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 E-FILED
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Board of Trustees of CSU 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 21CECG02214
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:
A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set propounded on
.
A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set One propounded on 1/21/2021 .
A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition
scheduled for .
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 .
A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to
comply with .
Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies
with Local Rule 2.1.17(B).
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:
Form Interrogatories (General and Employment), Set One
CSU propounded form general and employment interrogatories on January 21, 2021. The Parties agreed to
months of extensions during venue transfer proceedings, as this case was originally filed in Los Angeles, and
Plaintiff responded on June 9, 2021. Plaintiff provided nothing but boilerplate objections and did not offer a
any substantive responses. This includes but is not limited to Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 11.1-11.2,
17.1, and 202.1, 203.1, 205.1, 206.1, 207.2, 208.1, 210.1-210.6, 212.1-213.2, and 215.1. For Interrogatory Nos.
11.1-11.2, and 212.1-213.2, Plaintiff claims he will disclose "medical information" with an attorney's eyes only
protective order. CSU sent Plaintiff a detiled meet and confer on June 21, 2021, explaining why Plaintiff's
objections were improper. On the same day, CSU also sent Plaintiff a proposed protective order. On June 28,
2021, Plaintiff responded and said, "Plaintiff will provide supplemental responses to Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories – General (Set One); Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One); and RFAs (Set One) by
Monday, July 12. Plaintiff will agree to extend the related MTC deadlines by two weeks." Plaintiff never
provided CSU with responses. Plaintiff also did not like CSU's proposed protetectve order, but never sent
proposed revisions after being asked if he had any.
PCV-70 R05-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
A brief summary of The dispufe, Including The foc’rs 0nd legal orgumenfs 0f issue is os follows:
(Excepting o privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibiTs, declorofions, or ofiochmem‘s sholl be
ofiochedj
On July 9, 2021, Mr. said
Hillier hisclienT wcus under significon’rmedical core, responsive informofion wos in CSU's
possession, 0nd he sought access fo CSU's information sys’rems. CSU denied This access, 0nd Ploinfiff never
supplemenfed his responses.
Special Interrogofories, Set One
CSU propunded o seT of special im‘errogofories To
firs’r on Moy
Ploin’riff 20, 2021 (53 ToTol). The Parties agreed To
CIseries of ex’rensions, 0nd Plainfiff even’ruolly responded on July 21, 2021. Plaintiff lorgely refused To produce
any subs’rom‘ive responses whatsoever, included 0n improper general objections/preliminory sTa’remenf, 0nd
CUT and posted The some boilerplate objecfions. CSU senT Ploin’riff o detailed meet 0nd confer IeTTer on July 31,
2021, 0nd asked for supplemenfol responses by August 6, 2021. Ploin’riff hos no’r responded os of The doTe of This
pre—friol discovery conference sToTemenf. Many of These ore confem‘ion special inferrogofories. In response ’ro
most interrogatories in This seT, Ploinfiff Claims This discovery is premofure, 0nd he Takes issue wiTh CSU's discovery
responses, sToTing, "Ploin’riff will agree To supplemen’r This response offer sufficienT discovery hos been
comple‘red.” CSU contends This is improper 0nd ThoT Plaintiff connoT wifhold discovery because he is displeased
with CSU‘s responses. CSU confends Tho’r Plaintiff should be oble ’ro orficulofe information relofed To his legol
claims, especially given The lengTh of his comploim 0nd The number of inferno] comploims ciTed wi’rhin iT.There
ore four occossions where Plaintiff wos asked To provide The lost dofe he communicated wi’rh one of ’rhe
individual defendants, 0nd he offered o substantive response by providing The IosT doTe he e—moiled him/her.
However, This discovery is no’r limi’red To e-moil communicofions. ITappears These four incompleTe responses ore
The only four Times where Plaintiff provided o subs’ronfive response.
[TIsunderstood Thof The filingof This request for O Discovery
Pre‘rriol Conference TollsThe Time for filing0 moTion
To compel discovery on The dispu’red issues for The number of doys between The filingof The request 0nd
issuance by The Court of o subsequen’r order pertaining To The discovery dispute.
Opposing PorTy wos served with c: copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 8/27/2021
Date
Pursuon’r To Locol Rule 2.1 .1 7(A)(1),any opposition To Thisrequest for o PreTriol Discovery Conference must also
be filedon on approved form 0nd mus’r be filed wiThin five (5) cour‘r doys of receip’r of The requesT for 0 Prefriol
Discovery Conference 0nd mus’r be served on The opposing porTy.
l declare under penolfy of perjury under The lows of The S’ro’reof California Tho’r The foregoing is true 0nd
correct
8/27/2021 No’rhon T.Jackson /5/
Date Type or PrimNome Signofu e of PartyrAfTomey for Party
PCV-7O R054 9 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2
Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 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 FORM INTERROGATORIES
8 (GENERAL AND EMPLOYMENT), SET ONE AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
9 SET ONE in the manner checked below on all interested parties in this action addressed as
10 follows:
11 Andrew Hillier
Paul Garcia
12 Hillier Law
600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
13 San Diego, CA 92101
telephone: 619.500.7906
14 facsimile: 619.839.3895
email: andrew@ahillierlaw.com;
15 paul@ahillierlaw.com
16
Ei (BY U.S. MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
17 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
18 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
19 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
20 RI (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) By electronically mailing a true and correct copy
through Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's electronic mail system from
21 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
22 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
23 Executed on August 27, 2021, at Sacramento, California.
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
25 foregoing is true and correct.
26
efloAkx1wA W t YoeLk Ltzt-Ph—
27 Mariana Wibbenhorst
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 E-FILED ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Board of Trustees of CSU 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 21CECG02214 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: A dispute has arisen regarding a request for production of documents, set propounded on . A dispute has arisen regarding form or special interrogatories, set One propounded on 1/21/2021 . A dispute has arisen regarding a deposition subpoena directed at for deposition scheduled for . 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 . A dispute has arisen regarding monetary, issue, evidence or terminating sanctions related to a failure to comply with . Privilege is the basis for the refusal to produce documents and a privilege log is attached which complies with Local Rule 2.1.17(B). 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: Form Interrogatories (General and Employment), Set One CSU propounded form general and employment interrogatories on January 21, 2021. The Parties agreed to months of extensions during venue transfer proceedings, as this case was originally filed in Los Angeles, and Plaintiff responded on June 9, 2021. Plaintiff provided nothing but boilerplate objections and did not offer a any substantive responses. This includes but is not limited to Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 11.1-11.2, 17.1, and 202.1, 203.1, 205.1, 206.1, 207.2, 208.1, 210.1-210.6, 212.1-213.2, and 215.1. For Interrogatory Nos. 11.1-11.2, and 212.1-213.2, Plaintiff claims he will disclose "medical information" with an attorney's eyes only protective order. CSU sent Plaintiff a detiled meet and confer on June 21, 2021, explaining why Plaintiff's objections were improper. On the same day, CSU also sent Plaintiff a proposed protective order. On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff responded and said, "Plaintiff will provide supplemental responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One); Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One); and RFAs (Set One) by Monday, July 12. Plaintiff will agree to extend the related MTC deadlines by two weeks." Plaintiff never provided CSU with responses. Plaintiff also did not like CSU's proposed protetectve order, but never sent proposed revisions after being asked if he had any. PCV-70 R05-19 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 1 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 A brief summary of The dispufe, Including The foc’rs 0nd legal orgumenfs 0f issue is os follows: (Excepting o privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibiTs, declorofions, or ofiochmem‘s sholl be ofiochedj On July 9, 2021, Mr. said Hillier hisclienT wcus under significon’rmedical core, responsive informofion wos in CSU's possession, 0nd he sought access fo CSU's information sys’rems. CSU denied This access, 0nd Ploinfiff never supplemenfed his responses. Special Interrogofories, Set One CSU propunded o seT of special im‘errogofories To firs’r on Moy Ploin’riff 20, 2021 (53 ToTol). The Parties agreed To CIseries of ex’rensions, 0nd Plainfiff even’ruolly responded on July 21, 2021. Plaintiff lorgely refused To produce any subs’rom‘ive responses whatsoever, included 0n improper general objections/preliminory sTa’remenf, 0nd CUT and posted The some boilerplate objecfions. CSU senT Ploin’riff o detailed meet 0nd confer IeTTer on July 31, 2021, 0nd asked for supplemenfol responses by August 6, 2021. Ploin’riff hos no’r responded os of The doTe of This pre—friol discovery conference sToTemenf. Many of These ore confem‘ion special inferrogofories. In response ’ro most interrogatories in This seT, Ploinfiff Claims This discovery is premofure, 0nd he Takes issue wiTh CSU's discovery responses, sToTing, "Ploin’riff will agree To supplemen’r This response offer sufficienT discovery hos been comple‘red.” CSU contends This is improper 0nd ThoT Plaintiff connoT wifhold discovery because he is displeased with CSU‘s responses. CSU confends Tho’r Plaintiff should be oble ’ro orficulofe information relofed To his legol claims, especially given The lengTh of his comploim 0nd The number of inferno] comploims ciTed wi’rhin iT.There ore four occossions where Plaintiff wos asked To provide The lost dofe he communicated wi’rh one of ’rhe individual defendants, 0nd he offered o substantive response by providing The IosT doTe he e—moiled him/her. However, This discovery is no’r limi’red To e-moil communicofions. ITappears These four incompleTe responses ore The only four Times where Plaintiff provided o subs’ronfive response. [TIsunderstood Thof The filingof This request for O Discovery Pre‘rriol Conference TollsThe Time for filing0 moTion To compel discovery on The dispu’red issues for The number of doys between The filingof The request 0nd issuance by The Court of o subsequen’r order pertaining To The discovery dispute. Opposing PorTy wos served with c: copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: 8/27/2021 Date Pursuon’r To Locol Rule 2.1 .1 7(A)(1),any opposition To Thisrequest for o PreTriol Discovery Conference must also be filedon on approved form 0nd mus’r be filed wiThin five (5) cour‘r doys of receip’r of The requesT for 0 Prefriol Discovery Conference 0nd mus’r be served on The opposing porTy. l declare under penolfy of perjury under The lows of The S’ro’reof California Tho’r The foregoing is true 0nd correct 8/27/2021 No’rhon T.Jackson /5/ Date Type or PrimNome Signofu e of PartyrAfTomey for Party PCV-7O R054 9 REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Page 2 of 2 Mandatory Local Rule 2.1.17 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 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 FORM INTERROGATORIES 8 (GENERAL AND EMPLOYMENT), SET ONE AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, 9 SET ONE in the manner checked below on all interested parties in this action addressed as 10 follows: 11 Andrew Hillier Paul Garcia 12 Hillier Law 600 W. Broadway, Suite 700 13 San Diego, CA 92101 telephone: 619.500.7906 14 facsimile: 619.839.3895 email: andrew@ahillierlaw.com; 15 paul@ahillierlaw.com 16 Ei (BY U.S. MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and 17 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 18 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 19 meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 20 RI (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) By electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's electronic mail system from 21 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 22 other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 23 Executed on August 27, 2021, at Sacramento, California. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 25 foregoing is true and correct. 26 efloAkx1wA W t YoeLk Ltzt-Ph— 27 Mariana Wibbenhorst 28 1 Proof of Service