Preview
Sean R. Laird (SBN 214916)
1
The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird
2 805 16th Street 11/20/2020
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 (916) 441-1636
4 (916) 760-9002
seanlairdlaw@gmail.com
5
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE
9
10
PATSY NEWTON, individually; HAROLD Case No. 20CV01091
11 NEWTON; individually; SUZANNE BOLEN,
individually. DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD
12 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
13 ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S
14 vs. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
15 ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER; and DOES 1 -
16 50, inclusive,
DATE: November 25, 2020
17 Defendants, TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT: 1
18
Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger
19
20
21
Complaint Filed: 5/29/2020
22 Trial Date: 12/14/2020
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
1 I, SEAN R. LAIRD, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the courts of the state of
3 California. I am the attorney of record for plaintiff Patsy Newton. Except where I have stated
4 otherwise, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called as a witness I could
5 testify competently as to the matters on which I declare.
6 2. Before the Court is defendant’s hastily filed motion to compel responses to its
7 Request For Admissions - Set One. Before plaintiff could even respond to defendant’s meet and
8 confer correspondence or serve amended responses (some of which would very likely had obviated
9 the need for this motion) defendant noticed an ex-parte application for an order shortening time to
10 have this motion heard. Plaintiff will continue to make an effort to meet and confer in an attempt
11 to narrow the scope of the discovery dispute for the Court. However, defendant’s own lack of
12 diligence in serving discovery, timely meeting and conferring, and timely bringing a motion to
13 compel before the discovery cut-off is apparently what led them to abandon any meaningful meet
14 and confer efforts (upon their previously designated timeline) and file three motions on shortened
15 time only to claim it is plaintiff who has caused this unnecessary logjam. This is false, a
16 misrepresentation of the facts, and lacks candor to this Court.
17 3. The complaint in this matter was filed May 29, 2020. Defendants were served June
18 12, 2020. Defendants have had the very document upon which they base their Requests for
19 Admissions since that date. Moreover, the Court held the hearing setting preference in this matter
20 on August 12, 2020 and signed the order granting preference on August 21, 2020. Defendants
21 waited until September 22, 2020 to serve the Requests for Admissions upon which this motion is
22 based. Plaintiff’s served objections to these requests on October 26, 2020. The last day to set a
23 timely motion to compel was November 3, 2020.
24 4. On November 9, 2020, instead of timely meeting and conferring, defendants waited
25 until 4:23 p.m. to send a 60-page meet and confer letter demanding a response from plaintiff before
26 close of business 3-days later (November 13, 2020), a date where 4 depositions had been set
27 between 11:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. See Defendant’s Exhibit C. Nevertheless, despite defense
28 counsel’s unreasonable timeline, plaintiff endeavored to begin responding to the 60-page
- 2! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
1 correspondence in 3 days and had made substantial progress. At 9:58 a.m. on Friday, November
2 13, 2020, before the time to reply on the already unreasonable timeline had lapsed, plaintiff’s
3 counsel received notice from yet another attorney representing defendant indicating that they
4 would be appearing ex-parte on Monday, November 16, 2020 to request an order shortening time
5 for these motions. See Exhibit 1. At the depositions later that morning, plaintiff’s counsel
6 confirmed with the attorney who authored the November 9, 2020 meet and confer correspondence
7 that they had disregarded their own timeline for plaintiff’s counsel to even respond. Ian Scharg,
8 counsel for defendants indicated he realized the predicament, but that they did not “want to blow
9 any deadlines” with the discovery cut-off approaching that Monday. I confirmed with Mr. Scharg
10 that since they had filed their application before giving me a chance to respond, that they no longer
11 required a response from me “by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 13, 2020” as indicated in their
12 original November 9th correspondence. See Exhibit 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and
13 accurate copy of the timestamped email I received providing notice of the ex-parte hearing.
14 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the email I sent to Mr. Scharg
15 confirming our conversation.
16 5. The facts are crucial in understanding the inadequate nature of defendants requests.
17 As a background, Ms. Newton was admitted to Enloe Medical Center on September 11, 2019..
18 She remained at the hospital until September 21, 2019, when she was transferred to Cal Park
19 Rehabilitation Center, a skilled nursing facility. Ms. Newton, however, was then transferred back
20 to Enloe Medical Center on October 8, 2019 where she remained until October 17, 2019.
21 Moreover, Ms. Newton then had multiple encounters with the defendant hospital following her
22 October 17, 2019 discharge, including until recently in 2020. Moreover, there have been
23 depositions of staff and doctors at the Enloe Medical Center wound clinic and other discovery
24 related to these encounters. With this as a background, defendants served requests for admissions
25 that related to no particular date, time, or hospital admission that would have permitted plaintiff to
26 adequately understand what they were asking to plaintiff to admit. Simply arguing now that “this
27 matter clearly relates to a single hospital stay,” does not accurately portray the full picture of this
28 case and it certainly does not cure the defect in the original request for admission that wholly
- 3! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
1 lacked any timeframe whatsoever. Instead defendant now comes before this Court and asks the
2 Court to re-read and re-write its requests for admissions to make them discernible, clear as to time,
3 and relevant to the actual allegations in the complaint.
4 6. Ms. Newton developed multiple wounds when she was at the hospital. She had a
5 wound vac on her left hip related to her surgery. She had multiple wounds on her buttocks. She
6 had a wound near her breast. Anyone who looked at the chart and was drafting requests for
7 admissions would have know that there were multiple “wounds” numbered and noted in her chart.
8 Moreover, the multiple wounds she developed at the hospital includes those just in her initial
9 admission on 9/11/19 to 9/21/19. Defense counsel suggests it is “absurd” that we not be able to
10 divine which wound they are referring to and imply that plaintiff should just know to what they are
11 referring generally. Plaintiff should not be forced to divine what the request is asking them to
12 admit, especially with the implications of admitting such and the Court should not re-write the
13 RFA for the Defendant.
14 7. Defendant’s reference to plaintiff’s fourth cause of action are referring to a cause of
15 action that Plaintiff’s have already agreed does not apply in this case and have agreed to dismiss
16 months ago. See Exhibit 3. Request for Admission No.8, asked, “Admit Enloe Medical Center is
17 not a skilled nursing facility.” Defendant contends that this “request mirrors plaintiff’s first and
18 fourth causes of action.” This is not true, the first cause of action does not even reference a skilled
19 nursing facility. Second, plaintiff’s agreed long ago that we would dismiss and were not pursuing
20 the fourth cause of action, which in and of itself does not reference a "skilled nursing facility.”
21 Plaintiff will agree to answer this question, though we find it harassing and irrelevant, especially in
22 light of our previous agreement to dismiss the fourth cause of action, if the request relates to a
23 skilled nursing facility as defined by the Health & Safety Code. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a
24 true and accurate copy of the July 2, 2019 email I sent to Mr. Scharg indicating plaintiff was
25 planning on dismissing the fourth cause of action (resident right’s cause of action.)
26
27
28
- 4! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California and of my own
2 personal knowledge that the foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon, I could and
3 would testify thereto.
4
5 Executed in Sacramento, California, on Friday, November 20, 2020.
6
7
______________________________
8 Sean R. Laird
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT 1
28
- 6! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
Sean Laird
Newton v. Enloe Medical Center - Notice of Ex Parte Hearing Monday 11/16/2020
4:00 p.m.
1 message
Alaina T. Dickens Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:58 AM
To: "seanlairdlaw@gmail.com"
Cc: Lucia Ruiz , "Ian A. Scharg" , "Robert H. Zimmerman"
Hello Mr. Laird,
I am writing to notify you of the Ex Parte Hearing on our Motion to Compel Further Responses to our requests for
admission, set one; form interrogatories, set two; and request for production of documents, set two. The hearing has
been set for Monday, November 16, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. and may be attended via CourtCall. We will be filing our papers
shortly and will provide you with the same.
Please contact me should you have any questions regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Alaina T. Dickens
Attorney at Law
SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP
400 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 567-4670
Fax: (916) 568-0400
E-mail: atd@szs.com
**Please note, for the unknown future, I will be working remotely. The best way to contact me is by email
(atd@szs.com) or call my cell phone (760.310.9569). Due to the increased number of emails exchanged
during this time, response time may be delayed. Thank you for your patience.**
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION,
AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY
REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE
FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 2
28
- 7! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
Sean Laird
Newton v. Enloe
1 message
Sean Laird Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:44 PM
To: "Ian A. Scharg"
Mr. Scharg,
As I mentioned at the deposition this morning I received notice from your office that you have
requested an Ex-parte hearing before Judge Mosbarger on Monday. Your previous 60-page meet and
confer correspondence indicated that you required a response by the close of business today, 11/13.
Thank you for confirming with me at the deposition that we will continue to meet and confer on these
issues, but you do not require a response to your 60-page meet and confer correspondence by the end
of the day.
Thank you,
Sean
--
The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird, Inc.
805 16th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.441.1636
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 3
28
- 8! -
DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL
CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
Sean Laird
Newton v. Enloe - Meet and Confer
3 messages
Ian A. Scharg Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:36 PM
To: "seanlairdlaw@gmail.com"
Cc: "Lynette F. Esquivel" , "Kimberly S. Bogie" , "Robert H. Zimmerman"
Hi Sean,
I’ve been asked to meet and confer with your regarding plaintiffs’ complaint against Enloe. Specifically, we wish to
meet and confer with regard to the resident’s rights cause of action. My understanding of the law is that resident’s
rights causes of action are specifically for SNF cases. I am unaware of any authority that supports this cause of action
against an acute care hospital. Do you have any authority that authorizes this cause of action in the acute care
setting. Thanks.
Ian A. Scharg
Attorney at Law
SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP
400 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 567-0400 ext 607
Fax: (916) 568-0400
E-mail: ias@szs.com
! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION,
AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY
REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE
FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Sean Laird Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM
To: "Ian A. Scharg"
Cc: "Lynette F. Esquivel" , "Kimberly S. Bogie" , "Robert H. Zimmerman"
Mr. Scharg,
Your analysis appears correct. I will plan on dismissing that cause of action.
Sean
[Quoted text hidden]
--
The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird, Inc.
805 16th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.441.1636
Ian A. Scharg Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:39 AM
To: Sean Laird
Cc: "Lynette F. Esquivel" , "Kimberly S. Bogie" , "Robert H. Zimmerman"
Noted. Will you file an FAC so it’s cleaner in that regard.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 2, 2020, at 10:57 AM, Sean Laird wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this
email as spam.
Preview
Sean R. Laird (SBN 214916) 1 The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird 2 805 16th Street 11/20/2020 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 (916) 441-1636 4 (916) 760-9002 seanlairdlaw@gmail.com 5 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE 9 10 PATSY NEWTON, individually; HAROLD Case No. 20CV01091 11 NEWTON; individually; SUZANNE BOLEN, individually. DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD 12 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 13 ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S 14 vs. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 15 ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER; and DOES 1 - 16 50, inclusive, DATE: November 25, 2020 17 Defendants, TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT: 1 18 Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger 19 20 21 Complaint Filed: 5/29/2020 22 Trial Date: 12/14/2020 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 1 I, SEAN R. LAIRD, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the courts of the state of 3 California. I am the attorney of record for plaintiff Patsy Newton. Except where I have stated 4 otherwise, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called as a witness I could 5 testify competently as to the matters on which I declare. 6 2. Before the Court is defendant’s hastily filed motion to compel responses to its 7 Request For Admissions - Set One. Before plaintiff could even respond to defendant’s meet and 8 confer correspondence or serve amended responses (some of which would very likely had obviated 9 the need for this motion) defendant noticed an ex-parte application for an order shortening time to 10 have this motion heard. Plaintiff will continue to make an effort to meet and confer in an attempt 11 to narrow the scope of the discovery dispute for the Court. However, defendant’s own lack of 12 diligence in serving discovery, timely meeting and conferring, and timely bringing a motion to 13 compel before the discovery cut-off is apparently what led them to abandon any meaningful meet 14 and confer efforts (upon their previously designated timeline) and file three motions on shortened 15 time only to claim it is plaintiff who has caused this unnecessary logjam. This is false, a 16 misrepresentation of the facts, and lacks candor to this Court. 17 3. The complaint in this matter was filed May 29, 2020. Defendants were served June 18 12, 2020. Defendants have had the very document upon which they base their Requests for 19 Admissions since that date. Moreover, the Court held the hearing setting preference in this matter 20 on August 12, 2020 and signed the order granting preference on August 21, 2020. Defendants 21 waited until September 22, 2020 to serve the Requests for Admissions upon which this motion is 22 based. Plaintiff’s served objections to these requests on October 26, 2020. The last day to set a 23 timely motion to compel was November 3, 2020. 24 4. On November 9, 2020, instead of timely meeting and conferring, defendants waited 25 until 4:23 p.m. to send a 60-page meet and confer letter demanding a response from plaintiff before 26 close of business 3-days later (November 13, 2020), a date where 4 depositions had been set 27 between 11:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. See Defendant’s Exhibit C. Nevertheless, despite defense 28 counsel’s unreasonable timeline, plaintiff endeavored to begin responding to the 60-page - 2! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 1 correspondence in 3 days and had made substantial progress. At 9:58 a.m. on Friday, November 2 13, 2020, before the time to reply on the already unreasonable timeline had lapsed, plaintiff’s 3 counsel received notice from yet another attorney representing defendant indicating that they 4 would be appearing ex-parte on Monday, November 16, 2020 to request an order shortening time 5 for these motions. See Exhibit 1. At the depositions later that morning, plaintiff’s counsel 6 confirmed with the attorney who authored the November 9, 2020 meet and confer correspondence 7 that they had disregarded their own timeline for plaintiff’s counsel to even respond. Ian Scharg, 8 counsel for defendants indicated he realized the predicament, but that they did not “want to blow 9 any deadlines” with the discovery cut-off approaching that Monday. I confirmed with Mr. Scharg 10 that since they had filed their application before giving me a chance to respond, that they no longer 11 required a response from me “by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 13, 2020” as indicated in their 12 original November 9th correspondence. See Exhibit 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and 13 accurate copy of the timestamped email I received providing notice of the ex-parte hearing. 14 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the email I sent to Mr. Scharg 15 confirming our conversation. 16 5. The facts are crucial in understanding the inadequate nature of defendants requests. 17 As a background, Ms. Newton was admitted to Enloe Medical Center on September 11, 2019.. 18 She remained at the hospital until September 21, 2019, when she was transferred to Cal Park 19 Rehabilitation Center, a skilled nursing facility. Ms. Newton, however, was then transferred back 20 to Enloe Medical Center on October 8, 2019 where she remained until October 17, 2019. 21 Moreover, Ms. Newton then had multiple encounters with the defendant hospital following her 22 October 17, 2019 discharge, including until recently in 2020. Moreover, there have been 23 depositions of staff and doctors at the Enloe Medical Center wound clinic and other discovery 24 related to these encounters. With this as a background, defendants served requests for admissions 25 that related to no particular date, time, or hospital admission that would have permitted plaintiff to 26 adequately understand what they were asking to plaintiff to admit. Simply arguing now that “this 27 matter clearly relates to a single hospital stay,” does not accurately portray the full picture of this 28 case and it certainly does not cure the defect in the original request for admission that wholly - 3! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 1 lacked any timeframe whatsoever. Instead defendant now comes before this Court and asks the 2 Court to re-read and re-write its requests for admissions to make them discernible, clear as to time, 3 and relevant to the actual allegations in the complaint. 4 6. Ms. Newton developed multiple wounds when she was at the hospital. She had a 5 wound vac on her left hip related to her surgery. She had multiple wounds on her buttocks. She 6 had a wound near her breast. Anyone who looked at the chart and was drafting requests for 7 admissions would have know that there were multiple “wounds” numbered and noted in her chart. 8 Moreover, the multiple wounds she developed at the hospital includes those just in her initial 9 admission on 9/11/19 to 9/21/19. Defense counsel suggests it is “absurd” that we not be able to 10 divine which wound they are referring to and imply that plaintiff should just know to what they are 11 referring generally. Plaintiff should not be forced to divine what the request is asking them to 12 admit, especially with the implications of admitting such and the Court should not re-write the 13 RFA for the Defendant. 14 7. Defendant’s reference to plaintiff’s fourth cause of action are referring to a cause of 15 action that Plaintiff’s have already agreed does not apply in this case and have agreed to dismiss 16 months ago. See Exhibit 3. Request for Admission No.8, asked, “Admit Enloe Medical Center is 17 not a skilled nursing facility.” Defendant contends that this “request mirrors plaintiff’s first and 18 fourth causes of action.” This is not true, the first cause of action does not even reference a skilled 19 nursing facility. Second, plaintiff’s agreed long ago that we would dismiss and were not pursuing 20 the fourth cause of action, which in and of itself does not reference a "skilled nursing facility.” 21 Plaintiff will agree to answer this question, though we find it harassing and irrelevant, especially in 22 light of our previous agreement to dismiss the fourth cause of action, if the request relates to a 23 skilled nursing facility as defined by the Health & Safety Code. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a 24 true and accurate copy of the July 2, 2019 email I sent to Mr. Scharg indicating plaintiff was 25 planning on dismissing the fourth cause of action (resident right’s cause of action.) 26 27 28 - 4! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California and of my own 2 personal knowledge that the foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon, I could and 3 would testify thereto. 4 5 Executed in Sacramento, California, on Friday, November 20, 2020. 6 7 ______________________________ 8 Sean R. Laird 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 5! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT 1 28 - 6! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. Sean Laird Newton v. Enloe Medical Center - Notice of Ex Parte Hearing Monday 11/16/2020 4:00 p.m. 1 message Alaina T. Dickens Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:58 AM To: "seanlairdlaw@gmail.com" Cc: Lucia Ruiz , "Ian A. Scharg" , "Robert H. Zimmerman" Hello Mr. Laird, I am writing to notify you of the Ex Parte Hearing on our Motion to Compel Further Responses to our requests for admission, set one; form interrogatories, set two; and request for production of documents, set two. The hearing has been set for Monday, November 16, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. and may be attended via CourtCall. We will be filing our papers shortly and will provide you with the same. Please contact me should you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Alaina T. Dickens Attorney at Law SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP 400 University Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 567-4670 Fax: (916) 568-0400 E-mail: atd@szs.com **Please note, for the unknown future, I will be working remotely. The best way to contact me is by email (atd@szs.com) or call my cell phone (760.310.9569). Due to the increased number of emails exchanged during this time, response time may be delayed. Thank you for your patience.** NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT 2 28 - 7! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. Sean Laird Newton v. Enloe 1 message Sean Laird Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:44 PM To: "Ian A. Scharg" Mr. Scharg, As I mentioned at the deposition this morning I received notice from your office that you have requested an Ex-parte hearing before Judge Mosbarger on Monday. Your previous 60-page meet and confer correspondence indicated that you required a response by the close of business today, 11/13. Thank you for confirming with me at the deposition that we will continue to meet and confer on these issues, but you do not require a response to your 60-page meet and confer correspondence by the end of the day. Thank you, Sean -- The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird, Inc. 805 16th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916.441.1636 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT 3 28 - 8! - DECLARATION OF SEAN R. LAIRD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. Sean Laird Newton v. Enloe - Meet and Confer 3 messages Ian A. Scharg Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:36 PM To: "seanlairdlaw@gmail.com" Cc: "Lynette F. Esquivel" , "Kimberly S. Bogie" , "Robert H. Zimmerman" Hi Sean, I’ve been asked to meet and confer with your regarding plaintiffs’ complaint against Enloe. Specifically, we wish to meet and confer with regard to the resident’s rights cause of action. My understanding of the law is that resident’s rights causes of action are specifically for SNF cases. I am unaware of any authority that supports this cause of action against an acute care hospital. Do you have any authority that authorizes this cause of action in the acute care setting. Thanks. Ian A. Scharg Attorney at Law SCHUERING ZIMMERMAN & DOYLE, LLP 400 University Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 567-0400 ext 607 Fax: (916) 568-0400 E-mail: ias@szs.com ! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Sean Laird Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM To: "Ian A. Scharg" Cc: "Lynette F. Esquivel" , "Kimberly S. Bogie" , "Robert H. Zimmerman" Mr. Scharg, Your analysis appears correct. I will plan on dismissing that cause of action. Sean [Quoted text hidden] -- The Law Firm of Sean R. Laird, Inc. 805 16th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916.441.1636 Ian A. Scharg Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:39 AM To: Sean Laird Cc: "Lynette F. Esquivel" , "Kimberly S. Bogie" , "Robert H. Zimmerman" Noted. Will you file an FAC so it’s cleaner in that regard. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 2, 2020, at 10:57 AM, Sean Laird wrote: [Quoted text hidden] This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam.