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
FILED
Facsimile: 925-820-5592 Aye MOTEO COUNTY
fhagen@berdingweil.com NOV 16 an
if
UA Ui
Attorneys for Plaintiff lL
of®
ALI TAGHAVI VU/2
DERINY CHER
i SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO lgigis
10
ings
Baa
11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17C1V04570
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A.
HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
13 vs. OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
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 I, Fredrick A. Hagen, declare as follows:
20 1 J am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and
21 am an attorney with the law firm of Berding & Weil LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Ali
22 Taghavi (“Plaintiff”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff's motion for an order
23 continuing the trial and discovery deadlines in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the
24 facts stated herein, except for those stated on information and belief, and if called upon to testify
25 to those facts, I could.
26 2. Defendant Stanford hired plaintiff Ali Taghavi as communications manager for on
27 the Wellness Living Laboratory Project (“WELL Project”), which was funded by a series of
28 “unrestricted gifts” from Defendant Alticor, Inc. (“Amway”) totaling Ten Million Dollars
-1-
ING & WEIL LLP
os Nea DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
‘alae Geek, Calo 996
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
($10,000,000.00) under the direction of the Stanford Prevention Research Center (“SPRC”). [See
Exhibit A to declaration of Ali Taghavi, filed herewith.]
3 Under the Gift Agreement between Stanford and Amway, Stanford was to have
unrestricted control over the funds provided by Amway for use on the WELL Project and
Amway’s ability to publicize the WELL Project, the Gift Agreement, and Amway’s involvement
with Stanford was severely limited.
4 After commencement of the WELL Project and initial payments by Amway,
Amway began demanding Stanford add dietary supplement questions to the survey that was the
core of the WELL Project research-study and allow Amway to breach the publicity limitations
10 under the Gift Agreement by expanding publicity and inviting Amway business operators to
il participate in the WELL Project study in violation of pre-existing research protocols.
12 5 In advance of an April 18, 2016, meeting between Stanford and Amway to discuss
13 whether Amway would continue its funding, the WELL Project faculty at Stanford had agreed to
14 allow Stanford to direct the WELL Project research study, in violation of the Gift Agreement,
IS and add dietary supplement questions to the survey. But, under the direction of Paul Costello, the
16 director of communications for the Stanford School of Medicine, where the SPRC is located,
17 Plaintiff Ali Taghavi continued to enforce the publicity limits under the Gift Agreement,
18 upsetting Amway.
19 6 On May 6, 2016, within two weeks of the April 18, 2016, meeting, Stanford
20 terminated Mr. Taghavi to appease Amway, leaving no one to enforce the publicity limitations.
21 Stanford then sent an email claiming Mr. Taghavi decided to leave his position at Stanford to
22 pursue other interests.
23 7. On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination complaint with the
24 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which provided plaintiff with one year
25 to file a complaint in superior court.
26 8 On October 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in superior court within the one
27 year statute of limitations. Plaintiff did not serve the complaint but continued to research
28 potential claims.
-2-
BERDING
195i & WEILS50LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
‘alas Cres Calera 51596
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
9 On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed and served the first amended complaint for
wrongful termination in violation of public policy and discrimination states against Stanford and
interference with economic advantage against Amway.
10. On March 23, 2018, Stanford and Amway both filed answers, appearing in the
case for the first time on the same day and serving extensive written discovery to plaintiff.
il. On April 13, 2018, the court scheduled the initial trial date for December 17,
2018.
12. As the case unfolded, both Stanford and Amway refused to produce relevant
documents, taking advantage of the fact that much of the evidence supporting Mr. Taghavi’s
10 claims is in the possession of Amway and Stanford. The strategy of Amway and Stanford has
ll been to block plaintiff from obtaining vital discovery and then force plaintiff to oppose motions
12 for summary judgment and then go to trial without essential evidence.
13 13. Between June 2018 and November 2018, Stanford has subpoenaed the income and
14 employment records from 21 of Mr. Taghavi’s former employers and consulting clients,
15 including Summit Estate Recovery Center (“Summit”) and Islamic Networks Group (“ING”).
16 Mr. Taghavi allowed those productions without moving to quash.
17 14. Mr. Taghavi also provided Stanford with the amounts he earned from employment
18 and consulting clients during the period May 2016 tc the present as requested to Stanford’s
19 interrogatories.
20 15. In fact, Mr. Taghavi produced his income and employment records from the Town
21 of Portola Valley to Stanford before his deposition in exchange for Stanford agreeing not to serve
22 the subpoena. But after receiving the documents, Stanford served the subpoena anyway, which
23 ask the Town of Portola Valley for all documents related to this wrongful termination lawsuit and
24 gave the case name and number.
25 16. Mr. Taghavi was deposed in this matter on July 30, 2018, July 31, 2018 and
26 August 8, 2018, providing multiple responses regarding his employment and financial history and
27 subsequent employment and income.
28 17. After obtaining plaintiff's income and employment records from subpoenas to the
3-
BERDING &BeWEIL LLP
I7sNcaana DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
‘Walet Grek Califia
9396
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Town of Portola Valley, and from documents produced by Mr. Taghavi, Stanford then served the
second set of requests for production, set two, seeking all documents related to termination from
the Town of Portola Valley. Any such documents, regarding Mr. Taghavi’s private employment
after leaving Stanford, are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
18. Plaintiff took the deposition of Stanford professor Catherine Heaney on October
16, 2018. While preparing to take this deposition on October 15 and then taking the deposition on
October 16, 2018, another attorney in my office was assisting plaintiff in providing responses to
Stanford’s third set of requests for production. With thousands of pages of documents produced
by the parties, and also by Mr. Taghavi’s former employers in response to subpoenas, I believed
10 the requested documents had already been produced. Some of the requests were also confusing
I because they requested “payroll” records for the clients plaintiff worked for as a consultant after
12 leaving Stanford.
13 19. Because Stanford and Amway were not producing the key relevant documents, on
14 October 24, 2018, plaintiff's counsel appeared ex parte before the Presiding Judge and the law
15 and Motion department seeking a trial continuance and 2 continuance of the motion for summary
16 judgment hearings, scheduled for November 9 (“Amway”) and November 16, 2018 (“Stanford”),
17 respectively. Under both applications, plaintiff sought to move the summary judgment hearings
18 and the trial to allow time to complete discovery. Both were denied on shortened notice.
19 20. On October 25 and 26, 2018, plaintiff's counsel worked diligently to prepare
20 plaintiff's opposition to Amway’s motion for summary judgment.
21 21. On Monday, October 29, 2018, expert disclosures were prepared and served and I
22 prepared for the important deposition of Mr. Taghavi’s Stanford supervisor, Elsie Wang.
23 Plaintiffs responses to Stanford’s form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set
24 three, were also due October 29, 2018.
25 22. Plaintiffs counsel sent an email to Stanford’s counsel requesting a short extension
26 to November 8, 2018, for Plaintiff's deadline to respend to Stanford’s form interrogatories, set
27 two, and special interrogatories, set three. [Please see a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's
28 October 29, 2018, email requesting an extension to respond to written discovery, attached as
4.
BERDING
2196s & WEUL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’:
‘aint Cec, CaenSea 9896
60
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Exhibit A.]
23. Stanford’s counsel would only agree to extend the deadline until 2 p.m. on
October 31, 2018, leaving me no time to prepare the response until after taking the key deposition
of Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor, Elsie Wang, on October 30, 2018. [Please see a true and correct
copy of Stanford’s email extending the deadline by one day and a half, attached as Exhibit B.]
24. At this time, I forwarded Stanford’s meet and confer letter to another attorney in
our firm and requested that he respond to Stanford’s counsel because I would be preoccupied
with preparing for the deposition and then preparing responses to Stanford’s form and special
interrogatories the next day. Unfortunately, although this was my sole responsibility, that did not
10 occur because of all the events and communications going back and forth on numerous issues.
11 25. On October 30, 2018, I took the deposition of Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor, Elsie
12 Wang, at our offices in Walnut Creek. Stanford’s counsel appeared to defend Elsie Wang’s
13 deposition, but Stanford’s counsel did not attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's
14 responses to the third set of requests for production. Nevertheless, Stanford’s counsel sent me
15 numerous emails before, during, and after the deposition even though I was preoccupied with
16 taking the deposition. At the time, I still understood we had produced the documents requested in
17 set three already. [Please see a true and correct copy of some of the October 30, 2018, emails
18 from Stanford’s counsel, attached hereto as Exhibit C.]
19 26. After the Elsie Wang deposition, I worked with plaintiff to provide responses to
20 Stanford’s form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set three, some of which
21 requested information on Mr. Taghavi’s earnings after his termination by Stanford. In order to
22 respond to these interrogatories, Mr. Taghavi reviewed the invoices and other documents we
23 thought were produced and provided me the information by telephone. I then used this
24 information to draft the responses.
25 27. On the morning and early afternoon of October 31, 2018, Stanford’s counsel
26 continued to send me numerous emails raising several issues, even though they should have
27 known I was preoccupied to meet the arbitrary 2 p.m. deadline to serve interrogatory responses.
28 [Please see a true and correct copy of some of the October 31, 2018, emails exchanged with
5-
BERDING
AUS & WEIL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
‘alas Caaerbie
Cree, Cle S00
94596
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Stanford’s counsel on October 31, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit D.]
28. At approximately 1:13 p.m., I received an email from Stanford’s counsel
requesting a response to our extensive meet and confer correspondence regarding Stanford’s
requests for production, set two. The email also made an oblique reference to Stanford’s requests
for production, set three, but it likely did not register because I was focusing on completing the
responses. [Please see a true and correct copy of the email from Stanford’s counsel sent at 1:13
p.m. on October 31, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit E.]
29. In order to avoid waiving objections, I emailed the draft responses to Stanford’s
9 form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set three, before they were finalized in
10 order to avoid waiving objections. [Please see my October 31, 2018, email to opposing counsel
11 with draft discovery responses, sent at 1:59 p.m., attached as Exhibit F.]
12 30. Stanford’s counsel and I continued to meet and confer regarding Stanford’s
13 attempt to advance the deposition of the person most knowledgeable from the Town of Portola
14 Valley from November 19 to November 8. In response to Stanford’s complaints that I did not
15 respond to earlier, I pointed out that Stanford’s counsel had sent numerous emails during Elsie
16 Wang’s deposition and other times when I was not able to reply. [Please see a true and correct
17 copy of an October 31 email exchange regarding Stanford’s attempt to advance the date for the
18 deposition of the Town of Portola Valley, attached as Exhibit G.]
19 31. I continued to meet and confer regarding the Town and Portola Valley deposition.
20 Stanford’s counsel left it to me to contact the Town of Portola Valley to arrange a different date
21 for a deposition for which I objected. [Please see a true and correct copy of an October 31 and
22 November 1, 2018, email exchange regarding the Town of Portola Valley deposition, attached as
23 Exhibit H.]
24 32. On the evening of October 31 and on November 1, 2018, I prepared Mr. Taghavi’s
25 opposition to Stanford’s motion for summary judgment, which was due November 2, 2018.
26 Stanford’s counsel continued to send emails that appeared to be an attempt at distraction, such as
27 telling my legal assistant that the opposition was due November 1, 2018, after the clerk’s office
28 had closed for the day. [Please see a true and correct copy of a November 1, 2018, email
-6-
BERDING& BdWEILLLP
RISNia DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF”
‘Wait Cee, Caio 5205803196 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
exchange between Stanford’s counsel and my legal assistant, attached hereto as Exhibit I]
33. On the evening of November 1, 2018, the night before plaintiffs opposition to
Stanford’s motion for summary judgment was due, Stanford sent a link to almost 7,000 additional
pages of documents. Mixed in with repeats of documents previously produced were some of the
documents responsive to prior requests for production, including documents requested in Elsie
Wang’s deposition notice, which Stanford had earlier refused to produce. Some of the
documents, if authenticated by Stanford witnesses, would have assisted with plaintiff's
opposition to Stanford’s summary judgment, but we could not open the link until after the
opposition was filed on November 2.
10 34. On the afternoon of November 2, 2018, after I completed plaintiff's opposition to
i Stanford’s motion for summary judgment, I turned to other ongoing matters in this case. But by
12 that time, Stanford had already filed this motion to compel.
13 35. When I began to prepare the opposition to this motion to compel, I could not
14 locate some of the documents I understood to have been produced to Stanford. On November 14,
15 I sent a further response to Stanford, indicating we would provide the invoices and other
16 documents supporting our responses to the prior interrogatories requesting an accounting of Mr.
17 Taghavi’s income received from work for his various subsequent employers, including Summit
18 Estate and ING. [Please see a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's November 14, 2018, further
19 response to Stanford’s requests for production, set three, attached hereto as Exhibit J.]
20 36. Although I am solely responsible for failing to notice our error in the response,
21 had Stanford’s counsel spoken to me at the deposition or called me to discuss the fact that they
22 could not locate the documents regarding Mr. Taghavi’s income—especially after seeing the
23 responses to interrogatories served at 1:59 p.m. on October 31, 2018, providing Mr. Taghavi’s
24 income broken down by client—this motion could have been avoided.
25 37. My failure to produce the documents was inadvertent and was remedied as soon as
26 I discovered the error. In fact, we provided the financial information contained in the documents
27 to Stanford at 1:59 p.m. on October 31, 2018, in response to Stanford’s interrogatories, but I still
28 did not know the documents had not been produced. Had I realized the documents were not
-7-
AUSBERDING
‘inaNCB
& WEIL LLP
Ce, Clea50580
9196
DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF”:
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
produced then, we could and would have provided the documents.
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 November 15, 2018.
A
FREDRICK A. HAGEN
9 X:\Wdocs\8236\9 1\PLD\00967087.DOCX
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
BERDING
ALS & WEIL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
alse Cree, ClioSte 9496
o0|
OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL
EXHIBIT A
Fredrick A. Hagen
From: Fredrick A. Hagen
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Amber Eklof (aeklof@grsm.com)-
Ce: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons (misom@grsm.com}; Clarice R. tankford
Subject: Taghavi vv. Stanford
Amber,
Lam writing to request an extension until November 8, 2018,.to serve responses to Stanford’s written discovery that is
due today, including the second set of form interrogatories and the third set of spécial interrogatories.
Thanks,
Fred
Fredrick A. Hagen | Attorney
fhagen@berding-weil.com | Profile | vCard
B=RDING | WEIL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CELEBRATING YEARS OF EXCELLENCE
WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SANDIEGO
2175 N California Blvd, 575 Anton Blvd. 4660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500 Suite-1080. ‘Suite704
wane greek Costa Mesa San Diego
CA 92626 CA-92108
P: 925.838.2090 P 714.429.0600 P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592 F 714.429.0699 F 858.625.3901
www-bérdingweil:com | Linkedtin | Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attomey client communications and attomey work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
EXHIBIT B
Fredrick A. Hagen
From: Fredrick A. Hagen
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:53 PM
To: Amber Eklof
Cc: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons; Clarice R. Lankford; Aaron D. Zimmerman
Subject: Re: Taghavi v. Stanford
Amber,
I can get you the responses by 2 pm on October 31 and agree to the rest of your email.
Thanks,
Fred
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 29, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Amber Eklof wrote:
Fred,
Your requested extension does not give us sufficient time to file a motion in the event the responses are
insufficient. Given we have had to meet and confer regarding each set of discovery responses from
Plaintiff, | cannot agree to your proposed extension. If you will agree to provide complete, Code-
compliant responses with verifications by Ol n_on October 31, and will agree to accept electronic
service of any corresponding mations on November 2, I can extend the deadline until October 31 at
noon.
Let me know if you agree and/or would like to discuss.
Thanks,
Amber
AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate
GORDON & REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054
aeklof@grsm.com
vCard
Alabama |Arizona | Califomia | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia
Florida | Georgia | llinols | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan
Missouri | Montana] Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey | New York | North Carolina | Ohio
Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Isfand | South Carolina | South Dakota
‘Tennessee [Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin
www.ersm.com
- ss,
From: Fredrick A. Hagen
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Amber Eklof
Ce: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons ; Clarice R. Lankford
Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford
Amber,
lam writing to request an extension until November 8, 2018, to serve responses to Stanford’s
written discovery that is ‘Jue today, including the second set of form interrogatories and the
third set of special interrogatories.
Thanks,
Fred
Fredrick A. Hagen | Aftorney
fhagen@berding-weil.com ] Profile | vCard
WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO
2175 N Califomia Blvd. 576 Anton Bivd. 1660 Hote! Circle North
‘Suite 500 Suite 1080 Suite 701
Walnut Creek Costa Mesa San Diego
CA 94596 CA £2626 CA 92108
P 925.838.2090 P 7°4,429.0600 P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592 F 7°4.429,0699 F 858.625.3901’
wowr-berdingweil.com | Linkedin | Facebook
This
communication
is intended to
be protected by
all applicable
privileges,
Including those
protecting
attomey client
communications
and attomey
work product
information,
Useof this
communiéation
orits
information
without
approval is
prohibited.
=,
-
Alabama* Arizona* California * Colorado* Connecticut* Florida * Georgia * Illinois * Kentucky * Maryland * Massachusetts * Missouri*
Nebraska * Nevada * New Jersey“New York * North’Carolina* Ohio Oregan
* * Pennsylvania * South Carolina * South Dakota* Texas*
Virginia* Washington
* Washington, DC* West Virginia* Wisconsin
‘This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended
only for the use of the Intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hi
notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communicationis strictly.prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient and hawe received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply-email, delete the
communication and destroy all copies.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
all ‘STm.Ci
EXHIBIT C
edrick Hagen
From: Amber Eklof
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018:3:31.PM
To: Fredrick A. Hagen
Ce: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons; ‘dzins@mofo.com’; ‘kkubin@ mofo.com'
Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford et al PMK Depo for Town of Portola Valley (Response needed)
Importance: High
Fred,
Counsel for the Town of Portola Valley lias agreed to produce their PMK on November 8 or November 13, which are the
best dates for the witness..He-indicated he has already reached out-to you to discuss this and has:asked if you will
stipulate to an early release of documents, which may moot the deposition,
lease let me know by tomorrow-morning if November 8, or the afternoon on November 13 work for you, and if you will
‘agree to a release of records to potentially avoid.the deposition.
Tharik you,
Amber
AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate
GORDON & REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANT
275 Battery Street; Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
P:415-986-5900 | F:415-986-8054
aeklof@grsm.com
vCard
Alahama | Ariz California { Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware { District of Col bia
Florida| Georgi Winois | Kentucky | Louis a | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan
Missouri | Montana Nebraska | Nevada{ New Jersey { New-York | North Carolina | Ohio
Oklahoma ! Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Caraiina |. South Dakota
Tennessee |Téxas [ Utah’ | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin
www.grsm.com’
Alabama * Arizona* California* Colorado *Connectlest * Morida* Georgia * Ullinsis” Kentucky" Maryland* Mi ichuselts* Missouri * Nebraska* Nevada* New
Jersey* New York-* North Carolina * Ohio* Oregon* Pennsylvania* South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas* Virginia *Washinglon * Washington, DC
* Wesl Virginis* Wisconsin
This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and Is intended only for the use of the
intended recipients identified above. Ifyou are noLthe Intended recipient of this communication, you ere hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
dissemination, distibution, downloading, or copyleg of this commasication is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient and have received This
communicaliorin error, please mmediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication‘and destroy all copies.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
http: //wwiv.ersm.com
FredrickA. Hagen
.
From: Amber Eklof
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:54 AM
To: FredrickA. Hagen
Cc: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons; ‘kkubin@mofo.com’; 'dzins@mofo.com’
Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford et al - Discovery
Fred,
Following up on my meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff's responses to Stanford’s Request for Production, Set
Three. As discussed in my letter, you largely indicate documents have been produced, yet we have no record of any such
documents. Please identify the documents by bates number or confirm whether you will supplement and provide
responsive documents by November 2, 2018.
Marcie will be happy to discuss with you further today in person if you like.
Thanks,
Amber
AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate
GORDON & REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054
aeklof@grsm.com
vCard
Alabama | Arizona | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia
Florida | Georgia | Illinois | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maryland | Massachusetts| Michigan
Missouri | Montana| Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey ] New York | North Carolina | Ohio
Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina [ South Dakota
‘Tennessee |Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin
www.grsm.com
From: Amber Eklof
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:12 AM
To: ‘Fredrick A. Hagen’
Cc: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons ; kkubin@mofo.com; dzins@mofo.com
Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford et al - Discovery
Fred,
Please see the attached meet and confer correspondence of today’s date regarding Plaintiff's deficient
responses to Stanford’s Request for Production, Set Three.
Best,
Amber
AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate
iORDON & REE!
SCULLY MANSUKHANT
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111.
P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054
aeklof@grsm.com
vCard
Alabama | Arizona | Califomia | Cotorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia
Florida | Georgia | Illinois | Kentucky | Loulsiana | Maryland [ Massachusetts| Michigan
Missouri | Montana| Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey | New York | North Carolina | Ohio
Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota
Tennessee |Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin
www.grsm.com:
Alabama * Arizona * California * Colorado * Connecticut * Florida * Georgia * Illinois * Kentucky * Maryland * Massachusetts * Missouri * Nebraska * Nevada * New
Jersey * New York * North Garolina * Ohio * Oregon * Penns} sylvania * South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas * Virginia * Washington * Washington, DC
* West Virginia * Wisconsin
This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the
intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intendedrecipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient and have received this
‘communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, defete the communication and destroy all copies.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
hittp://www.orsm.com
Fredrick Hagen
From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 7:56 AM
To: Fredrick A. Hagen’
Ce: Kubin, Karen J. (KKubin@mofo.com); Ziris, David P. (DZins@mofo.com); Amber Eklof
Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford: Heather H. Xitco Depo
Fred,
Please let us know Heather Xitco’s availability for a half-day deposition. The following dates work on my end: November
7 (am),-November 9 (pm), or November 16 (pm).
Thank you,
Marcie
MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS: | Partner
GORDON & REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
P:415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054
inisom@grsm.com
vCard | Bio
Albania | Arizona | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Bistitct
of Columbia:
Flosida | Georgia | Minais | Kentucky [ Louisiqna-} Maryland | Massichusetis | Michigan
Missauri-| Montana! Nebraska [Nevada [ New Jersey | New York’ | North Caroling | Ghio
Oklahoitia | Oregon | Penney fia | Riddle Islane| South Caroli { South Dakota
Tennessee [Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin
www.gism.comt
Alabama* Arizona.‘ California “ Colorado * Connecticut * Florida * Georgia * Hlindis” Kentiicky* Maryland * Masgachuselts * Missouri * Nebraska * Nevada * New
detsey * New York * Norih Carolina *-OhioOregdn * Pennsylvania * South Carolina * South Dakote < Texas * Virginia“ Washington * Washington, DC
“West Virginia * Wisconsin
This email communication mey contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED andis Kended only for the use.of the
inlendled recipients identified above. ifyou sre no: the intended recipientof this communication, you are hereby notified thal any unaviborized review, use,
issemination, distribution, doignloading; ot copy! ig of this communivation ig strictly prohibied. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this
communication in error, please in nmediately ryolify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all caples.
GORDON REES SCULLY. MANSUKHANI,:LLP
littp:/Avww.grsm.coni
EXHIBIT D
Fredrick A.Hag: jen
From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons
Sent: Wednesday, Octobef'31, 2018 1:07 PM
To: Fredrick A. Hagen
Ce: “Kubin, Karen.J. (KKubin@mofo.comi)’; 'Zihs, David P. (DZins@mofo.com); Amber Eklof;
Melissa Diaz; Aaron D. Zimmerman; Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice R, Lankford
Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indigo, Partners Subpoena
You propounded the same overbroad document requests to Indigo Partners that are part of your pending motion
to compel, Our proposal is reasonable because if we move'to quash, that' will stay the production even
longer. If you prevail on: your motion to compel,-we will withdraw our objections to‘the subpoeria
immediately. You will-also avoid the possibility of sanctions, which we intend to seek if you force tis to'file a
motion to quash. Further, you will avoid having to oppose our motion. This seems like an incredibly
reasonable compromise to.me. If you reconsider, please Jet me know immediately. We do not intend to extend
this offer to you or withdraw. our request’for sanctions‘once our motion is filed.
se eat
From: Fredrick A. Hagen [mailto:fhagen@berdingwell.com)
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:00 PM
Tor Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons
Ce: ‘Kuba, Karen.J. (KKubin@mofo.com)’;. ‘Zins, David P. (BZins@mofo,com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D.
Zimamerman;. Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice, R.. Lankford
Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indige' Partners. Subpoena
Marcie,
1 don’t’ sée how our motion to compel Stanford’s furttier responses has any bearing on the subpoena to Indigo Partners.
Also, we cannot agree to withdraw the subpoena and wait for the results of the motion to compel. This is highly relevant
information,
Thanks,
Fred
Fredrick A. Hagen |. Attorney
fhagen@berding-weil.com | Profile | vCard
B=RDING | WEIL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
cine) emer
WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd. 875 Anton Blvd, 1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500 Suite 1080 Suite 701
Walnut Creek Costa Mesa San Ciego
CA.94596 CA 92626 CA 92108
P 925.838.2090 P 714.429.0600 P 858.625.3900
F 926.820.5592 F 714.429.0699 F 858:625.3901
www.berdingweil.com | Linkedin | Facebook
This communication is intended. to be protected by’all applicable privileges, including those protecting attomey client communications and. attorney work
product information. Use of this communicatior or its information without approval is prohibited,
es ow o on
From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons [mailto:misom@grsm.com],
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 9:00 AM
To: FredrickA. Hagen
Ce: ‘Kubin, Karen J, (KKubin@mofo.com)'; ‘Zins, David P. (DZins@mofo.com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa: Diaz;. Aaton D.
Zimmerman; Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice R: Lankford
Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indigo Partners Subpoena
Fred,
Please consider this our last attempt to meet.and cénfer with you on this issue prior to filing our motion to quash. | think
we offer a very reasonable compromise below. If we don’t hear back from you by 12 pm today, we plan to-proceed with
our: motion.
Marcie
mn
From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 9:29 AM ‘
To:.'Fredrick A; Hagen’
Cex ‘Kubin, Karen J, (KKubin@mofo.com)’; ‘Zins, David'P. (DZins@miofo.com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D:
Zimmerman; Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice R. Lankford
Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indigo Partners Subpoena
Fred,
‘he breadth of your réquests are far too overbroad and we haveaddressed this issue at great length with you in
connection with your prior requests far production. Given how very differently we appear to be seeing this
issue, I propose that you agree to.place the subpoena on hold pending the-outcome of your motion to compel,
which addresses many of these.same issues. If yoy prevail-on that motion, we will not further object to the.
subpoena. If, however, you do not prevail on.it, we would want an agreement that you will withdraw the
subpoena and re-serveif it if need be in a manner consistent with the court’s ruling. Does that sound'reasonable
to you?
Marcie
ee sa emt i
From: Fredrick A. Hagen [mailto:fhagen@berdingweil:com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:50 AM
To: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons:
Ce: ‘Kubin, Karen J. (KKubin@mofo.com)’; ‘Zins, David P. (DZins@mofo.com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D.
Zimmerman; Emily L, Tetzel; Clarice R: Lankford
Subject: RE: Taghavi
v. Stanford: Tridigo Partners Subpoena
Marci,
Sorry for the delay in getting back.to you: Part-of the issue is your email is not much to go on. The information requested
in the subpoena is highly relevant atid I.drafted the request-with the purpose of obtaining information calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. You have still not provided me with any authority for the contention that the.
2
scope of discovery’is limited to the.dates Mr. Taghavi-was employed by Stanford. Your side is certainly not following that
rule, having served subpoenas;on-all Mr: Taghavi's past arid subsequent employers.
Thanks,
Fred
FredrickA. Hagen’
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 FILED Facsimile: 925-820-5592 Aye MOTEO COUNTY fhagen@berdingweil.com NOV 16 an if UA Ui Attorneys for Plaintiff lL of® ALI TAGHAVI VU/2 DERINY CHER i SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO lgigis 10 ings Baa 11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17C1V04570 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL 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 I, Fredrick A. Hagen, declare as follows: 20 1 J am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and 21 am an attorney with the law firm of Berding & Weil LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Ali 22 Taghavi (“Plaintiff”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff's motion for an order 23 continuing the trial and discovery deadlines in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the 24 facts stated herein, except for those stated on information and belief, and if called upon to testify 25 to those facts, I could. 26 2. Defendant Stanford hired plaintiff Ali Taghavi as communications manager for on 27 the Wellness Living Laboratory Project (“WELL Project”), which was funded by a series of 28 “unrestricted gifts” from Defendant Alticor, Inc. (“Amway”) totaling Ten Million Dollars -1- ING & WEIL LLP os Nea DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ‘alae Geek, Calo 996 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL ($10,000,000.00) under the direction of the Stanford Prevention Research Center (“SPRC”). [See Exhibit A to declaration of Ali Taghavi, filed herewith.] 3 Under the Gift Agreement between Stanford and Amway, Stanford was to have unrestricted control over the funds provided by Amway for use on the WELL Project and Amway’s ability to publicize the WELL Project, the Gift Agreement, and Amway’s involvement with Stanford was severely limited. 4 After commencement of the WELL Project and initial payments by Amway, Amway began demanding Stanford add dietary supplement questions to the survey that was the core of the WELL Project research-study and allow Amway to breach the publicity limitations 10 under the Gift Agreement by expanding publicity and inviting Amway business operators to il participate in the WELL Project study in violation of pre-existing research protocols. 12 5 In advance of an April 18, 2016, meeting between Stanford and Amway to discuss 13 whether Amway would continue its funding, the WELL Project faculty at Stanford had agreed to 14 allow Stanford to direct the WELL Project research study, in violation of the Gift Agreement, IS and add dietary supplement questions to the survey. But, under the direction of Paul Costello, the 16 director of communications for the Stanford School of Medicine, where the SPRC is located, 17 Plaintiff Ali Taghavi continued to enforce the publicity limits under the Gift Agreement, 18 upsetting Amway. 19 6 On May 6, 2016, within two weeks of the April 18, 2016, meeting, Stanford 20 terminated Mr. Taghavi to appease Amway, leaving no one to enforce the publicity limitations. 21 Stanford then sent an email claiming Mr. Taghavi decided to leave his position at Stanford to 22 pursue other interests. 23 7. On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination complaint with the 24 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which provided plaintiff with one year 25 to file a complaint in superior court. 26 8 On October 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in superior court within the one 27 year statute of limitations. Plaintiff did not serve the complaint but continued to research 28 potential claims. -2- BERDING 195i & WEILS50LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ‘alas Cres Calera 51596 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL 9 On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed and served the first amended complaint for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and discrimination states against Stanford and interference with economic advantage against Amway. 10. On March 23, 2018, Stanford and Amway both filed answers, appearing in the case for the first time on the same day and serving extensive written discovery to plaintiff. il. On April 13, 2018, the court scheduled the initial trial date for December 17, 2018. 12. As the case unfolded, both Stanford and Amway refused to produce relevant documents, taking advantage of the fact that much of the evidence supporting Mr. Taghavi’s 10 claims is in the possession of Amway and Stanford. The strategy of Amway and Stanford has ll been to block plaintiff from obtaining vital discovery and then force plaintiff to oppose motions 12 for summary judgment and then go to trial without essential evidence. 13 13. Between June 2018 and November 2018, Stanford has subpoenaed the income and 14 employment records from 21 of Mr. Taghavi’s former employers and consulting clients, 15 including Summit Estate Recovery Center (“Summit”) and Islamic Networks Group (“ING”). 16 Mr. Taghavi allowed those productions without moving to quash. 17 14. Mr. Taghavi also provided Stanford with the amounts he earned from employment 18 and consulting clients during the period May 2016 tc the present as requested to Stanford’s 19 interrogatories. 20 15. In fact, Mr. Taghavi produced his income and employment records from the Town 21 of Portola Valley to Stanford before his deposition in exchange for Stanford agreeing not to serve 22 the subpoena. But after receiving the documents, Stanford served the subpoena anyway, which 23 ask the Town of Portola Valley for all documents related to this wrongful termination lawsuit and 24 gave the case name and number. 25 16. Mr. Taghavi was deposed in this matter on July 30, 2018, July 31, 2018 and 26 August 8, 2018, providing multiple responses regarding his employment and financial history and 27 subsequent employment and income. 28 17. After obtaining plaintiff's income and employment records from subpoenas to the 3- BERDING &BeWEIL LLP I7sNcaana DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ‘Walet Grek Califia 9396 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL Town of Portola Valley, and from documents produced by Mr. Taghavi, Stanford then served the second set of requests for production, set two, seeking all documents related to termination from the Town of Portola Valley. Any such documents, regarding Mr. Taghavi’s private employment after leaving Stanford, are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 18. Plaintiff took the deposition of Stanford professor Catherine Heaney on October 16, 2018. While preparing to take this deposition on October 15 and then taking the deposition on October 16, 2018, another attorney in my office was assisting plaintiff in providing responses to Stanford’s third set of requests for production. With thousands of pages of documents produced by the parties, and also by Mr. Taghavi’s former employers in response to subpoenas, I believed 10 the requested documents had already been produced. Some of the requests were also confusing I because they requested “payroll” records for the clients plaintiff worked for as a consultant after 12 leaving Stanford. 13 19. Because Stanford and Amway were not producing the key relevant documents, on 14 October 24, 2018, plaintiff's counsel appeared ex parte before the Presiding Judge and the law 15 and Motion department seeking a trial continuance and 2 continuance of the motion for summary 16 judgment hearings, scheduled for November 9 (“Amway”) and November 16, 2018 (“Stanford”), 17 respectively. Under both applications, plaintiff sought to move the summary judgment hearings 18 and the trial to allow time to complete discovery. Both were denied on shortened notice. 19 20. On October 25 and 26, 2018, plaintiff's counsel worked diligently to prepare 20 plaintiff's opposition to Amway’s motion for summary judgment. 21 21. On Monday, October 29, 2018, expert disclosures were prepared and served and I 22 prepared for the important deposition of Mr. Taghavi’s Stanford supervisor, Elsie Wang. 23 Plaintiffs responses to Stanford’s form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set 24 three, were also due October 29, 2018. 25 22. Plaintiffs counsel sent an email to Stanford’s counsel requesting a short extension 26 to November 8, 2018, for Plaintiff's deadline to respend to Stanford’s form interrogatories, set 27 two, and special interrogatories, set three. [Please see a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's 28 October 29, 2018, email requesting an extension to respond to written discovery, attached as 4. BERDING 2196s & WEUL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’: ‘aint Cec, CaenSea 9896 60 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL Exhibit A.] 23. Stanford’s counsel would only agree to extend the deadline until 2 p.m. on October 31, 2018, leaving me no time to prepare the response until after taking the key deposition of Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor, Elsie Wang, on October 30, 2018. [Please see a true and correct copy of Stanford’s email extending the deadline by one day and a half, attached as Exhibit B.] 24. At this time, I forwarded Stanford’s meet and confer letter to another attorney in our firm and requested that he respond to Stanford’s counsel because I would be preoccupied with preparing for the deposition and then preparing responses to Stanford’s form and special interrogatories the next day. Unfortunately, although this was my sole responsibility, that did not 10 occur because of all the events and communications going back and forth on numerous issues. 11 25. On October 30, 2018, I took the deposition of Mr. Taghavi’s supervisor, Elsie 12 Wang, at our offices in Walnut Creek. Stanford’s counsel appeared to defend Elsie Wang’s 13 deposition, but Stanford’s counsel did not attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's 14 responses to the third set of requests for production. Nevertheless, Stanford’s counsel sent me 15 numerous emails before, during, and after the deposition even though I was preoccupied with 16 taking the deposition. At the time, I still understood we had produced the documents requested in 17 set three already. [Please see a true and correct copy of some of the October 30, 2018, emails 18 from Stanford’s counsel, attached hereto as Exhibit C.] 19 26. After the Elsie Wang deposition, I worked with plaintiff to provide responses to 20 Stanford’s form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set three, some of which 21 requested information on Mr. Taghavi’s earnings after his termination by Stanford. In order to 22 respond to these interrogatories, Mr. Taghavi reviewed the invoices and other documents we 23 thought were produced and provided me the information by telephone. I then used this 24 information to draft the responses. 25 27. On the morning and early afternoon of October 31, 2018, Stanford’s counsel 26 continued to send me numerous emails raising several issues, even though they should have 27 known I was preoccupied to meet the arbitrary 2 p.m. deadline to serve interrogatory responses. 28 [Please see a true and correct copy of some of the October 31, 2018, emails exchanged with 5- BERDING AUS & WEIL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ‘alas Caaerbie Cree, Cle S00 94596 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL Stanford’s counsel on October 31, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit D.] 28. At approximately 1:13 p.m., I received an email from Stanford’s counsel requesting a response to our extensive meet and confer correspondence regarding Stanford’s requests for production, set two. The email also made an oblique reference to Stanford’s requests for production, set three, but it likely did not register because I was focusing on completing the responses. [Please see a true and correct copy of the email from Stanford’s counsel sent at 1:13 p.m. on October 31, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit E.] 29. In order to avoid waiving objections, I emailed the draft responses to Stanford’s 9 form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set three, before they were finalized in 10 order to avoid waiving objections. [Please see my October 31, 2018, email to opposing counsel 11 with draft discovery responses, sent at 1:59 p.m., attached as Exhibit F.] 12 30. Stanford’s counsel and I continued to meet and confer regarding Stanford’s 13 attempt to advance the deposition of the person most knowledgeable from the Town of Portola 14 Valley from November 19 to November 8. In response to Stanford’s complaints that I did not 15 respond to earlier, I pointed out that Stanford’s counsel had sent numerous emails during Elsie 16 Wang’s deposition and other times when I was not able to reply. [Please see a true and correct 17 copy of an October 31 email exchange regarding Stanford’s attempt to advance the date for the 18 deposition of the Town of Portola Valley, attached as Exhibit G.] 19 31. I continued to meet and confer regarding the Town and Portola Valley deposition. 20 Stanford’s counsel left it to me to contact the Town of Portola Valley to arrange a different date 21 for a deposition for which I objected. [Please see a true and correct copy of an October 31 and 22 November 1, 2018, email exchange regarding the Town of Portola Valley deposition, attached as 23 Exhibit H.] 24 32. On the evening of October 31 and on November 1, 2018, I prepared Mr. Taghavi’s 25 opposition to Stanford’s motion for summary judgment, which was due November 2, 2018. 26 Stanford’s counsel continued to send emails that appeared to be an attempt at distraction, such as 27 telling my legal assistant that the opposition was due November 1, 2018, after the clerk’s office 28 had closed for the day. [Please see a true and correct copy of a November 1, 2018, email -6- BERDING& BdWEILLLP RISNia DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF” ‘Wait Cee, Caio 5205803196 OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL exchange between Stanford’s counsel and my legal assistant, attached hereto as Exhibit I] 33. On the evening of November 1, 2018, the night before plaintiffs opposition to Stanford’s motion for summary judgment was due, Stanford sent a link to almost 7,000 additional pages of documents. Mixed in with repeats of documents previously produced were some of the documents responsive to prior requests for production, including documents requested in Elsie Wang’s deposition notice, which Stanford had earlier refused to produce. Some of the documents, if authenticated by Stanford witnesses, would have assisted with plaintiff's opposition to Stanford’s summary judgment, but we could not open the link until after the opposition was filed on November 2. 10 34. On the afternoon of November 2, 2018, after I completed plaintiff's opposition to i Stanford’s motion for summary judgment, I turned to other ongoing matters in this case. But by 12 that time, Stanford had already filed this motion to compel. 13 35. When I began to prepare the opposition to this motion to compel, I could not 14 locate some of the documents I understood to have been produced to Stanford. On November 14, 15 I sent a further response to Stanford, indicating we would provide the invoices and other 16 documents supporting our responses to the prior interrogatories requesting an accounting of Mr. 17 Taghavi’s income received from work for his various subsequent employers, including Summit 18 Estate and ING. [Please see a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's November 14, 2018, further 19 response to Stanford’s requests for production, set three, attached hereto as Exhibit J.] 20 36. Although I am solely responsible for failing to notice our error in the response, 21 had Stanford’s counsel spoken to me at the deposition or called me to discuss the fact that they 22 could not locate the documents regarding Mr. Taghavi’s income—especially after seeing the 23 responses to interrogatories served at 1:59 p.m. on October 31, 2018, providing Mr. Taghavi’s 24 income broken down by client—this motion could have been avoided. 25 37. My failure to produce the documents was inadvertent and was remedied as soon as 26 I discovered the error. In fact, we provided the financial information contained in the documents 27 to Stanford at 1:59 p.m. on October 31, 2018, in response to Stanford’s interrogatories, but I still 28 did not know the documents had not been produced. Had I realized the documents were not -7- AUSBERDING ‘inaNCB & WEIL LLP Ce, Clea50580 9196 DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF”: OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL produced then, we could and would have provided the documents. 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 November 15, 2018. A FREDRICK A. HAGEN 9 X:\Wdocs\8236\9 1\PLD\00967087.DOCX 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- BERDING ALS & WEIL LLP DECLARATION OF FREDRICK A. HAGEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S alse Cree, ClioSte 9496 o0| OPPOSITION TO STANFORD’S MOTION TO COMPEL EXHIBIT A Fredrick A. Hagen From: Fredrick A. Hagen Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:40 AM To: Amber Eklof (aeklof@grsm.com)- Ce: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons (misom@grsm.com}; Clarice R. tankford Subject: Taghavi vv. Stanford Amber, Lam writing to request an extension until November 8, 2018,.to serve responses to Stanford’s written discovery that is due today, including the second set of form interrogatories and the third set of spécial interrogatories. Thanks, Fred Fredrick A. Hagen | Attorney fhagen@berding-weil.com | Profile | vCard B=RDING | WEIL ATTORNEYS AT LAW CELEBRATING YEARS OF EXCELLENCE WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SANDIEGO 2175 N California Blvd, 575 Anton Blvd. 4660 Hotel Circle North Suite 500 Suite-1080. ‘Suite704 wane greek Costa Mesa San Diego CA 92626 CA-92108 P: 925.838.2090 P 714.429.0600 P 858.625.3900 F 925.820.5592 F 714.429.0699 F 858.625.3901 www-bérdingweil:com | Linkedtin | Facebook This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attomey client communications and attomey work product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited. EXHIBIT B Fredrick A. Hagen From: Fredrick A. Hagen Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:53 PM To: Amber Eklof Cc: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons; Clarice R. Lankford; Aaron D. Zimmerman Subject: Re: Taghavi v. Stanford Amber, I can get you the responses by 2 pm on October 31 and agree to the rest of your email. Thanks, Fred Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Amber Eklof wrote: Fred, Your requested extension does not give us sufficient time to file a motion in the event the responses are insufficient. Given we have had to meet and confer regarding each set of discovery responses from Plaintiff, | cannot agree to your proposed extension. If you will agree to provide complete, Code- compliant responses with verifications by Ol n_on October 31, and will agree to accept electronic service of any corresponding mations on November 2, I can extend the deadline until October 31 at noon. Let me know if you agree and/or would like to discuss. Thanks, Amber AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054 aeklof@grsm.com vCard Alabama |Arizona | Califomia | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia Florida | Georgia | llinols | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan Missouri | Montana] Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey | New York | North Carolina | Ohio Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Isfand | South Carolina | South Dakota ‘Tennessee [Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin www.ersm.com - ss, From: Fredrick A. Hagen Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:40 AM To: Amber Eklof Ce: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons ; Clarice R. Lankford Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford Amber, lam writing to request an extension until November 8, 2018, to serve responses to Stanford’s written discovery that is ‘Jue today, including the second set of form interrogatories and the third set of special interrogatories. Thanks, Fred Fredrick A. Hagen | Aftorney fhagen@berding-weil.com ] Profile | vCard WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO 2175 N Califomia Blvd. 576 Anton Bivd. 1660 Hote! Circle North ‘Suite 500 Suite 1080 Suite 701 Walnut Creek Costa Mesa San Diego CA 94596 CA £2626 CA 92108 P 925.838.2090 P 7°4,429.0600 P 858.625.3900 F 925.820.5592 F 7°4.429,0699 F 858.625.3901’ wowr-berdingweil.com | Linkedin | Facebook This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, Including those protecting attomey client communications and attomey work product information, Useof this communiéation orits information without approval is prohibited. =, - Alabama* Arizona* California * Colorado* Connecticut* Florida * Georgia * Illinois * Kentucky * Maryland * Massachusetts * Missouri* Nebraska * Nevada * New Jersey“New York * North’Carolina* Ohio Oregan * * Pennsylvania * South Carolina * South Dakota* Texas* Virginia* Washington * Washington, DC* West Virginia* Wisconsin ‘This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the Intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hi notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communicationis strictly.prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and hawe received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply-email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP all ‘STm.Ci EXHIBIT C edrick Hagen From: Amber Eklof Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018:3:31.PM To: Fredrick A. Hagen Ce: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons; ‘dzins@mofo.com’; ‘kkubin@ mofo.com' Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford et al PMK Depo for Town of Portola Valley (Response needed) Importance: High Fred, Counsel for the Town of Portola Valley lias agreed to produce their PMK on November 8 or November 13, which are the best dates for the witness..He-indicated he has already reached out-to you to discuss this and has:asked if you will stipulate to an early release of documents, which may moot the deposition, lease let me know by tomorrow-morning if November 8, or the afternoon on November 13 work for you, and if you will ‘agree to a release of records to potentially avoid.the deposition. Tharik you, Amber AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANT 275 Battery Street; Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 P:415-986-5900 | F:415-986-8054 aeklof@grsm.com vCard Alahama | Ariz California { Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware { District of Col bia Florida| Georgi Winois | Kentucky | Louis a | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan Missouri | Montana Nebraska | Nevada{ New Jersey { New-York | North Carolina | Ohio Oklahoma ! Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Caraiina |. South Dakota Tennessee |Téxas [ Utah’ | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin www.grsm.com’ Alabama * Arizona* California* Colorado *Connectlest * Morida* Georgia * Ullinsis” Kentucky" Maryland* Mi ichuselts* Missouri * Nebraska* Nevada* New Jersey* New York-* North Carolina * Ohio* Oregon* Pennsylvania* South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas* Virginia *Washinglon * Washington, DC * Wesl Virginis* Wisconsin This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and Is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. Ifyou are noLthe Intended recipient of this communication, you ere hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distibution, downloading, or copyleg of this commasication is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient and have received This communicaliorin error, please mmediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication‘and destroy all copies. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP http: //wwiv.ersm.com FredrickA. Hagen . From: Amber Eklof Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:54 AM To: FredrickA. Hagen Cc: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons; ‘kkubin@mofo.com’; 'dzins@mofo.com’ Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford et al - Discovery Fred, Following up on my meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff's responses to Stanford’s Request for Production, Set Three. As discussed in my letter, you largely indicate documents have been produced, yet we have no record of any such documents. Please identify the documents by bates number or confirm whether you will supplement and provide responsive documents by November 2, 2018. Marcie will be happy to discuss with you further today in person if you like. Thanks, Amber AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054 aeklof@grsm.com vCard Alabama | Arizona | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia Florida | Georgia | Illinois | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maryland | Massachusetts| Michigan Missouri | Montana| Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey ] New York | North Carolina | Ohio Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina [ South Dakota ‘Tennessee |Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin www.grsm.com From: Amber Eklof Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:12 AM To: ‘Fredrick A. Hagen’ Cc: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons ; kkubin@mofo.com; dzins@mofo.com Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford et al - Discovery Fred, Please see the attached meet and confer correspondence of today’s date regarding Plaintiff's deficient responses to Stanford’s Request for Production, Set Three. Best, Amber AMBER A. EKLOF | Associate iORDON & REE! SCULLY MANSUKHANT 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111. P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054 aeklof@grsm.com vCard Alabama | Arizona | Califomia | Cotorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia Florida | Georgia | Illinois | Kentucky | Loulsiana | Maryland [ Massachusetts| Michigan Missouri | Montana| Nebraska | Nevada | New Jersey | New York | North Carolina | Ohio Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota Tennessee |Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin www.grsm.com: Alabama * Arizona * California * Colorado * Connecticut * Florida * Georgia * Illinois * Kentucky * Maryland * Massachusetts * Missouri * Nebraska * Nevada * New Jersey * New York * North Garolina * Ohio * Oregon * Penns} sylvania * South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas * Virginia * Washington * Washington, DC * West Virginia * Wisconsin This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intendedrecipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient and have received this ‘communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, defete the communication and destroy all copies. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP hittp://www.orsm.com Fredrick Hagen From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 7:56 AM To: Fredrick A. Hagen’ Ce: Kubin, Karen J. (KKubin@mofo.com); Ziris, David P. (DZins@mofo.com); Amber Eklof Subject: Taghavi v. Stanford: Heather H. Xitco Depo Fred, Please let us know Heather Xitco’s availability for a half-day deposition. The following dates work on my end: November 7 (am),-November 9 (pm), or November 16 (pm). Thank you, Marcie MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS: | Partner GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 P:415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054 inisom@grsm.com vCard | Bio Albania | Arizona | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Bistitct of Columbia: Flosida | Georgia | Minais | Kentucky [ Louisiqna-} Maryland | Massichusetis | Michigan Missauri-| Montana! Nebraska [Nevada [ New Jersey | New York’ | North Caroling | Ghio Oklahoitia | Oregon | Penney fia | Riddle Islane| South Caroli { South Dakota Tennessee [Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin www.gism.comt Alabama* Arizona.‘ California “ Colorado * Connecticut * Florida * Georgia * Hlindis” Kentiicky* Maryland * Masgachuselts * Missouri * Nebraska * Nevada * New detsey * New York * Norih Carolina *-OhioOregdn * Pennsylvania * South Carolina * South Dakote < Texas * Virginia“ Washington * Washington, DC “West Virginia * Wisconsin This email communication mey contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED andis Kended only for the use.of the inlendled recipients identified above. ifyou sre no: the intended recipientof this communication, you are hereby notified thal any unaviborized review, use, issemination, distribution, doignloading; ot copy! ig of this communivation ig strictly prohibied. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please in nmediately ryolify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all caples. GORDON REES SCULLY. MANSUKHANI,:LLP littp:/Avww.grsm.coni EXHIBIT D Fredrick A.Hag: jen From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Sent: Wednesday, Octobef'31, 2018 1:07 PM To: Fredrick A. Hagen Ce: “Kubin, Karen.J. (KKubin@mofo.comi)’; 'Zihs, David P. (DZins@mofo.com); Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D. Zimmerman; Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice R, Lankford Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indigo, Partners Subpoena You propounded the same overbroad document requests to Indigo Partners that are part of your pending motion to compel, Our proposal is reasonable because if we move'to quash, that' will stay the production even longer. If you prevail on: your motion to compel,-we will withdraw our objections to‘the subpoeria immediately. You will-also avoid the possibility of sanctions, which we intend to seek if you force tis to'file a motion to quash. Further, you will avoid having to oppose our motion. This seems like an incredibly reasonable compromise to.me. If you reconsider, please Jet me know immediately. We do not intend to extend this offer to you or withdraw. our request’for sanctions‘once our motion is filed. se eat From: Fredrick A. Hagen [mailto:fhagen@berdingwell.com) Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:00 PM Tor Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Ce: ‘Kuba, Karen.J. (KKubin@mofo.com)’;. ‘Zins, David P. (BZins@mofo,com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D. Zimamerman;. Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice, R.. Lankford Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indige' Partners. Subpoena Marcie, 1 don’t’ sée how our motion to compel Stanford’s furttier responses has any bearing on the subpoena to Indigo Partners. Also, we cannot agree to withdraw the subpoena and wait for the results of the motion to compel. This is highly relevant information, Thanks, Fred Fredrick A. Hagen |. Attorney fhagen@berding-weil.com | Profile | vCard B=RDING | WEIL ATTORNEYS AT LAW cine) emer WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO 2175 N California Blvd. 875 Anton Blvd, 1660 Hotel Circle North Suite 500 Suite 1080 Suite 701 Walnut Creek Costa Mesa San Ciego CA.94596 CA 92626 CA 92108 P 925.838.2090 P 714.429.0600 P 858.625.3900 F 926.820.5592 F 714.429.0699 F 858:625.3901 www.berdingweil.com | Linkedin | Facebook This communication is intended. to be protected by’all applicable privileges, including those protecting attomey client communications and. attorney work product information. Use of this communicatior or its information without approval is prohibited, es ow o on From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons [mailto:misom@grsm.com], Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 9:00 AM To: FredrickA. Hagen Ce: ‘Kubin, Karen J, (KKubin@mofo.com)'; ‘Zins, David P. (DZins@mofo.com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa: Diaz;. Aaton D. Zimmerman; Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice R: Lankford Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indigo Partners Subpoena Fred, Please consider this our last attempt to meet.and cénfer with you on this issue prior to filing our motion to quash. | think we offer a very reasonable compromise below. If we don’t hear back from you by 12 pm today, we plan to-proceed with our: motion. Marcie mn From: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 9:29 AM ‘ To:.'Fredrick A; Hagen’ Cex ‘Kubin, Karen J, (KKubin@mofo.com)’; ‘Zins, David'P. (DZins@miofo.com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D: Zimmerman; Emily L. Tetzel; Clarice R. Lankford Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Indigo Partners Subpoena Fred, ‘he breadth of your réquests are far too overbroad and we haveaddressed this issue at great length with you in connection with your prior requests far production. Given how very differently we appear to be seeing this issue, I propose that you agree to.place the subpoena on hold pending the-outcome of your motion to compel, which addresses many of these.same issues. If yoy prevail-on that motion, we will not further object to the. subpoena. If, however, you do not prevail on.it, we would want an agreement that you will withdraw the subpoena and re-serveif it if need be in a manner consistent with the court’s ruling. Does that sound'reasonable to you? Marcie ee sa emt i From: Fredrick A. Hagen [mailto:fhagen@berdingweil:com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:50 AM To: Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons: Ce: ‘Kubin, Karen J. (KKubin@mofo.com)’; ‘Zins, David P. (DZins@mofo.com)'; Amber Eklof; Melissa Diaz; Aaron D. Zimmerman; Emily L, Tetzel; Clarice R: Lankford Subject: RE: Taghavi v. Stanford: Tridigo Partners Subpoena Marci, Sorry for the delay in getting back.to you: Part-of the issue is your email is not much to go on. The information requested in the subpoena is highly relevant atid I.drafted the request-with the purpose of obtaining information calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. You have still not provided me with any authority for the contention that the. 2 scope of discovery’is limited to the.dates Mr. Taghavi-was employed by Stanford. Your side is certainly not following that rule, having served subpoenas;on-all Mr: Taghavi's past arid subsequent employers. Thanks, Fred FredrickA. Hagen’