Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Jesse J. Maddox, SBN 219091; Nathan T. Jackson, SBN 285620
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
5250 North Palm Avenue, Suite 310, Fresno, CA 93704
TELEPHONE NO: (559) 256-7800 FAX NO: (559) 449-4535
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Board of Trustees of CSU E-FILED
8/27/2021 4:39 PM
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF FRESNO Superior Court of California
Civil Division
County of Fresno
1130 O Street
By: Estela Alvarado, Deputy
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: A. Sameh El Kharbawy
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Board of Trustees of California State University
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 210ECG02214
❑ Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) ❑ Cross-complainant(s) ❑ Cross-defendant(s) ❑ Other(s) Request a
Pretrial Discovery Conference.
A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons:
El A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set One propounded on
3/9/2021
0 A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set propounded on
0 A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition
scheduled for
0 A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition
questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on
El A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to
comply with
El Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies
with Local Rule 2.1.17(8).
The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request:
(Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via
these efforts.)
The following is based on information and belief:
Requests for Production, Set One
Plaintiff filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. CSU propounded Requests for Production, Set
One, on March 9, 2021 (48 total). The Parties agreed to a series of discovery extensions pending the outcome
of a venue transfer motion, and Plaintiff eventually responded on June 16, 2021. Plaintiff provided CSU with
nothing but boilerplate objections for 43 requests. For one request ("All complaints identified in YOUR
COMPLAINT") Plaintiff agreed to produce "responsive" documents but has not. For four requests that seek
information about damages, Plaintiff refused to produce information without an attorney's eyes only protective
order. CSU sent Plaintiff a proposed protective order on June 21, 2021, Plaintiff apparently did not like the
langague, but he did not transmit to CSU proposed revisions after being asked if he had any. CSU sent Plaintiff
a detailed meet and confer on June 21, 2021, explaining legally and factually why his responses were
deficient. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE).
PCV-70 R05-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows:
(Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be
attached.)
Plaintiff agreed to supplement by July 14, 2021, but then on July 9, 2021, Mr. Hillier said his client was under
significant medical care, responsive information was in CSU's possession, and he sought access to CSU's
information systems. CSU denied this access, and Plaintiff never supplemented his responses. No documents
have been produced by Plaintiff in response to CSU's written discovery to date.
It is understood that the filing of this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion
to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filingof the request and
issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute.
Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 8/27/2021
Date
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A)(1), any opposition to this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference must also
be filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of receipt of the request for a Pretrial
Discovery Conference and must be served on the opposing party.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
8/27/2021 Nathan T. Jackson /s/
Date Type or Print Name Signat re o • arty or Attorney for Party
PCV-70 R05-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
3 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of 18
4 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1260,
5 Sacramento, CA 95814.
6 On August 27, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as REQUEST FOR
7 PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE RE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET
8 ONE in the manner checked below on all interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
9 Andrew Hillier
Paul Garcia
10 Hillier Law
600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
11 San Diego, CA 92101
telephone: 619.500.7906
12 facsimile: 619.839.3895
email: andrew@ahillierlaw.corn;
13 paul@ahillierlaw.com
14
IZ (BY U.S. MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
15 processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
16 Sacramento, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion
of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
17 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
18 I71 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) By electronically mailing a true and correct copy
through Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's electronic mail system from
19 mwibbenhorst@lcwlegal.com to the email address(es) set forth above. I did not
receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
20 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
21 Executed on August 27, 2021, at Sacramento, California.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.
24
oitiaLA LAml LoilLe_xa„,,sr—
25 Mariana Wibbenhorst
26
27
28
1
Proof of Service
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Jesse J. Maddox, SBN 219091; Nathan T. Jackson, SBN 285620 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 5250 North Palm Avenue, Suite 310, Fresno, CA 93704 TELEPHONE NO: (559) 256-7800 FAX NO: (559) 449-4535 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Board of Trustees of CSU E-FILED 8/27/2021 4:39 PM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF FRESNO Superior Court of California Civil Division County of Fresno 1130 O Street By: Estela Alvarado, Deputy Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: A. Sameh El Kharbawy DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Board of Trustees of California State University CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 210ECG02214 ❑ Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) ❑ Cross-complainant(s) ❑ Cross-defendant(s) ❑ Other(s) Request a Pretrial Discovery Conference. A Pretrial Discovery Conference is being requested for the following reasons: El A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set One propounded on 3/9/2021 0 A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set propounded on 0 A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled for 0 A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition notice, production of documents at a deposition or deposition questions related to the deposition of scheduled for or held on El A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to comply with El Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies with Local Rule 2.1.17(8). The parties have engaged in the following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request: (Describe in detail all meet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolutions reached via these efforts.) The following is based on information and belief: Requests for Production, Set One Plaintiff filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. CSU propounded Requests for Production, Set One, on March 9, 2021 (48 total). The Parties agreed to a series of discovery extensions pending the outcome of a venue transfer motion, and Plaintiff eventually responded on June 16, 2021. Plaintiff provided CSU with nothing but boilerplate objections for 43 requests. For one request ("All complaints identified in YOUR COMPLAINT") Plaintiff agreed to produce "responsive" documents but has not. For four requests that seek information about damages, Plaintiff refused to produce information without an attorney's eyes only protective order. CSU sent Plaintiff a proposed protective order on June 21, 2021, Plaintiff apparently did not like the langague, but he did not transmit to CSU proposed revisions after being asked if he had any. CSU sent Plaintiff a detailed meet and confer on June 21, 2021, explaining legally and factually why his responses were deficient. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE). PCV-70 R05-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 A brief summary of the dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue is as follows: (Excepting a privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be attached.) Plaintiff agreed to supplement by July 14, 2021, but then on July 9, 2021, Mr. Hillier said his client was under significant medical care, responsive information was in CSU's possession, and he sought access to CSU's information systems. CSU denied this access, and Plaintiff never supplemented his responses. No documents have been produced by Plaintiff in response to CSU's written discovery to date. It is understood that the filing of this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing a motion to compel discovery on the disputed issues for the number of days between the filingof the request and issuance by the Court of a subsequent order pertaining to the discovery dispute. Opposing Party was served with a copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 8/27/2021 Date Pursuant to Local Rule 2.1.17(A)(1), any opposition to this request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be filed on an approved form and must be filed within five (5) court days of receipt of the request for a Pretrial Discovery Conference and must be served on the opposing party. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 8/27/2021 Nathan T. Jackson /s/ Date Type or Print Name Signat re o • arty or Attorney for Party PCV-70 R05-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 3 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of 18 4 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1260, 5 Sacramento, CA 95814. 6 On August 27, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as REQUEST FOR 7 PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE RE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 8 ONE in the manner checked below on all interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 9 Andrew Hillier Paul Garcia 10 Hillier Law 600 W. Broadway, Suite 700 11 San Diego, CA 92101 telephone: 619.500.7906 12 facsimile: 619.839.3895 email: andrew@ahillierlaw.corn; 13 paul@ahillierlaw.com 14 IZ (BY U.S. MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and 15 processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at 16 Sacramento, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage 17 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 18 I71 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) By electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's electronic mail system from 19 mwibbenhorst@lcwlegal.com to the email address(es) set forth above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or 20 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 21 Executed on August 27, 2021, at Sacramento, California. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 23 foregoing is true and correct. 24 oitiaLA LAml LoilLe_xa„,,sr— 25 Mariana Wibbenhorst 26 27 28 1 Proof of Service