Preview
ATIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT A1TORNEY (
Name. stare bar number, and oddfess]: FOR COURT USE ONLY
Anthony N. DeMan‘a. #I77894
1690 Wes1 Shaw Avenue. Suite 220
Fresno. California 937]
1
TELEPHONE N0: 559-206-2410 FAX NO: 559-570-01 26
ATIORNEY FOR {Name}: Defendant SCCCD
E-FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ¢ COUNTY OF FRESNO 4/15/2021 10:08 AM
Civil Division
Superior Court of California
I130 O Street County of Fresno
Fresno, California 93721 -2220
By: E Alvarado, Deputy
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Anfla Reyes
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Slate CenIer Community College District
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAI. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ”cacemu
D Ploinfiffls) Defendonfls) DCross—comploinonfls) D Cross-defendonfis) Dther(s) Reques’ro
PretrialDiscovery Conference.
A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons:
D A dispute hos arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set propounded on
D A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, se’r propounded on .
D A dispute hos arisen regarding o deposition subpoena directed of fordeposition
scheduled for .
D A dispute hos arisen regarding o deposition notice, production of documents ct o deposition or deposition
questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on
D A dispuTe hos arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating soncfions related fo o failure fo
comply with .
D Privilege isthe bosis for the refusal To produce documents and a privilege log isattached which complies
with Local Rule 2.].17(8).
The parties hove engaged in the following meaningful mee’r and confer efforts prior to filing this request:
(Describe in detail all meet and confer effor’rs including any narrowing of The issues or resolutions reached via
These efforts.)
Parties hove encounfered a dispute regarding the language for a stipulation. The Por’ties hove already agreed
To the examination, on agreed upon neuropsychologiccl exam under CCP § 2032.020(c) in on alleged brain
damage case. Parties have stipulated to The necessity of this examination: ’rhe dates (May 24, 2021 and May
25, 2021 )ond exomincr for ’rhis necessary examination: and all tests 10 be administered during this examination.
However, Plaintiff is demanding that Defendants stipulate that "The neuropsychologicol examination f0 be
conducted upon Plaintiff by the mental health professional so retained by Defendant is not ou’rhorized for the
predominate purpose of testing Plaintiff's credibility; the said mental health professional will no’r inquire of
Plaintiff or otherwise conduct his examination of Plaintiff for The predominate purpose of testing Ploin’riff‘s
credibility."
Defense cou nsel met ond conferred with Plaintiff's counsel in several direct telephonic calls and emails, with
Defense Counsel reminding ’rhe Plaintiff that neuropsychologiccl testing, by definition and purpose, includes on
exominee's effort and credibility criteria, in the actual tests and scoring science. All other Terms, except this
one, were agreed upon in the meet and confer process.
PCV-70 R0549 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1 7
.1
A brief summary of The dispute, including The facts and legal arguments of issue is os follows:
(Excepfing o privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or oficchmenfs shall be
ofiochedJ
The Parties hove stipulated To The neuropsychologicol examination in This brain damages case under CCP §
2032.020(o) 0nd hove agreed Upon oll terms except one: Tho’r The plaintiff won’rs o sfipulcfion os ’ro fesfing
credibility.Plaintiffisdesiring for ’rhe Parties To stipulate from The outset That fhe purpose of The neuropsych exam
isTo not Test However, this request is contrary fo
Plaintiff's credibility. The scienfific purpose of The exam.
“Neuropsychologicol assessments ore no longer complete wi’rhouf evaluation of effort." (Green, Lees-Holey,
Allen, Foreword To "The Word Memory Test 0nd the Validity of Neuropsychologicol Test Scores", Journal of
Foresnic Neuropsychology January 2003.) The validity of ’rhe tests—which Plaintiffhos agreed fo—resT on on
assessment of during The administration of The Tests
Plaintiff's effort inquestion 0nd would Then necessarily coll
info question her credibility in of These effort assessments.
Iigh’r However, wishes To
Plaintiff insert o Term 10 the
sfipuloiton which would directly contradict This necessary elemen’r 0nd overall purpose of neuropsychologicol
examinations. Moreover, Plaintiff hos put her mental (alleged broin injury) 0nd emotional condition in
controversy, 0nd thus, necessarily, fhe extent of her alleged damages ore also in controversy. The credibility
assessment in question will not be used To determine The existence or exfenf of ’rhe sequence of events alleged
in Plaintiff‘s Complaint. Plaintiff's counsel even conceded To This purpose of the exam in o March 26, 2021 email
where she stated understand The results may potentially be used To support any credibility arguments Defense
"I
moy hove of ’rhe Time of Trial 0nd as you pointed ouf, That The effort mode by during ’res’ring is on
[Plaintiff]
inherent por’r ofthe exam..."
on The holding
Plaintiff relies in Cindy Doyle v. Superior Cour’r of Sonto Cloro Counfy (Caldwell) (1996) 50
Cal.AppAfh 1878 ("Doyle") contend That she hos The
’ro right to insen‘the longuoge fho’ro mental independent
medical examination cannot be for The predominate purpose of ’resfing Plaintiff‘s credibility. Given The context
of The facts of ’rhe Doyle cose— o sexual harassment case where The existence of fhe harassment was
disputed—if is clear That the "credibility" fest wos ’ro determine The even’rs of issue occurred,
if not The existence
0nd extent of Plaintiff's alleged damages. Plaintiff alleges ongoing mental 0nd emotional distress damages,
ergo Testing The existence 0nd source of These damages is both inherent in ’rhe administration of the exam and
critical for meaningful interpretation of The Test dofo. Plaintiff's requested language is misleading 0nd would be
confusing f0 The jury should Thismo’rfer continue To trial.
understood
If is That The filingof This request for a PretrialDiscovery Conference Tolls ’rhe Time for filingo motion
f0 compel discovery on The disputed issues for the number of days between The filing of the request 0nd
issuance by The Court of o subsequent order pertaining To the discovery dispute.
Opposing Party wos served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 4g] 5/202]
Date
Pursuonf To Loco! Rule 2.1.1 7(A)(1 ),any opposi’rion ’rofhis request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference mus’r olso
be filedon on approved form 0nd mus’r be filed wi’rhin five(5) cour’rdays of receipt of ’rhe request for o Pretrial
Discovery Conference 0nd must be served on the opposing pon‘y.
declare under penalty under The lows of ’rhe Sfofe of California
/—‘
ThoT The foregoing true 0nd
Mm
| of perjury is
correct.
4/14/2021
Dcfe
Anthony N. DeMario
Type or Nome
Print
Mm} gno ure
4’0?“-
0%fly or Attorney for Pony
PCV-70 R05—1 9 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1 7
.1
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am
employed in the County of Fresno, State 0f California. My business address is 1690 W. Shaw
Avc., Suite 220, Fresno, CA 9371 1.
On April 15, 2021, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
NOTICE 0F TAKING DEPOSITION ON ORAL EXAMINATION WITH PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS on thc interested parties in this action as follows:
Eugenia L. Steele
The Torkzadeh Law Firm
18650 MacArthur B1vd., Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
eugeniaftbtorklaw.com
alle Ira ct0rklaw.com
Claudia ,torklaw.c0m
XXX BY MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a scaled envelope or package addressed
to the persons at the address listed on the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s
practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day the
correspondence is placed from collection and mailing itis deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid.
XXX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement 0f the
parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the
electronic service addresses listed above. The electronic service address from which I scrvcd the
documents istmaxwell@demarialawfirm.com.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 0f America that the
foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar 0f this
Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on April 15, 2021, at Fresno, California.
WWW?
Teri Wfivzlell
Preview
ATIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT A1TORNEY ( Name. stare bar number, and oddfess]: FOR COURT USE ONLY Anthony N. DeMan‘a. #I77894 1690 Wes1 Shaw Avenue. Suite 220 Fresno. California 937] 1 TELEPHONE N0: 559-206-2410 FAX NO: 559-570-01 26 ATIORNEY FOR {Name}: Defendant SCCCD E-FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ¢ COUNTY OF FRESNO 4/15/2021 10:08 AM Civil Division Superior Court of California I130 O Street County of Fresno Fresno, California 93721 -2220 By: E Alvarado, Deputy PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Anfla Reyes DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Slate CenIer Community College District CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR PRETRIAI. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ”cacemu D Ploinfiffls) Defendonfls) DCross—comploinonfls) D Cross-defendonfis) Dther(s) Reques’ro PretrialDiscovery Conference. A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons: D A dispute hos arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set propounded on D A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, se’r propounded on . D A dispute hos arisen regarding o deposition subpoena directed of fordeposition scheduled for . D A dispute hos arisen regarding o deposition notice, production of documents ct o deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on D A dispuTe hos arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating soncfions related fo o failure fo comply with . D Privilege isthe bosis for the refusal To produce documents and a privilege log isattached which complies with Local Rule 2.].17(8). The parties hove engaged in the following meaningful mee’r and confer efforts prior to filing this request: (Describe in detail all meet and confer effor’rs including any narrowing of The issues or resolutions reached via These efforts.) Parties hove encounfered a dispute regarding the language for a stipulation. The Por’ties hove already agreed To the examination, on agreed upon neuropsychologiccl exam under CCP § 2032.020(c) in on alleged brain damage case. Parties have stipulated to The necessity of this examination: ’rhe dates (May 24, 2021 and May 25, 2021 )ond exomincr for ’rhis necessary examination: and all tests 10 be administered during this examination. However, Plaintiff is demanding that Defendants stipulate that "The neuropsychologicol examination f0 be conducted upon Plaintiff by the mental health professional so retained by Defendant is not ou’rhorized for the predominate purpose of testing Plaintiff's credibility; the said mental health professional will no’r inquire of Plaintiff or otherwise conduct his examination of Plaintiff for The predominate purpose of testing Ploin’riff‘s credibility." Defense cou nsel met ond conferred with Plaintiff's counsel in several direct telephonic calls and emails, with Defense Counsel reminding ’rhe Plaintiff that neuropsychologiccl testing, by definition and purpose, includes on exominee's effort and credibility criteria, in the actual tests and scoring science. All other Terms, except this one, were agreed upon in the meet and confer process. PCV-70 R0549 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1 7 .1 A brief summary of The dispute, including The facts and legal arguments of issue is os follows: (Excepfing o privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or oficchmenfs shall be ofiochedJ The Parties hove stipulated To The neuropsychologicol examination in This brain damages case under CCP § 2032.020(o) 0nd hove agreed Upon oll terms except one: Tho’r The plaintiff won’rs o sfipulcfion os ’ro fesfing credibility.Plaintiffisdesiring for ’rhe Parties To stipulate from The outset That fhe purpose of The neuropsych exam isTo not Test However, this request is contrary fo Plaintiff's credibility. The scienfific purpose of The exam. “Neuropsychologicol assessments ore no longer complete wi’rhouf evaluation of effort." (Green, Lees-Holey, Allen, Foreword To "The Word Memory Test 0nd the Validity of Neuropsychologicol Test Scores", Journal of Foresnic Neuropsychology January 2003.) The validity of ’rhe tests—which Plaintiffhos agreed fo—resT on on assessment of during The administration of The Tests Plaintiff's effort inquestion 0nd would Then necessarily coll info question her credibility in of These effort assessments. Iigh’r However, wishes To Plaintiff insert o Term 10 the sfipuloiton which would directly contradict This necessary elemen’r 0nd overall purpose of neuropsychologicol examinations. Moreover, Plaintiff hos put her mental (alleged broin injury) 0nd emotional condition in controversy, 0nd thus, necessarily, fhe extent of her alleged damages ore also in controversy. The credibility assessment in question will not be used To determine The existence or exfenf of ’rhe sequence of events alleged in Plaintiff‘s Complaint. Plaintiff's counsel even conceded To This purpose of the exam in o March 26, 2021 email where she stated understand The results may potentially be used To support any credibility arguments Defense "I moy hove of ’rhe Time of Trial 0nd as you pointed ouf, That The effort mode by during ’res’ring is on [Plaintiff] inherent por’r ofthe exam..." on The holding Plaintiff relies in Cindy Doyle v. Superior Cour’r of Sonto Cloro Counfy (Caldwell) (1996) 50 Cal.AppAfh 1878 ("Doyle") contend That she hos The ’ro right to insen‘the longuoge fho’ro mental independent medical examination cannot be for The predominate purpose of ’resfing Plaintiff‘s credibility. Given The context of The facts of ’rhe Doyle cose— o sexual harassment case where The existence of fhe harassment was disputed—if is clear That the "credibility" fest wos ’ro determine The even’rs of issue occurred, if not The existence 0nd extent of Plaintiff's alleged damages. Plaintiff alleges ongoing mental 0nd emotional distress damages, ergo Testing The existence 0nd source of These damages is both inherent in ’rhe administration of the exam and critical for meaningful interpretation of The Test dofo. Plaintiff's requested language is misleading 0nd would be confusing f0 The jury should Thismo’rfer continue To trial. understood If is That The filingof This request for a PretrialDiscovery Conference Tolls ’rhe Time for filingo motion f0 compel discovery on The disputed issues for the number of days between The filing of the request 0nd issuance by The Court of o subsequent order pertaining To the discovery dispute. Opposing Party wos served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 4g] 5/202] Date Pursuonf To Loco! Rule 2.1.1 7(A)(1 ),any opposi’rion ’rofhis request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference mus’r olso be filedon on approved form 0nd mus’r be filed wi’rhin five(5) cour’rdays of receipt of ’rhe request for o Pretrial Discovery Conference 0nd must be served on the opposing pon‘y. declare under penalty under The lows of ’rhe Sfofe of California /—‘ ThoT The foregoing true 0nd Mm | of perjury is correct. 4/14/2021 Dcfe Anthony N. DeMario Type or Nome Print Mm} gno ure 4’0?“- 0%fly or Attorney for Pony PCV-70 R05—1 9 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1 7 .1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of Fresno, State 0f California. My business address is 1690 W. Shaw Avc., Suite 220, Fresno, CA 9371 1. On April 15, 2021, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as NOTICE 0F TAKING DEPOSITION ON ORAL EXAMINATION WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS on thc interested parties in this action as follows: Eugenia L. Steele The Torkzadeh Law Firm 18650 MacArthur B1vd., Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92612 eugeniaftbtorklaw.com alle Ira ct0rklaw.com Claudia ,torklaw.c0m XXX BY MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a scaled envelope or package addressed to the persons at the address listed on the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day the correspondence is placed from collection and mailing itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid. XXX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement 0f the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed above. The electronic service address from which I scrvcd the documents istmaxwell@demarialawfirm.com. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 0f America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar 0f this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on April 15, 2021, at Fresno, California. WWW? Teri Wfivzlell