is 12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained 13 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford 14 continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford 15 for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. 16 The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete 17 work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and 18 corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of 19 the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the 20 complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of 21 this action and preparing for trial. 22 Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive 23 demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust 24 that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 25 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it 26 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of 27 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer. i aol | 28 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) : | BERDING BSN atin & WEIL. PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S ‘Wola Ce Cale 93596 MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS | Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the complaint. Stanford alleges that Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Taghavi or his claims and was not involved in the decision-making process of Taghavi’s termination. This, however, does not mean that the information obtained through the request for production of documents would be 10 irrelevant. As previously explained, the production of documents could lead to discovery of Il documents relevant to Taghavi’s first cause of action in the complaint. These issues are relevant 12 whether or not Indigo Partners had any knowledge of Taghavi or his claims. 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 14 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, including without limitation 15 COMMUNICATIONS regarding the Mr. Taghavi's termination by STANFORD. 16 STANFORD’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR QUASHING: 17 Information sought in discovery must be relevant to the "subject matter" of the action. (Cal. Civ. 18 Proc. § 2017.010.) Information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might 19 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. 20 (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 21 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) 22 Moreover, "relevancy" must be considered with regard to the burden and value of the information 23 sought. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391.) 24 While Plaintiff's case is based largely on conspiratorial conjecture, that does not give Plaintiff 25 the ability to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find evidence supporting 26 his speculative and unreasonable theories. Plaintiff's requests for production seek documents from a 27 consulting firm that was not even retained by Stanford until after Plaintiff's termination, which Plaintiff 28 had no interactions with during his employment, and which had nothing to do with Plaintiff's -li- BERDING & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD'S waPs nut calvanaa tS 945% Choe, Caloo MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS termination. (Logan Decl.) This request is unduly burdensome, cverbroad, and seek documents far outside the scope of discovery that, even with the most creative conspiracy theories, could not possibly be relevant to Plaintiff's discrimination and wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff's request is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The unduly overbroad requests seeks a tremendous amount of information for a small consulting firm that was retained after Plaintiff left his employment. Indigo Partners has no knowledge of Plaintiff or his claims an was not involved in the decision-making process of Plaintiff's termination. (Logan Decl.) Plaintiff has propounded the exact same requests from Defendants and Defendants have now collectively produced over 21,000 documents, (Fitzsimmons Dec!.) Plaintiff has had months to propound discovery through 10 less intrusive means and his back-door attempts to now force a third party to conduct an unduly 11 burdensome search is unreasonable and oppressive. 12 TAGHAVI’S RESPONSE AND REASON FOR ALLOWING: 13 The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information 14 sought must be relevant to the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a 15 motion in that action. (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” does not lend 16 itself to precise definition, but it is broader than relevancy to the issues. (Bridgestone/Firestone, 17 Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) For discovery purposes, information should be 18 regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the 19 case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 20 1546.) The Discovery Act provides for discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to the 21 discovery of admissible evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Pro. § 2017.010) The “relevance to the subject 22 matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are 23 applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790.) 24 Here, Taghavi requested a very limited production of documents by Indigo Partners that is 25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information obtained 26 in response to this request for production of documents could indicate whether Stanford 27 continued their practice of unethical entanglements in which research sponsors only pay Stanford 28 for research that shows certain results, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. -12- BERDING & WEIL Eynesepets SassoLLP. PLAINTIFF ALI TAGHAVI’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT STANFORD’S MOTION TO QUASH INDIGO PARTNERS SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS The requested documents could also show that Stanford requested Indigo Partners to complete work that would violate Stanford’s protocols designed to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption in the funding of Stanford’s research projects, as alleged in the first cause of action of the complaint. As the information sought directly relates to the first cause of action in the complaint, it is evident that the requested production of documents is relevant to evaluation of this action and preparing for trial. Stanford also contends that Taghavi’s subpoena is an unreasonable and oppressive demand. In regards to this objection, it must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles y. Sup.Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 10 407, 419.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required and it 11 must appear that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of 12 the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answer. 13 (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) 14 Here, Taghavi has requested that Indigo Partners respond to a total of eleven requests for 15 production of documents. These requests are very limited in nature and only seek relevant 16 information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained 17 above. The amount of work required to answer the requests for production of documents is 18 minimal and the utility of the information sought is relevant to the first cause of action in the 19 complaint. 20 Stanfor