PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
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
28
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
MARK J. CONCIALDI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01068 FMO (GJSx)
The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin
PLAINTIFF MARK J. CONCIALDI’S
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION
QUESTIONS POSED TO DEFENDANT
EMPLOYEE WITNESS DOLORES
RUBALCAVA-CHAVEZ; AND
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI
(Filed Concurrently with Proposed Order
and Separate Statement.)
Date/Time: Motion made upon submission
Trial Date: March 20, 2018
Action Filed: December 9, 2016
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 173 Page ID #:444
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on upon submission of this motion, plaintiff, Mark J.
Concialdi, will move for an order compelling defendant employee witness Dolores
Rubalcava-Chavez (the individual designated as the person most knowledgeable
regarding plaintiff’s medical expenses) to respond to questions posed to her during her
deposition on September 11, 2017, and to produce supplemental documents. Deponent
Rubalcava-Chavez refused to answer, on advice of counsel, a series of questions posed
to her regarding the insurance plans defendant Jacobs Engineering Group offered from
2009 through 2013 and the insurance plans under which plaintiff was covered from 2009
through 2013, as is shown in the Declaration of Mahru Madjidi and the Statement of
Questions and Responses in Dispute filed concurrently with this motion.
This motion is made on the grounds that the questions asked are relevant to the
subject of the action and that the deponent’s refusal to answer was without substantial
justification. The motion will be based upon the attached Memorandum of Points and
Authorities and declaration in support, the records and files in this action, and copies of
the relevant portions of the deposition proceedings, attached to the Declaration of Mahru
Madjidi.
It is crucial that plaintiff obtain these responses to deposition questions in a timely
manner to ascertain all relevant, pertinent facts in this case.
Dated: October 27, 2017 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 173 Page ID #:445
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Mark J. Concialdi, seeks an order directing defendant Jacobs Engineering
Group’s employee witness Dolores Rubalcava-Chavez (the person most knowledgeable
regarding plaintiff’s medical expenses) to appear for a continued session of her
deposition for three reasons: 1) to answer questions posed to her during her deposition
on September 11, 2017, that she was instructed not to answer—not because of any
alleged “privilege,” but rather because the questioning was outside the purported “scope”
of topics counsel for the parties had agreed to prior to the deposition; 2) to answer
questions surrounding topics that she testified she easily could have obtained information
about, but was unprepared to testify about, and 3) to answer questions surrounding any
supplemental responsive documents to her deposition notice that can and must be
produced.
Accordingly, this motion serves a fourth purpose, and that is to compel
supplemental document production of a documents that were produced subject to the
deposition notice, but contained excessive redacted portions that are relevant to the case
and the deposition questioning. Plaintiff also seeks to have these documents re-
produced, but without the improper redactions so additional questions may be asked
about the document.
Plaintiff engaged in numerous “meet and confer” processes to resolve the discovery
dispute in this motion. After once again seeming to make efforts to resolve this matter,
defendant’s counsel confirmed that Rubalcava-Chavez’s second day of deposition
testimony will not go forward, and supplemental documents will not be produced.
(Madjidi Decl., ¶ 2.) Thus, the present motion has become necessary.
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Underlying Case and Relevant Issues
This case involves claims of age- and disability-based discrimination and wrongful
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 3 of 173 Page ID #:446
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
termination, among other claims. (Madjidi Decl. ¶ 3.) During his employment with
defendant, around 2009, plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (“MS”). (Id.) As
a result, plaintiff began to undergo rigorous, ongoing, and upon information and belief,
costly treatments. (Id.) One of the disputed issues in this case is the extent to which
defendant was aware of plaintiff’s disability and medical diagnosis. (Id.) The plaintiff,
with his diagnosis, was likely incurring significantly higher medical costs and expenses
than similarly situated employees without any disabilities. Plaintiff’s medical
expenses—depending on the extent to which defendant was aware of such medical
expenses and the extent to which defendant had to cover any portion of plaintiff’s
medical expenses—certainly give rise to the possibility that defendant knew or had
reason to know that plaintiff had a medical condition, or disability. (Id.)
Furthermore, one of the alleged reasons for the termination of the plaintiff was
because of “budgeting” issues with keeping plaintiff as an employee. (Madjidi Decl., ¶
4.) For a certain time-frame during his employment, plaintiff recalls a long period of
time where he was prescribed an extremely expensive medication for his MS. (Id.)
Plaintiff received his medical insurance through defendant, and therefore, defendant was
likely incurring higher expenses as a result of plaintiff’s increased medical costs. (Id.) If
budgeting was a concern surrounding plaintiff’s termination, then surely, any expenses
defendant incurred as a result of plaintiff and his health condition, are also directly
relevant to “budgeting” concerns that defendant had when they terminated plaintiff’s
employment.
B. The September 11, 2017 Deposition of the Person Most
Knowledgeable Regarding Plaintiff’s Medical Expenses.
Given that plaintiff’s medical costs were likely adding expenses to the, plaintiff
requested to notice a “PMK” deposition surrounding plaintiff’s medical expenses.
(Madjidi Decl., ¶ 5; Exhibit 1.) After back and forth about the “relevance” concerns that
counsel for defendant had, a witness was produced for deposition on September 11, 2017.
(Id.)
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 4 of 173 Page ID #:447
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
The topics noticed included whether there were any changes to the insurance plans
that plaintiff was on during his employment with defendant, what portion of plaintiff’s
medical expenses had to be paid by the defendant’s, what determines what portion
defendant’s pay, and what the medical expenses were of for plaintiff and other internal
audit managers from September 2009 through July 2016. (See Exhibit 1.)
Ultimately, during the deposition, the witness was instructed not to answer what
insurance plans were offered by defendant from 2009-2013 on the basis that it was
“outside of the scope.” (See Separate Statement filed concurrently with this motion;
Madjidi Decl., ¶ 6.) The witness was also not prepared to answer what insurance plans
the plaintiff was on, other than from 2013-2016—which is missing the significant time
from of 2009 when plaintiff was diagnosed with MS, and 2012, when the plaintiff had a
major flare up with his MS condition. (Id.) When asked why she was not prepared to
answer questions for that time frame even though she testified looking up this
information would not have taken her much additional effort, she was unable to respond
without revealing attorney-client communications. (Id.)
C. Document Production Pursuant to the Deposition Notice Was Almost
Entirely Redacted.
The notice also included requests for production of documents, requesting
the witness to produce any documents that reflect plaintiff’s medical expenses and
what portion of the expenses defendant had to pay. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 5-6; Exhibit
1.)
At the deposition, the witness through her counsel produced a series of
charts reflecting medical expenses for plaintiff and others, but everything on the
chart was redacted except for what pertained to plaintiff. It was almost entirely
redacted. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 6; Exhibit 2.)
When asked why everything was redacted, counsel stated that it as for
“privacy reasons.” (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel then inquired as to why
the “gross charges” column, which only reflects the out of pocket costs incurred by
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 5 of 173 Page ID #:448
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
defendant as a result of other individuals’ medical expenses was redacted, to which
defense counsel stated because it was not “relevant.” (Id.) The gross charges
column of the document are directly relevant to the issues in this case as they
reflect what plaintiff’s medical expenses were compared to others in the company.
(Id.) Producing the documents without redactions for the gross charges column
would not invade any privacy concerns because the names of the employees would
still remain redacted. (Id.)
3. ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard
(1) Discovery Statutes to be Interpreted Liberally.
Appellate courts must keep liberal policies of discovery statutes
in mind when reviewing decisions denying or granting
discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2
Cal.3d 161, 171, 84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854.) Absent a
showing that substantial interests will be impaired by
allowing discovery, liberal policies of discovery rules will
generally counsel against overturning a trial court’s
decision granting discovery (ibid.) and militate in favor of
overturning a decision to deny discovery. (Ibid., quoting
Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378–
379, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266 [“in passing on orders
denying discovery appellate courts ‘should not use the trial
court’s discretion argument to **723 defeat the liberal
policies of the statute,’ ”].)
[14] [15] Matters sought are properly discoverable if they will
aid in a party’s preparation for trial. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.
v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 172, 84 Cal.Rptr. 718,
465 P.2d 854.) Because all issues and arguments that will come
to light at trial often cannot be ascertained at the time when
discovery is sought, courts *988 may appropriately give an
applicant substantial leeway, especially when precise issues of
litigation of governing legal standards are not clearly
established. (Ibid.)
(Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 987-88 (emphasis supplied).) These
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 6 of 173 Page ID #:449
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
exact principles were reiterated in the case of Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v.
Century Theatres, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1383 (liberal discovery policies
militate in favor of overturning trial court decisions to deny discovery).
Defendant’s position that any of the information sought in the deposition or in the
document production is not “relevant” is meritless and not a basis to withhold
information. This information is needed to establish a link with defendant’s knowledge
of plaintiff’s disability, and relative expenses they incurred as a result, which will be
necessary for use at trial.
B. Questions about Defendant’s Insurance Plans are Not “Outside the
Scope.”
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), the court does not limit the
scope of the deposition to what is contained in the notice of deposition and the
reasonable particularity requirement under that rule does not limit the scope of the
deposition. See Detor v. City & Cnty. Of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 366 (N.D Cal.
2000). Rather, the reasonable particularity requirement provides the entity with the
information that its designated representative must be able to supply; once the witness
satisfies the minimum standard, the scope of the deposition is determined solely by the
relevance standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(1). See e.g. ChriMar Sys. Inc. v. Cisco Sys.
Inc. 2016 WL 126556 *2 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (“the reasonable particularity requirement of
Rule 30(b)(6) cannot be used to limit what is asked of the designated witness at a
deposition.)
Plaintiff’s deposition notice included a topic for any changes made to plaintiff’s
medical expenses and health insurance. Because the witness testified the expenses
incurred depend on the type of insurance plan the plaintiff was on, it is not “outside of
the scope,” to inquire into what insurance plans were offered and what insurance plans
plaintiff was on, in order to determine what plaintiff’s medical expenses were. (See
Separate Statement filed concurrently with this motion.)
Furthermore, the apparent instruction to the witness that she only limit her
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 7 of 173 Page ID #:450
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
knowledge to the time frame of 2013-2016, skipping over what insurance plans plaintiff
was on from 2009-2013, was improper for the same reasons.
C. Defendant Cannot Redact Portions Of The Document Because They
Believe It Is Not “Relevant” Information.
Defendant may not redact information that they believe is irrelevant. See In
Re Iphone Application Litig., 2013 WL 1095456, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (finding
“unpersuasive at best,” Apple’s contention that it may redact irrelevant information
“as long as there’s a process by which the parties can assess whether there’s a good
faith claim of relevance or not.”) A party must disclose the entire document or
report, even if parts are irrelevant. Seafirst Corp. v. Jenkins, 644 F.Supp. 1160,
1165 (W.D. Wash. 1986.) Not only are the redacted portions of the document
relevant, defendant must not redact them even if they believed the information was
not relevant. Doing so was improper.
4. MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS
The parties have had extensive meet and confer efforts on this issue, as
reflected in their meet and confer letters as well as in plaintiff’s ex parte
surrounding this issue. (Madjidi Decl., 2, 11-13; Exhibits 3-4, 5.)
Even after the court issued an order with legal authority reflecting that
defendant’s cannot redact irrelevant information and limit deposition testimony to
the topics noticed, defendants still refused to comply. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit
6.) At least 25 hours have been spent between meeting and conferring and drafting
the document related to compelling the production and deposition testimony at
issue, and as such, defendants should be sanctioned $8,125.00 for their conduct.
///
///
///
///
///
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 8 of 173 Page ID #:451
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
5. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff requests that this Court issue sanctions against defendant and its counsel
and issue an order directing Ms. Rubalcava-Chavez to answer questions posed during her
deposition, as well as reasonable follow-up questions, in additional to producing the
supplemental documents without improper redactions, by December 7, 2017.
Dated: October 27, 2017 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 9 of 173 Page ID #:452
DECLARATION OF CARNEY R. SHEGERIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
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
28
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI
I, Mahru Madjidi, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly authorized to practice law before all of the courts
of the State of California and this Court. I am an attorney for Shegerian & Associates,
Inc., the counsel of record for plaintiff, Mark J. Concialdi, in this case. I am familiar
with the files, pleadings, and facts in this case and could and would competently testify
to the following facts on the basis of my own personal knowledge or information and
belief.
2. Prior to filing this motion I engaged in numerous and ongoing meet and confers
with Mr. Song in an effort to resolve these issues. I met and conferred during the
deposition, sent him a meet and confer letter, and spoke to him on the phone after he sent
me a response letter. In fact, the meet and confer efforts took so long I had to file an ex
parte application seeking an extension to file this motion. After the court issued an order
on the ex parte indicating in essence that defendant’s conduct surrounding the documents
and deposition was not proper, Mr. Song reached out to me in an attempted effort to
resolve the issue. However, after a week passed Mr. Song had still not provided me with
a final response on his position. After following up, Mr. Song informed me he was not
agreeable to producing the documents or the witness, and thus, the telephonic hearing
preceding this motion ensued. I even met and conferred with Mr. Song one more time
on October 26th to try to resolve this, but to no avail.
3. This case involves claims of age- and disability-based discrimination and
wrongful termination, among other claims. The facts as I understand them are that during
his employment with defendant, around 2009, plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis (“MS”). As a result, plaintiff began to undergo rigorous, ongoing, and upon
information and belief, costly treatments. One of the disputed issues in this case is the
extent to which defendant was aware of plaintiff’s disability and medical diagnosis.
Given that plaintiff, with his diagnosis, was likely incurring significantly higher medical
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 10 of 173 Page ID #:453
-2-
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION
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
28
costs and expenses than similarly situated employees without any disabilities, plaintiff’s
medical expenses—depending on the extent to which defendant was aware of such
medical expenses and the extent to which defendant had to cover any portion of
plaintiff’s medical expenses—certainly gives rise to the possibility that defendant knew
or had reason to know that plaintiff was disabled.
4. Furthermore, one of the alleged reasons for the termination of the plaintiff was
because of “budgeting” issues with keeping plaintiff as an employee. For a certain time-
frame during his employment, I understand that plaintiff recalls a long period of time
where he was prescribed an extremely expensive medication for his MS condition.
Plaintiff received his medical insurance through defendant, and therefore, defendant was
likely incurring higher expenses as a result of plaintiff’s increased medical costs.
5. As a result of this information, I requested a deposition of the person most
knowledgeable on plaintiff’s medical expenses. The notice included an array of topics
surrounding this matter. A first amended notice was sent out for the deposition to take
place September 11, 2017. A true and correct copy of the notice is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
6. Ultimately, during the deposition, the witness was instructed not to answer what
insurance plans were offered by defendant from 2009-2013 on the basis that it was
“outside of the scope.” The witness was also not prepared to answer what insurance
plans the plaintiff was on, other than from 2013-2016—which is missing the significant
time from of 2009 when plaintiff was diagnosed with MS, and 2012, when the plaintiff
had a major flare up with his MS condition. When asked why she was not prepared to
answer questions for that time frame even though she testified looking up this
information would not have taken her much additional effort, she was unable to respond
without revealing attorney-client communications.
7. The deposition notice also included three document requests. At the deposition,
the witness through her counsel produced a series of charts reflecting medical expenses
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 11 of 173 Page ID #:454
-3-
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION
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
28
for plaintiff and others, but everything on the chart was redacted except for what
pertained to plaintiff. It was almost entirely redacted. A true and correct copy of the
document production is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
8. When asked why everything was redacted, counsel stated that it as for “privacy
reasons.” I inquired as to why the “gross charges” column, which only reflects the out of
pocket costs incurred by defendant as a result of other individuals’ medical expenses was
redacted, to which Mr. Song stated because it was not “relevant.” The gross charges
column of the document are directly relevant to the issues in this case as they reflect
what plaintiff’s medical expenses were compared to others in the company. Producing
the documents without redactions for the gross charges column would not invade any
privacy concerns because the names of the employees would still remain redacted. This
is also reflected in defendant’s response to my meet and confer letter following the
deposition.
9. In light of the above, plaintiff is forced to make the present motion, seeking an
order compelling Ms. Rubalcava-Chavez to respond to the deposition questions as posed,
and for supplemental production of documents without redactions of the “gross charges”
column.
10. Between the time I spent meet and conferring on this issue, drafting the ex parte
and corresponding documents, and drafting this motion and corresponding documents, I
anticipate having spent over 25 hours. At an hourly rate of $325.00 an hour, that equals
$8,125.00.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the meet and confer
letter I sent opposing counsel on these issues.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of defendant’s letter in
response.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the ex parte application and
corresponding declaration filed relating to this matter.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 12 of 173 Page ID #:455
-4-
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION
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
28
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is the court issued minute order surrounding the ex
parte application.
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 are the true and correct excerpts of the rough
transcript of Ms. Chavez’s deposition which correspond to the separate statement filed
concurrently with this motion.
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 27th day of October, 2017, at Santa Monica, California.
/s/ Mahru Madjidi_____________
Mahru Madjidi, Esq.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 13 of 173 Page ID #:456
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 14 of 173 Page ID #:457
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
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
28
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK J. CONCIALDI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP,
AND DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:17-CV-01068 FMO (GSX)
PLAINTIFF MARK J. CONCIALDI’S
AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP ET.
AL. ’S PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE REGARDING
MEDICAL EXPENSES; REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT
DEPOSITION
) Complaint Filed: December 9, 2016
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 15 of 173 Page ID #:458
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
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
28
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, Mark J. Concialdi, will take the deposition
of defendant Jacobs Engineering Group’s person most knowledgeable upon oral
examination before a certified shorthand reporter and videographer per this notice, on
September 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., at the offices of Shegerian & Associates, Inc.,
located at 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401.
If the deposition is not completed on that date, the taking thereof will be continued from
day to day thereafter at the same place, Sundays and holidays excepted, until completed.
Plaintiff reserves the right to take the deposition by teleconference and/or telephone.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant’s “person most knowledgeable regarding
plaintiff’s medical expenses” is defined as follows. Specific matters shall include:
Medical Expenses
1. Plaintiff’s Medical Expenses during his employment with defendant JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP;
2. Any Medical Benefits Plaintiff received from defendant JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP during the time Plaintiff was employed by defendant JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP.
3. Any changes to Plaintiff’s Medical Benefits during the time Plaintiff was
employed by defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
4. Any changes to Plaintiff’s Medical Insurance/Medical Insurance Plan during
the time Plaintiff was employed by defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP.
5. Any changes to the amount and/or cost of Plaintiff’s Medical Expenses during
Plaintiff’s employment with defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
6. The portion of Plaintiff’s Medical Expenses that defendant JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP would have to pay during the time Plaintiff was employed at
defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
7. What determines what portion of Plaintiff’s Medical Expenses have to be paid
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 16 of 173 Page ID #:459
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
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
28
by defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
8. What other entities pay for Plaintiff’s medical expense, if any, during the time
Plaintiff was employed by defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
9. What determines what portion of an employee’s medical expenses have to be
paid by defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
10. What other entities pay for defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP’s
employee’s medical expenses, if any, during the time Plaintiff was employed by
defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
11. The medical expenses for other internal audit managers employed by defendant
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP for the time period of September 2009 through July
of 2016;
12. The medical expenses for other individuals who worked in the same department
with Plaintiff during his employment with defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING
GROUP, for the time period of September 2009 through July 2016.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that defendants JACOBS ENGINEERING
GROUP ’s person most knowledgeable regarding medical expenses is required to
produce the following documents at the deposition:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
All documents that reflect plaintiff’s medical expenses during the time he worked
for defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
All documents that reflect any medical expenses paid by defendant JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP surrounding plaintiff’s medical expenses during the time he
was employed by defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 17 of 173 Page ID #:460
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
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
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
All documents reflecting any payments regarding plaintiff’s medical expenses,
made by a third party affiliate to Jacobs, during the time that plaintiff was employed by
defendant ENGINEERING GROUP;
Dated: August 9, 2017 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 18 of 173 Page ID #:461
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
8 Q Do you know if these four plans that we went
9 over, if those were in place in 2009 as well?
10 MR. SONG: Well, objection. Outside the scope
11 of testimony. I'll instruct her not to answer.
12 BY MS. MADJIDI:
13 Q Are you going to follow your counsel's
14 instructions?
15 A Yes.
16 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
17 BY MS. MADJIDI:
18 Q Do you know if these four plans were in place in
19 2010?
20 MR. SONG: Same objection.
21 MS. MADJIDI: She is looking at you to see if
22 you're going to instruct her not to answer or not.
23 MR. SONG: The same objection.
24 BY MS. MADJIDI:
25 Q Okay, so you can answer.
36
1 MR. SONG: Excuse me. Same objection which I
2 instructed the witness not to answer. Don't put words
3 into my witness' mouth.
4 MS. MADJIDI: I'm not.
5 MR. SONG: And don't put words into my mouth.
6 MS. MADJIDI: That's argumentative, could you
7 please.
8 MR. SONG: I know because you're putting words
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 19 of 173 Page ID #:462
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
9 in my mouth. The same objection stands.
10 MS. MADJIDI: Counsel --
11 MR. SONG: Yes?
12 MS. MADJIDI: -- I hope there is not going to be
13 a need to stop this deposition.
14 MR. SONG: I hope so too, I do.
15 BY MS. MADJIDI:
16 Q What about 2011, do you have any knowledge of
17 whether or not these four plans were in place in 2011?
18 MR. SONG: Objection. Outside the scope of
19 topics. Instruct the witness not to answer.
20 BY MS. MADJIDI:
21 Q Are you going to follow your counsel's
22 instruction?
23 A Yes.
24 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
25 BY MS. MADJIDI:
37
1 Q Just for clarification, you didn't object to
2 anything with regards to topic number 1, did you?
3 MR. SONG: I don't know. It was delivered to
4 your office. I didn't know you didn't have a copy of it
5 or I would have brought it. Yeah, there were objections
6 to 1 too but that's for the time frame 2013 to his term.
7 MS. MADJIDI: Let's go off the record for one
8 second.
9 MR. SONG: Yes.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 20 of 173 Page ID #:463
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
10 (Discussion held off the record.)
11 MS. MADJIDI: We can go back on.
12 Q Do you know what medical plan Mark Concialdi was
13 on in 2006?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you know what benefit plan Mark Concialdi was
16 on at any point during his employment?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What period of his employment are you aware of
19 what plan Mr. Concialdi was on?
20 A 2013 to the time of his termination.
21 Q Do you know when the time of his termination is?
22 A It was April of 2016.
23 Q And other than that time frame, you have no
24 knowledge of --
25 A No.
38
1 Q -- anything regarding Mr. Concialdi's benefits?
2 A Say that again.
3 Q Other than anything out side of that time frame
4 you have no personal knowledge of anything regarding Mr.
5 Concialdi's benefits?
6 A Correct.
7 Q What plan was he on for that time frame that you
8 do have knowledge of?
9 A In '13 he was on the choice plus PPO, and from
10 '14 to his termination he was on the choice plus HD HPA.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 21 of 173 Page ID #:464
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:27:47 PM]
14 frame you did for today?
15 A Yes.
16 Q So would it have caused you to have to look --
17 log into any kind of a different system to obtain the
18 information for the time frame prior to 2013?
19 A This is for the plan, what the plan covers.
20 Right?
21 Q Yes.
22 A No.
23 Q What about with regard to what plan Mr.
24 Concialdi may have been on prior to 2013, would your
25 search efforts to prepare yourself for the time frame of
42
1 2013 to 2016 have been the same for the time frame prior
2 to 2013?
3 MR. SONG: Objection. What -- vague, confusing.
4 What -- you said the medical plan, is that what you have
5 said, the search for the medical plan?
6 MS. MADJIDI: The medical plan, correct.
7 MR. SONG: Was the previous question about
8 medical plans? Okay, tip. If you understand the
9 question. Otherwise ask her to repeat the question.
10 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
11 BY MS. MADJIDI:
12 Q Sure. So with regard to what you did to find
13 out what medical plan Mr. Concialdi was on for the time
14 frame of 2013 through his termination, would your efforts
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 22 of 173 Page ID #:465
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
15 to look for this information for the time frame prior to
16 2013 have been the same?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Would you have had to look at the same documents
19 and information to obtain that information?
20 A Yes.
21 MR. SONG: Well, I'm going to -- well, hold on a
22 second. I'm going to object that that calls for
23 speculation. Don't assume. Vague and ambiguous,
24 incomplete hypothetical. You can answer the question.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
43
1 BY MS. MADJIDI:
2 Q You may not be able to answer this question
3 without revealing privilege, but why didn't you look at
4 an earlier time frame than 2013?
5 MR. SONG: Objection. Attorney-client
6 privilege. Don't answer.
7 BY MS. MADJIDI:
8 Q And you're going to follow your counsel's
9 instructions?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
12 MS. MADJIDI: I'm just asking. I'm not trying
13 to be rude.
14 MR. SONG: I'm just telling every time you're
15 going to ask.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 23 of 173 Page ID #:466
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
16 BY MS. MADJIDI:
17 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Concialdi
18 incurred any medical expenses during his employment at
19 Jacobs?
20 A No.
21 Q You don't know, or he did not?
22 A I don't know.
23 Q Okay. Do you have that knowledge for any
24 specific time frame?
25 A I'm sorry. Can you repeat the last question?
44
1 Q Sure. Do you have any personal knowledge of
2 whether or not Mr. Concialdi incurred any medical
3 expenses throughout his employment?
4 A Personal knowledge, no.
5 Q Do you have any other basis of knowledge of
6 whether or not Mr. Concialdi incurred any medical
7 expenses during his employment at Jacobs?
8 A Only based on this detailed report.
9 Q So let's take a look at this report. Can you
10 tell me what it is?
11 A It's a detailed report which provides the gross
12 charges of expenses incurred.
13 Q And so gross charges are the charges without
14 anything being deducted, injures the total payment that's
15 owed for any medical benefit?
16 MR. SONG: Well, objection. Assumes facts not
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 24 of 173 Page ID #:467
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:27:47 PM]
24 to have multiple items of charges for a given time frame
25 on this report?
52
1 MR. SONG: Objection. Calls for speculation,
2 lacks foundation. You can answer the question if you
3 understand, or ask for clarification.
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you can clarify, please.
5 BY MS. MADJIDI:
6 Q Sure. For example, on this one there are three
7 different line items for Mark Concialdi with three
8 different sets of charges. Is it common for an
9 individual to have multiple sets of charges for a given
10 time period?
11 A I don't know.
12 Q Okay.
13 And, Counsel, this is for you. Everything is
14 redacted except for Mark Concialdi. Is that for privacy
15 reasons?
16 MR. SONG: Yes. That's other employees. Yeah.
17 MS. MADJIDI: Can you provide me with a chart
18 that reveals what the gross charges are but the other
19 information is redacted, because that would encompass the
20 privacy concerns that you have and also give me what I'm
21 looking for as well?
22 MR. SONG: We can talk later.
23 BY MS. MADJIDI:
24 Q The number of gross charges doesn't encompass
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 25 of 173 Page ID #:468
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
25 the full medical expense for that claim. Correct?
53
1 A Repeat the question.
2 Q Sure. We had talked earlier, and you said that
3 the number reflects the portion that Jacobs pays.
4 Correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q So it doesn't necessarily encompass what the
7 medical expense was for that claim?
8 A Correct.
9 Q Do you have any knowledge of what Mr.
10 Concialdi's medical expenses were as a whole for 2014?
11 A No.
12 Q What about 2013?
13 A No.
14 Q Any other year of his employment?
15 A No.
16 Q And if I asked you this again I apologize, but
17 does the company keep track of what an employee's medical
18 expenses are for any given time frame that you're aware
19 of?
20 A No.
21 Q No, you're not aware, or they don't?
22 A They do not.
23 Q Okay. Are you certain of that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q So the portion that Jacobs doesn't pay, do you
54
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 26 of 173 Page ID #:469
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
2 Q Okay. Do you know what determines what the
3 gross charges that Jacobs has to pay for any of the gross
4 charges on this exhibit?
5 A It's going to be based on the design of the
6 plan.
7 Q What about the design of the plan determines
8 what portion Jacobs pays?
9 A So whether they're a deductible to be met and
10 whether or not it's paid at an 80 percent or the $30 --
11 minus the $30 that the member would have to pay.
12 Q So anything that's not covered under the
13 insurance plan is covered by Jacobs?
14 A No.
15 Q Okay.
16 A If it's -- no. If it's not covered by the
17 insurance plan, then it would be covered by the member.
18 Q So what ultimately determines what Jacobs has to
19 pay?
20 A The insurance carrier will inform us of that
21 information, and that would be based on what -- the plan
22 benefits, so again whether or not a deductible has to be
23 met, and then after the deductible, whether it's an
24 expense that's eligible -- well, whether or not the
25 entire expense is eligible, the deductible is applied,
57
1 and then the account $$$$ would pay whatever level of
2 responsibility, whether it's 80 percent.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 27 of 173 Page ID #:470
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
28
CONCIALDI v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP ET. AL. Case No.: 2:17-CV-01068 FMO (GSX)
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 225 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401.
On August 9, 2017, I served the foregoing document, described as “PLAINTIFF
MARK J. CONCIALDI’S AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP ET. AL. ’S PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE REGARDING MEDICAL EXPENSES; REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION" on all interested parties in
this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
Vince M. Verde, Esq.
Thomas Song, Esq.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Steward, P.C.
Park Tower,
695 Town Center Drive, FifteenthFloor,
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(BY MAIL) As follows:
I placed such envelope, with postage thereon prepaid, in the United States mail at
Santa Monica, California.
I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing corre-
spondence 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 Santa
Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion
of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation or
postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in
this affidavit.
(BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I sent such document via electronic mail to the
person(s) noted above.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this Court at whose direction the service was made.
(STATE) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California, that the above is true and correct.
Executed on August 9, 2017, at Santa Monica, California.
Marisa French
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 28 of 173 Page ID #:471
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 29 of 173 Page ID #:472
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 30 of 173 Page ID #:473
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 31 of 173 Page ID #:474
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 32 of 173 Page ID #:475
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 33 of 173 Page ID #:476
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 34 of 173 Page ID #:477
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 35 of 173 Page ID #:478
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 36 of 173 Page ID #:479
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 37 of 173 Page ID #:480
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 38 of 173 Page ID #:481
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 39 of 173 Page ID #:482
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 40 of 173 Page ID #:483
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 41 of 173 Page ID #:484
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 42 of 173 Page ID #:485
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 43 of 173 Page ID #:486
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 44 of 173 Page ID #:487
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 45 of 173 Page ID #:488
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 46 of 173 Page ID #:489
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 47 of 173 Page ID #:490
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 48 of 173 Page ID #:491
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 49 of 173 Page ID #:492
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 50 of 173 Page ID #:493
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 51 of 173 Page ID #:494
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 52 of 173 Page ID #:495
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 53 of 173 Page ID #:496
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 54 of 173 Page ID #:497
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 55 of 173 Page ID #:498
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 56 of 173 Page ID #:499
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 57 of 173 Page ID #:500
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 58 of 173 Page ID #:501
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 59 of 173 Page ID #:502
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 60 of 173 Page ID #:503
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 61 of 173 Page ID #:504
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 62 of 173 Page ID #:505
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 63 of 173 Page ID #:506
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 64 of 173 Page ID #:507
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 65 of 173 Page ID #:508
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 66 of 173 Page ID #:509
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 67 of 173 Page ID #:510
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 68 of 173 Page ID #:511
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 69 of 173 Page ID #:512
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 70 of 173 Page ID #:513
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 71 of 173 Page ID #:514
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 72 of 173 Page ID #:515
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 73 of 173 Page ID #:516
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 74 of 173 Page ID #:517
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 75 of 173 Page ID #:518
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 76 of 173 Page ID #:519
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 77 of 173 Page ID #:520
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 78 of 173 Page ID #:521
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 79 of 173 Page ID #:522
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 80 of 173 Page ID #:523
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 81 of 173 Page ID #:524
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 82 of 173 Page ID #:525
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 83 of 173 Page ID #:526
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 84 of 173 Page ID #:527
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 85 of 173 Page ID #:528
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 86 of 173 Page ID #:529
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 87 of 173 Page ID #:530
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 88 of 173 Page ID #:531
225 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 700 . SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401
PHONE: 310-860-0770 . FAX: 310-860-0771 . WWW.SHEGERIANLAW.COM
September 14, 2017
SENT BY E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL
Thomas Song, Esq.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.
695 Town Center Drive Suite 1500
Costa Mesa, California 92626
thomas.song@ogletree.com
Re: Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group et al
Dear Mr. Song:
Please accept this correspondence as a good faith attempt to meet and confer with
regard to Defendant Jacobs Engineering Group’s PMK Re Medical Expenses’ (for which
Ms. Dolores Rubalcava-Chavez was designated) deficient deposition testimony and
document production on September 11, 2017. The purpose of this letter is to meet and
confer in hopes of resolving these disputes without court intervention.
Please provide your response by no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 20,
2017. In your response, please advise to what Ms. Chavez is available before
October 1, 2017 for an additional day of deposition, and whether you will produce
the unredacted version of the documents referenced above.
As detailed further below, we are requesting that Ms. Chavez make herself
available for an additional day of deposition and provide answers to the following items,
as well as produce documents batestamped JACOBS000359 – JACOBS000416 without
any redactions on the gross charges column, which we reserve the right to question Ms.
Chavez about as well.
In addition to questioning surrounding the documents referenced above, we intend
to request Ms. Chavez to provide responses to the following:
What Insurance Plans Defendant offered from 2009 – 2013
What Insurance Plans Plaintiff was on for the time frame of 2009 – 2013
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 89 of 173 Page ID #:532
Thomas Song, Esq.
September 14, 2017
Page 2
If we are unable to resolve these matters by that date, we intend to file an ex parte
application to address these issues with the court as the discovery cutoff is approaching
and there will not be enough time to file a motion to compel given the date the deposition
had to be scheduled.
Below are the page and line numbers from the rough version of the transcript (see
attached for relevant portions of rough transcript) referencing the items above:
Insurance Plans Defendant Offered
A) Chavez Dep., 36:8-16
Question was regarding what plans were in place in 2009. Witness instructed not to
answer as “outside the scope of testimony.” This information is foundational and is
inherently encompassed in topics 2, 3, 4 and 12 of the deposition notice. Thus, it is not
outside the scope.
B) Chavez Dep., 36:18-20
Same as part A above, but for 2010.
C) Chavez Dep., 37:16-19
Same as A above, but for 2011.
Insurance Plans Plaintiff was On
Here, the witness testified that she only had knowledge of what insurance plans
Plaintiff was on for the time frame of 2013 – April of 2016. (Chavez Dep., 38:12-14).
This is directly covered by topics 2, 3, and 4; and encompassed in nearly all the topics, as
the plan he was on effects what his medical expenses are according to the witness’
testimony. (Chavez Dep., 57:2-11).
The witness went on to testify that her efforts to obtain this information for the
time frame prior to 2013 would have been the same as what she had done to obtain this
information for 2013 – April of 2016. (Chavez Dep., 43:12-20). The witness testified
she also would have needed to review the same documents to obtain this information for
an earlier time frame. (Chavez Dep., 43:18-20).
When asked why she did look at the time prior to 2013, she was unable to respond
without revealing attorney-client privilege. (Chavez Dep., 44:2-10). Ms. Chavez’s
testimony revealed that minimal efforts needed to be made for her to obtain the
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 90 of 173 Page ID #:533
Thomas Song, Esq.
September 14, 2017
Page 3
information for the remaining time frame plaintiff was employed by the defendant, and as
such, the witness’ testimony is deficient.
Document Production
A series of documents were produced for this deposition, but were almost entirely
redacted. Apparently, on the basis of privacy concerns. However, the “gross charges”
column of the document that was redacted does not fall under any purported privacy
concern. This was discussed by counsel during the deposition. (Chavez Dep., 53:13-22).
As such, we request that a revised version of these documents be produced.
Furthermore, the documents need to be produced in advance of October 1, 2017, or by the
date that Ms. Chavez is scheduled for her second date of deposition, whichever is sooner.
Please provide your response by no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 20,
2017 and advise as to whether you will produce the documents and Ms. Chavez for
an additional day of deposition sometime before October 1, 2017. Thank you for your
anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or
comments regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES
Carney R. Shegerian
CRS/mm
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 91 of 173 Page ID #:534
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 92 of 173 Page ID #:535
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
8 Q Do you know if these four plans that we went
9 over, if those were in place in 2009 as well?
10 MR. SONG: Well, objection. Outside the scope
11 of testimony. I'll instruct her not to answer.
12 BY MS. MADJIDI:
13 Q Are you going to follow your counsel's
14 instructions?
15 A Yes.
16 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
17 BY MS. MADJIDI:
18 Q Do you know if these four plans were in place in
19 2010?
20 MR. SONG: Same objection.
21 MS. MADJIDI: She is looking at you to see if
22 you're going to instruct her not to answer or not.
23 MR. SONG: The same objection.
24 BY MS. MADJIDI:
25 Q Okay, so you can answer.
36
1 MR. SONG: Excuse me. Same objection which I
2 instructed the witness not to answer. Don't put words
3 into my witness' mouth.
4 MS. MADJIDI: I'm not.
5 MR. SONG: And don't put words into my mouth.
6 MS. MADJIDI: That's argumentative, could you
7 please.
8 MR. SONG: I know because you're putting words
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 93 of 173 Page ID #:536
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
9 in my mouth. The same objection stands.
10 MS. MADJIDI: Counsel --
11 MR. SONG: Yes?
12 MS. MADJIDI: -- I hope there is not going to be
13 a need to stop this deposition.
14 MR. SONG: I hope so too, I do.
15 BY MS. MADJIDI:
16 Q What about 2011, do you have any knowledge of
17 whether or not these four plans were in place in 2011?
18 MR. SONG: Objection. Outside the scope of
19 topics. Instruct the witness not to answer.
20 BY MS. MADJIDI:
21 Q Are you going to follow your counsel's
22 instruction?
23 A Yes.
24 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
25 BY MS. MADJIDI:
37
1 Q Just for clarification, you didn't object to
2 anything with regards to topic number 1, did you?
3 MR. SONG: I don't know. It was delivered to
4 your office. I didn't know you didn't have a copy of it
5 or I would have brought it. Yeah, there were objections
6 to 1 too but that's for the time frame 2013 to his term.
7 MS. MADJIDI: Let's go off the record for one
8 second.
9 MR. SONG: Yes.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 94 of 173 Page ID #:537
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
10 (Discussion held off the record.)
11 MS. MADJIDI: We can go back on.
12 Q Do you know what medical plan Mark Concialdi was
13 on in 2006?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you know what benefit plan Mark Concialdi was
16 on at any point during his employment?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What period of his employment are you aware of
19 what plan Mr. Concialdi was on?
20 A 2013 to the time of his termination.
21 Q Do you know when the time of his termination is?
22 A It was April of 2016.
23 Q And other than that time frame, you have no
24 knowledge of --
25 A No.
38
1 Q -- anything regarding Mr. Concialdi's benefits?
2 A Say that again.
3 Q Other than anything out side of that time frame
4 you have no personal knowledge of anything regarding Mr.
5 Concialdi's benefits?
6 A Correct.
7 Q What plan was he on for that time frame that you
8 do have knowledge of?
9 A In '13 he was on the choice plus PPO, and from
10 '14 to his termination he was on the choice plus HD HPA.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 95 of 173 Page ID #:538
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:27:47 PM]
14 frame you did for today?
15 A Yes.
16 Q So would it have caused you to have to look --
17 log into any kind of a different system to obtain the
18 information for the time frame prior to 2013?
19 A This is for the plan, what the plan covers.
20 Right?
21 Q Yes.
22 A No.
23 Q What about with regard to what plan Mr.
24 Concialdi may have been on prior to 2013, would your
25 search efforts to prepare yourself for the time frame of
42
1 2013 to 2016 have been the same for the time frame prior
2 to 2013?
3 MR. SONG: Objection. What -- vague, confusing.
4 What -- you said the medical plan, is that what you have
5 said, the search for the medical plan?
6 MS. MADJIDI: The medical plan, correct.
7 MR. SONG: Was the previous question about
8 medical plans? Okay, tip. If you understand the
9 question. Otherwise ask her to repeat the question.
10 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
11 BY MS. MADJIDI:
12 Q Sure. So with regard to what you did to find
13 out what medical plan Mr. Concialdi was on for the time
14 frame of 2013 through his termination, would your efforts
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 96 of 173 Page ID #:539
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
15 to look for this information for the time frame prior to
16 2013 have been the same?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Would you have had to look at the same documents
19 and information to obtain that information?
20 A Yes.
21 MR. SONG: Well, I'm going to -- well, hold on a
22 second. I'm going to object that that calls for
23 speculation. Don't assume. Vague and ambiguous,
24 incomplete hypothetical. You can answer the question.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
43
1 BY MS. MADJIDI:
2 Q You may not be able to answer this question
3 without revealing privilege, but why didn't you look at
4 an earlier time frame than 2013?
5 MR. SONG: Objection. Attorney-client
6 privilege. Don't answer.
7 BY MS. MADJIDI:
8 Q And you're going to follow your counsel's
9 instructions?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
12 MS. MADJIDI: I'm just asking. I'm not trying
13 to be rude.
14 MR. SONG: I'm just telling every time you're
15 going to ask.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 97 of 173 Page ID #:540
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
16 BY MS. MADJIDI:
17 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Concialdi
18 incurred any medical expenses during his employment at
19 Jacobs?
20 A No.
21 Q You don't know, or he did not?
22 A I don't know.
23 Q Okay. Do you have that knowledge for any
24 specific time frame?
25 A I'm sorry. Can you repeat the last question?
44
1 Q Sure. Do you have any personal knowledge of
2 whether or not Mr. Concialdi incurred any medical
3 expenses throughout his employment?
4 A Personal knowledge, no.
5 Q Do you have any other basis of knowledge of
6 whether or not Mr. Concialdi incurred any medical
7 expenses during his employment at Jacobs?
8 A Only based on this detailed report.
9 Q So let's take a look at this report. Can you
10 tell me what it is?
11 A It's a detailed report which provides the gross
12 charges of expenses incurred.
13 Q And so gross charges are the charges without
14 anything being deducted, injures the total payment that's
15 owed for any medical benefit?
16 MR. SONG: Well, objection. Assumes facts not
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 98 of 173 Page ID #:541
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:27:47 PM]
24 to have multiple items of charges for a given time frame
25 on this report?
52
1 MR. SONG: Objection. Calls for speculation,
2 lacks foundation. You can answer the question if you
3 understand, or ask for clarification.
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you can clarify, please.
5 BY MS. MADJIDI:
6 Q Sure. For example, on this one there are three
7 different line items for Mark Concialdi with three
8 different sets of charges. Is it common for an
9 individual to have multiple sets of charges for a given
10 time period?
11 A I don't know.
12 Q Okay.
13 And, Counsel, this is for you. Everything is
14 redacted except for Mark Concialdi. Is that for privacy
15 reasons?
16 MR. SONG: Yes. That's other employees. Yeah.
17 MS. MADJIDI: Can you provide me with a chart
18 that reveals what the gross charges are but the other
19 information is redacted, because that would encompass the
20 privacy concerns that you have and also give me what I'm
21 looking for as well?
22 MR. SONG: We can talk later.
23 BY MS. MADJIDI:
24 Q The number of gross charges doesn't encompass
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 99 of 173 Page ID #:542
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
25 the full medical expense for that claim. Correct?
53
1 A Repeat the question.
2 Q Sure. We had talked earlier, and you said that
3 the number reflects the portion that Jacobs pays.
4 Correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q So it doesn't necessarily encompass what the
7 medical expense was for that claim?
8 A Correct.
9 Q Do you have any knowledge of what Mr.
10 Concialdi's medical expenses were as a whole for 2014?
11 A No.
12 Q What about 2013?
13 A No.
14 Q Any other year of his employment?
15 A No.
16 Q And if I asked you this again I apologize, but
17 does the company keep track of what an employee's medical
18 expenses are for any given time frame that you're aware
19 of?
20 A No.
21 Q No, you're not aware, or they don't?
22 A They do not.
23 Q Okay. Are you certain of that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q So the portion that Jacobs doesn't pay, do you
54
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 100 of 173 Page ID
#:543
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
2 Q Okay. Do you know what determines what the
3 gross charges that Jacobs has to pay for any of the gross
4 charges on this exhibit?
5 A It's going to be based on the design of the
6 plan.
7 Q What about the design of the plan determines
8 what portion Jacobs pays?
9 A So whether they're a deductible to be met and
10 whether or not it's paid at an 80 percent or the $30 --
11 minus the $30 that the member would have to pay.
12 Q So anything that's not covered under the
13 insurance plan is covered by Jacobs?
14 A No.
15 Q Okay.
16 A If it's -- no. If it's not covered by the
17 insurance plan, then it would be covered by the member.
18 Q So what ultimately determines what Jacobs has to
19 pay?
20 A The insurance carrier will inform us of that
21 information, and that would be based on what -- the plan
22 benefits, so again whether or not a deductible has to be
23 met, and then after the deductible, whether it's an
24 expense that's eligible -- well, whether or not the
25 entire expense is eligible, the deductible is applied,
57
1 and then the account $$$$ would pay whatever level of
2 responsibility, whether it's 80 percent.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 101 of 173 Page ID
#:544
EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 102 of 173 Page ID
#:545
Thomas Song
(714) 800-7900
thomas.song@ogletree.com
VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
Mahru Madjidi, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES
225 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
31 0-860-0770; Fax: 310-860-0771
mmadjidi(a)shegerianlaw.com
September 25, 2017
RE: Mark J Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01068 FMO (GJSx)
Dear Ms. Madjidi:
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
Park Tower, Suite 1500
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 714.800.7900
Facsimile: 714.754.1298
www.ogletreedeakins.com
This letter is in response to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter dated Sept. 14, 2017. In
your letter you request that Defendant produce Ms. Dolores Rubalcava-Chavez (Ms. Chavez) for
an additional day of deposition in order to ask her questions pertaining to the following:
1.) What insurance plans Defendant offered from 2009-2013.
2.) What insurance plans Plaintiff was on for the time frame of2009-2013.
3.) You also request that documents Bates labeled JACOBS000359-416 be produced
with the "gross charges" column unredacted.
You state in your letter that you reserve the right to ask questions to Ms. Chavez
regarding the information contained in the "gross charges" column.
This deposition was already noticed and taken by Plaintiffs counsel on September 11,
2017. The only objection you made regarding the completion of the deposition was that you
held open the deposition in case documents Bates labeled JACOBS000359-416 were produced
without the right-most column ("gross charges") being redacted. As explained below, Defendant
produced documents that are responsive to your request for production. No further action is
required.
Regardless, the topic "What insurance plans Defendant offered from 2009-2013," was
never a noticed topic. Your claim that the requested information was "inherently encompassed"
in topics noticed for deposition is not accurate, as you never noticed a topic regarding insurance
plans Defendant offered. In fact, the only topic that refers to an insurance plan is Topic No. 4,
which lists "Any changes to Plaintiffs Medical Insurance/Medical Insurance Plan .... "
Defendant also objected in that the request failed to describe the topic for examination with
Atlanta • Austin • &-rlin (Germany) • Bioningham • Boston • Charleston • Charlotte • Chicago • Cleveland • Columbia • Dallas • Denver
Detroit Metro Greenville Houston Indiampolis Jackson Kansas City Las V cgas Los .Angeles Memphis
Miami • Minneapolis • Morristown • Nashville • New Orleans • New York City • Ornngc County • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Pittsbwgh
Porrland • Raleigh • St Louis • St. Thomas • San Antonio • San Diego • San Ftancisco • Stamford • Tampa • Torrance • Tucson • Washington
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 103 of 173 Page ID
#:546
September 25, 2017
Page 2
reasonable particularity. (See response to Plaintiff's amended notice of taking deposition of
Defendant's PMK re: medical expenses.)
Additionally, what insurance plans Defendant offered from 2009-2013 is not relevant to
this case, as Plaintiff does not allege any wrongful conduct occurred until around July of 2015.
Therefore, although insurance plans are not relevant to begin with, surely any information
regarding insurance plans in place during 2009-2013 is irrelevant to any of Plaintiff's claims.
This line of questioning was outside the scope of noticed topics, overbroad, and disproportionate
to the needs of this case pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b )(I).
Regarding "What insurance plans Plaintiffwas onfor the time frame of2009-2013," this
information is not relevant to any claims of Plaintiff, and therefore is not proportional to the
needs of this case pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l). Again, Plaintiff in his
complaint does not allege any wrongful conduct until July of 2015, which makes any
information regarding insurance plans, especially those that Plaintiff was on back during 2009-
2013, completely overbroad, irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this litigation.
Furthermore, the only noticed topic that mentions the term "insurance plan" is Topic No.
4, which states, "Any changes to Plaintiff's Medical Insurance/Medical Insurance Plan .... " This
topic refers only to changes to Plaintiff's plan, and to the extent you are alleging it also required
Defendant to produce a witness regarding all insurance plans Plaintiff was on between 2009-
2013, Defendant additionally objects in that Plaintiff failed to identify with reasonable
particularity the subject topic. (See response to Plaintiff's amended notice of taking deposition
ofDefendant's PMK re: medical expenses.)
Despite these objections, Defendant allowed for limited questioning back through the
year 2013, which is over three (3) years prior to Plaintiff's termination date and over two (2)
years prior to any alleged wrongful conduct in Plaintiff's complaint. To continue to request
information back to 2009 is simply irrelevant, excessive and disproportionate to the needs of
discovery.
Finally, regarding your request to unredact the "gross charges" column in documents
Bates labeled JACOBS000359-416, this request is wholly unfounded and certainly does not
require Ms. Chavez to return for another full day of deposition. First of all, the documents you
requested in the subject deposition notice specifically requested "documents that reflect
Plaintiff's medical expenses .... " (See Plaintiff's amended notice of taking deposition of
Defendant's PMK re: medical expenses, Request for Production No. 1.) Defendant produced the
above documents showing Plaintiff Mark Concialdi's information, and only redacted out
information that pertains to other individuals. Therefore, Defendant produced responsive
documents and nothing more is needed.
Furthermore, your request to unredact the "gross charges" column to show other charges
outside of Mr. Concialdi's is irrelevant, overbroad, and disproportionate to this case. It also is
nonsensical that you would have any need for this information, for the information in that
column would be nothing more than a series of random figures that are of no relevance to this
action. This was brought to your attention during the deposition on Sept. 11, 2017, and you did
not provide me with any basis for how the information that was redacted under the "gross
charges" column would be relevant or necessary to discovery.
In summary, there simply is no legal basis for this Information to be produced,
notwithstanding the fact that you did not request this information to begin with. Surely, your
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 104 of 173 Page ID
#:547
September 25, 2017
Page 3
request to have Ms. Chavez appear for another day of deposition and questioning on documents
that were never requested to begin with cannot be viewed as reasonable.
I am happy to discuss these matters in further detail in order to avoid any unnecessary
motion practice with the Court.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Song
31327468.1
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 105 of 173 Page ID
#:548
EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 106 of 173 Page ID
#:549
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO
AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Arizona Avenue, Suite 400
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK J. CONCIALDI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP;
and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-(GJSx)
The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin
PLAINTIFF MARK J. CONCIALDI’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF
FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION
CUTOFF DATE SO AS TO ALLOW
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF
DATE
(Filed concurrently with Declaration of
Mahru Madjidi and [Proposed] Order)
Courtroom: 6D
Action Filed: December 9, 2016
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:308Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 107 of 173 Page ID
#:550
-2-
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE
TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff MARK CONCIALDI respectfully applies
to his Honorable Court for an order granting Plaintiff’s request for relief from the
discovery motion cutoff date so as to allow motion to compel deposition to be heard past
the cutoff date.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-19, on October 4, 2017 at 9:40 a.m., THOMAS B. SONG
of OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STWEART, P.C. (address: 695 Town
Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, telephone: 714-800-7980, fax:
714-754-1298), counsel of record for defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP,
was given notice of this ex parte application. Counsel has indicated they will oppose
this application.
This application is based on Plaintiff’s request for relief from the discovery motion
date so as to allow plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition to be heard in November, the
attached declaration of Mahru Madjidi, exhibits and the files and records in this case.
Dated: October 5, 2017 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
MARK CONCIALDI
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:309Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 108 of 173 Page ID
#:551
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO
AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. SUMMARY OF RELIEF
Plaintiffs MARK J. CONCIALDI brings this ex parte application to seek relief
from the discovery motion cutoff date, currently set for October 20, 2017, so as to allow
the motion to compel deposition that plaintiff intends to file to be heard on November
16, 2017, or alternatively, on November 30, 2016. Due to good faith meet and confer
efforts to attempt to resolve outstanding issues surrounding defendant’s witnesses
deficient testimony and document production, the time has passed for plaintiff to set a
hearing date for the motion before the discovery motion cutoff date.
After over a month of engaging in efforts to schedule the deposition of defendant’s
person most knowledgeable regarding plaintiff’s medical expenses, the deposition was
scheduled for September 11, 2017. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 2.) During the deposition, the
witness provided insufficient responses and produced documents that were almost
entirely redacted, without any justification for a vast majority of the redactions. (Madjidi
Decl., ¶ 3.) Despite plaintiff’s counsel’s diligent efforts to meet and confer, and what
appeared to be progress made with regard resolving these issues outside court
intervention, defendant provided a final response on October 2, 2017 indicating they will
neither produce the unredacted documents, nor the witness for an additional day of
testimony. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 7.) Due to defendant’s need for additional time during the
meet and confer process, plaintiff’s counsel is now unable to provide the requisite notice
required to have the motion to compel deposition heard before the motion discovery
cutoff date. (Id.)
As a result, plaintiff brings this ex parte application seeking relief from the
discovery motion cutoff date so as to allow the motion to compel deposition hearing date
to be set on November 16, or November 30, 2017 to prevent plaintiff from suffering
prejudice due to defendant’s need for additional time to meet and confer.
///
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:310Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 109 of 173 Page ID
#:552
-2-
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO
AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
2. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND MEET AND CONFER
EFFORTS
The person most knowledgeable regarding plaintiff’s medical expenses deposition
was taken on September 11, 2017, but left open for an additional day due to deficient
testimony and document production. (Madjidi Decl. at ¶ 3). The discovery motion cutoff
date is October 20, 2017. (Madjidi Decl. at ¶ 7). After engaging in what appeared to be
meaningful and good faith meet and confer efforts, due to the duration of time that meet
and confer efforts took, plaintiff is now unable to provide the requisite 28 days’ notice
and have the motion heard within the discovery motion cutoff date. (Id.) Thus, plaintiff
requests to set the hearing date for a subsequent motion to compel that plaintiff intends
to file on November 16 or November 30, 2017, which is past the discovery cutoff date.
Plaintiff mailed and emailed defendant a detailed meet and confer letter on
September 14, 2017. (Madjidi Decl., ¶¶ 4; 9; Exhibit 1.) The letter requested that
documents be produced without a redaction of the “gross charges” column, so as to
provide plaintiff with the necessary information needed, while still being conscience of
any privacy concerns. (Id.) Additionally, despite the timeline noticed, the letter also
stated that the witness only had knowledge of the noticed topics for only the last few
years of plaintiff’s employment, the witness testified that she could have reviewed the
very same documents in preparation for the deposition to have knowledge of the
information for the other years of plaintiff’s employment. (Madjidi Decl., at ¶ 3; Exhibit
1.) In the letter, plaintiff requested a response from defendant by September 20, 2017.
(Madjidi Decl., at ¶ 4; Exhibit 1.) On September 20, counsel for defendant emailed
plaintiff’s counsel indicating that he will be out of town for a business trip and needs
until September 25, 2017 to respond. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 5; Exhibit 3.) In a good faith
effort to attempt to resolve the issue outside of court intervention, plaintiff’s counsel
agreed to the additional time defendant needed to respond. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 7.)
Defendant responded via letter on September 25, 2017, disagreeing with plaintiff’s
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:311Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 110 of 173 Page ID
#:553
-3-
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO
AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
positions, but requesting that the parties have a discussion in an effort to avoid court
intervention. (Madjidi Decl. at ¶ 5; Exhibit 2).
On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff and defendant’s counsel met and conferred via
email and telephone, per defense counsel’s request in their letter. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 6.)
Defendant’s appeared open to the request after further discussion, and requested time to
go back and look further into the matter. (Id.) The parties discussed the option of
producing documents with the information that plaintiff was seeking, in addition to a less
redacted version of the document already produced so that the gross charges column was
visible, in an effort to try to avoid compelling a second day of deposition (Id.)
Defendant’s counsel stated he would respond with a substantive answer about these
requests by October 2, 2017 at 12 p.m. (Id.).
On October 2, 2017 at approximately 3 p.m., defendant’s counsel emailed
plaintiff’s counsel stating defendant will not agree to produce documents or the witness
for an additional day of deposition. (Madjidi Decl. ¶ 7; Exhibit 4). Subsequently, on
October 4, 2017, defendant was given notice of this ex parte application. (Madjidi Decl.,
¶ 8; Exhibit 5.)
3. ARGUMENT
A. The Court May Grant Relief from the Discovery Motion Cutoff Date
Pursuant to an Ex Parte Application.
A court has discretion when it comes to ruling on matters surrounding discovery
related deadlines. Hernandez v. Superior Court, (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1247.
Furthermore, a scheduling order may be modified for good cause with the judge’s
consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d
604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the court has authority to grant plaintiff relief from the
motion discovery cutoff date.
///
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:312Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 111 of 173 Page ID
#:554
-4-
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO
AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
B. Good Cause Exists for the Court to Grant Plaintiff Relief from the
Discovery Motion Date and to Grant an Extension for the Motion to
Compel Deposition.
Good cause for relief exists because the reason for plaintiff’s need for relief to set a
hearing date for the motion to compel deposition beyond the discovery motion cutoff
date is a result of plaintiff’s good faith efforts meet and confer efforts with defendant on
the aforementioned issues. Plaintiff afforded defendant the time they requested they
needed in order to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts so that it could be
determined if the parties were going to reach a resolution of these issues outside of court
intervention. Because of these efforts, Plaintiff was not able to set a hearing date for the
motion within the October 20, 2017 deadline. If plaintiff is not granted relief from the
discovery motion cutoff date, plaintiff will be prejudiced for engaging in good faith
efforts to resolve these issues with defense counsel.
4. NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION GIVEN
On October 4, 2017 at 9:40 a.m., THOMAS B. SONG of OGLETREE, DEAKINS,
NASH, SMOAK & STWEART, P.C. (address: 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626, telephone: 714-800-7980, fax: 714-754-1298), counsel of record
for defendant JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, was given notice of this ex parte
application. (Madjidi Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibit 5.) Defendant’s counsel indicated defendant will
oppose the ex parte application. (Id.)
///
///
///
///
///
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:313Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 112 of 173 Page ID
#:555
-5-
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO
AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
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
28
5. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
approve the application and execute the attached [Proposed] Order, which requests for
relief from the discovery motion cutoff date so as to allow the hearing for the motion to
compel deposition to take place on November 16, 2017 or November 30, 2017.
Dated: October 5, 2017 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
MARK CONCIALDI
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:314Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 113 of 173 Page ID
#:556
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
28
Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group USDC CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-01068 FMO (GJSx)
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 225 Arizona
Avenue, Suite 400, Santa Monica, California 90401.
On October 5, 2017, I served the foregoing document, described as “PLAINTIFF
MARK J. CONCIALDI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE
DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE SO AS TO ALLOW MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE” on all
interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope,
addressed as follows:
Vince M. Verde, Esq.
Thomas B. Song, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the
document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the
case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.
Participants in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or
by other means permitted by the court rules.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on October 5, 2017, at Santa Monica, California.
Jose Castro
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:315Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 114 of 173 Page ID
#:557
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI ISO EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
28
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
MARK J. CONCIALDI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK J. CONCIALDI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-(GJSx)
The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MARK J.
CONCIALDI’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM
THE DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF
DATE TO ALLOW MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD
PAST THE CUTOFF DATE
(Filed concurrently with Ex Parte Application
and [Proposed] Order)
Courtroom: 6D
Action Filed: December 9, 2016
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 54 Page ID #:316Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 15 of 173 Page ID
#:558
-2-
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI ISO EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
28
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI
I, Mahru Madjidi, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly authorized to practice law before all of the courts
of the State of California. I am an associate at Shegerian & Associates, Inc., the counsel
of record for plaintiff in this case. I am familiar with the files, pleadings, and facts in
this case and could and would competently testify to the following facts on the basis of
my own personal knowledge.
2. After at least one month of efforts to schedule the deposition of defendant’s
person most knowledgeable regarding plaintiff’s medical expenses, the deposition was
scheduled for September 11, 2017.
3. During the deposition, the witness provided insufficient responses and produced
documents that was almost entirely redacted, without any justification for a majority of
the redactions. The witness further testified that in order to obtain the insurance
information that had been requested in the topics noticed (for the entire duration of
plaintiff’s employment) she only needed to review the very same documents she
reviewed for the few years of plaintiff’s employment that she was prepared to testify
about. I left the deposition open for an additional day knowing I may need to compel
additional testimony and document production.
4. After the deposition, I immediately requested a copy of the rough transcript,
and sent out a meet and confer letter on September 14, 2017 addressing the deficiencies
in the witness’s testimony and document production. I requested a response by
September 20. Defendant’s counsel responded on September 20 indicating that he was
going to be out of town for a business trip and needed until September 25 to respond. I
agreed with their request.
5. On September 25, 2017 I received a letter response from defendant’s counsel
which disagreed with plaintiff’s position on the matter, but which concluded with a
suggestion that the parties discuss the matter further to avoid court intervention if
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 54 Page ID #:317Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 116 of 173 Page ID
#:559
-3-
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI ISO EX PARTE APPLICATION
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
28
possible.
6. I followed up with defendant’s counsel and we further discussed the matter on
September 27, 2017. It appeared that we had made some progress and that if certain
documents were produced it would be unnecessary to call the witness in for a second day
of deposition testimony. Defendant’s counsel requested until the following Monday,
October second to get back to me. I requested that he let me know his final position by
noon that day.
7. I received a meet and confer email from defendant on October 2, 2017 at
approximately 3 p.m., indicating defendant could not comply with Plaintiff’s request.
Due to good faith efforts to meet and confer surrounding the matter and providing
defendant’s counsel the time they indicated they needed to provide a meaningful
response and potentially resolve the issues, I am unable to set the hearing date before the
motion discovery date for this matter (which is October 20, 2017).
8. On October 4, 2017, I called defendant’s counsel and left him a message giving
him notice of the ex parte. Shortly thereafter, I followed up my voicemail with an email
notifying defense counsel of the same. Defense counsel responded that they intended to
oppose the ex parte.
9. Attached as Exhibit 1 herein is a true and correct copy of the meet and confer
letter that was mailed and emailed to defense counsel on September 14, 2017.
10. Attached as Exhibit 2 herein is a true and correct copy of defendant’s
September 25, 2017 letter in response to my meet and confer letter.
11. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the email correspondence
between myself and defense counsel, Thomas Song, reflecting some of our meet and
confer efforts surrounding this issue.
12. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the email correspondence
reflecting Mr. Song’s response on October 2, 2017 that they were not agreeable to
producing the less redacted version of the documents requested, or the witness for a
second day of deposition.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 54 Page ID #:318Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 117 of 173 Page ID
#:560
13. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the email I sent following up
2 from my phone call providing notice of this ex parte to Mr. Song, and his response
3 indicating that he will oppose the ex parte.
4 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of
5 the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Executed on this 5th day of October, 2017, at Santa Monica, California.
/ti �
Mahru Madjidi, Esq.
-4-
DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI ISO EX PARTE APPLICATION
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 54 Page ID #:319Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 118 of 173 Page ID
#:561
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of 54 Page ID #:320Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 119 of 173 Page ID
#:562
225 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 700 . SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401
PHONE: 310-860-0770 . FAX: 310-860-0771 . WWW.SHEGERIANLAW.COM
September 14, 2017
SENT BY E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL
Thomas Song, Esq.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.
695 Town Center Drive Suite 1500
Costa Mesa, California 92626
thomas.song@ogletree.com
Re: Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group et al
Dear Mr. Song:
Please accept this correspondence as a good faith attempt to meet and confer with
regard to Defendant Jacobs Engineering Group’s PMK Re Medical Expenses’ (for which
Ms. Dolores Rubalcava-Chavez was designated) deficient deposition testimony and
document production on September 11, 2017. The purpose of this letter is to meet and
confer in hopes of resolving these disputes without court intervention.
Please provide your response by no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 20,
2017. In your response, please advise to what Ms. Chavez is available before
October 1, 2017 for an additional day of deposition, and whether you will produce
the unredacted version of the documents referenced above.
As detailed further below, we are requesting that Ms. Chavez make herself
available for an additional day of deposition and provide answers to the following items,
as well as produce documents batestamped JACOBS000359 – JACOBS000416 without
any redactions on the gross charges column, which we reserve the right to question Ms.
Chavez about as well.
In addition to questioning surrounding the documents referenced above, we intend
to request Ms. Chavez to provide responses to the following:
What Insurance Plans Defendant offered from 2009 – 2013
What Insurance Plans Plaintiff was on for the time frame of 2009 – 2013
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 54 Page ID #:321Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 120 of 173 Page ID
#:563
Thomas Song, Esq.
September 14, 2017
Page 2
If we are unable to resolve these matters by that date, we intend to file an ex parte
application to address these issues with the court as the discovery cutoff is approaching
and there will not be enough time to file a motion to compel given the date the deposition
had to be scheduled.
Below are the page and line numbers from the rough version of the transcript (see
attached for relevant portions of rough transcript) referencing the items above:
Insurance Plans Defendant Offered
A) Chavez Dep., 36:8-16
Question was regarding what plans were in place in 2009. Witness instructed not to
answer as “outside the scope of testimony.” This information is foundational and is
inherently encompassed in topics 2, 3, 4 and 12 of the deposition notice. Thus, it is not
outside the scope.
B) Chavez Dep., 36:18-20
Same as part A above, but for 2010.
C) Chavez Dep., 37:16-19
Same as A above, but for 2011.
Insurance Plans Plaintiff was On
Here, the witness testified that she only had knowledge of what insurance plans
Plaintiff was on for the time frame of 2013 – April of 2016. (Chavez Dep., 38:12-14).
This is directly covered by topics 2, 3, and 4; and encompassed in nearly all the topics, as
the plan he was on effects what his medical expenses are according to the witness’
testimony. (Chavez Dep., 57:2-11).
The witness went on to testify that her efforts to obtain this information for the
time frame prior to 2013 would have been the same as what she had done to obtain this
information for 2013 – April of 2016. (Chavez Dep., 43:12-20). The witness testified
she also would have needed to review the same documents to obtain this information for
an earlier time frame. (Chavez Dep., 43:18-20).
When asked why she did look at the time prior to 2013, she was unable to respond
without revealing attorney-client privilege. (Chavez Dep., 44:2-10). Ms. Chavez’s
testimony revealed that minimal efforts needed to be made for her to obtain the
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 54 Page ID #:322Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 121 of 173 Page ID
#:564
Thomas Song, Esq.
September 14, 2017
Page 3
information for the remaining time frame plaintiff was employed by the defendant, and as
such, the witness’ testimony is deficient.
Document Production
A series of documents were produced for this deposition, but were almost entirely
redacted. Apparently, on the basis of privacy concerns. However, the “gross charges”
column of the document that was redacted does not fall under any purported privacy
concern. This was discussed by counsel during the deposition. (Chavez Dep., 53:13-22).
As such, we request that a revised version of these documents be produced.
Furthermore, the documents need to be produced in advance of October 1, 2017, or by the
date that Ms. Chavez is scheduled for her second date of deposition, whichever is sooner.
Please provide your response by no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 20,
2017 and advise as to whether you will produce the documents and Ms. Chavez for
an additional day of deposition sometime before October 1, 2017. Thank you for your
anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or
comments regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES
Carney R. Shegerian
CRS/mm
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 8 of 54 Page ID #:323Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 122 of 173 Page ID
#:565
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 9 of 54 Page ID #:324Case 2:17-cv- 1068-FMO-GJS Document 44 il /27/ 123 of 173 Page ID
#:566
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
8 Q Do you know if these four plans that we went
9 over, if those were in place in 2009 as well?
10 MR. SONG: Well, objection. Outside the scope
11 of testimony. I'll instruct her not to answer.
12 BY MS. MADJIDI:
13 Q Are you going to follow your counsel's
14 instructions?
15 A Yes.
16 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
17 BY MS. MADJIDI:
18 Q Do you know if these four plans were in place in
19 2010?
20 MR. SONG: Same objection.
21 MS. MADJIDI: She is looking at you to see if
22 you're going to instruct her not to answer or not.
23 MR. SONG: The same objection.
24 BY MS. MADJIDI:
25 Q Okay, so you can answer.
36
1 MR. SONG: Excuse me. Same objection which I
2 instructed the witness not to answer. Don't put words
3 into my witness' mouth.
4 MS. MADJIDI: I'm not.
5 MR. SONG: And don't put words into my mouth.
6 MS. MADJIDI: That's argumentative, could you
7 please.
8 MR. SONG: I know because you're putting words
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 10 of 54 Page ID
#:325
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 124 of 173 I
567
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
9 in my mouth. The same objection stands.
10 MS. MADJIDI: Counsel --
11 MR. SONG: Yes?
12 MS. MADJIDI: -- I hope there is not going to be
13 a need to stop this deposition.
14 MR. SONG: I hope so too, I do.
15 BY MS. MADJIDI:
16 Q What about 2011, do you have any knowledge of
17 whether or not these four plans were in place in 2011?
18 MR. SONG: Objection. Outside the scope of
19 topics. Instruct the witness not to answer.
20 BY MS. MADJIDI:
21 Q Are you going to follow your counsel's
22 instruction?
23 A Yes.
24 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
25 BY MS. MADJIDI:
37
1 Q Just for clarification, you didn't object to
2 anything with regards to topic number 1, did you?
3 MR. SONG: I don't know. It was delivered to
4 your office. I didn't know you didn't have a copy of it
5 or I would have brought it. Yeah, there were objections
6 to 1 too but that's for the time frame 2013 to his term.
7 MS. MADJIDI: Let's go off the record for one
8 second.
9 MR. SONG: Yes.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 11 of 54 Page ID
#:326
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 125 of 173 I
568
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
10 (Discussion held off the record.)
11 MS. MADJIDI: We can go back on.
12 Q Do you know what medical plan Mark Concialdi was
13 on in 2006?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you know what benefit plan Mark Concialdi was
16 on at any point during his employment?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What period of his employment are you aware of
19 what plan Mr. Concialdi was on?
20 A 2013 to the time of his termination.
21 Q Do you know when the time of his termination is?
22 A It was April of 2016.
23 Q And other than that time frame, you have no
24 knowledge of --
25 A No.
38
1 Q -- anything regarding Mr. Concialdi's benefits?
2 A Say that again.
3 Q Other than anything out side of that time frame
4 you have no personal knowledge of anything regarding Mr.
5 Concialdi's benefits?
6 A Correct.
7 Q What plan was he on for that time frame that you
8 do have knowledge of?
9 A In '13 he was on the choice plus PPO, and from
10 '14 to his termination he was on the choice plus HD HPA.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 12 of 54 Page ID
#:327
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 126 of 173 I
569
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:27:47 PM]
14 frame you did for today?
15 A Yes.
16 Q So would it have caused you to have to look --
17 log into any kind of a different system to obtain the
18 information for the time frame prior to 2013?
19 A This is for the plan, what the plan covers.
20 Right?
21 Q Yes.
22 A No.
23 Q What about with regard to what plan Mr.
24 Concialdi may have been on prior to 2013, would your
25 search efforts to prepare yourself for the time frame of
42
1 2013 to 2016 have been the same for the time frame prior
2 to 2013?
3 MR. SONG: Objection. What -- vague, confusing.
4 What -- you said the medical plan, is that what you have
5 said, the search for the medical plan?
6 MS. MADJIDI: The medical plan, correct.
7 MR. SONG: Was the previous question about
8 medical plans? Okay, tip. If you understand the
9 question. Otherwise ask her to repeat the question.
10 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
11 BY MS. MADJIDI:
12 Q Sure. So with regard to what you did to find
13 out what medical plan Mr. Concialdi was on for the time
14 frame of 2013 through his termination, would your efforts
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 13 of 54 Page ID
#:328
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 127 of 173 I
570
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
15 to look for this information for the time frame prior to
16 2013 have been the same?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Would you have had to look at the same documents
19 and information to obtain that information?
20 A Yes.
21 MR. SONG: Well, I'm going to -- well, hold on a
22 second. I'm going to object that that calls for
23 speculation. Don't assume. Vague and ambiguous,
24 incomplete hypothetical. You can answer the question.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
43
1 BY MS. MADJIDI:
2 Q You may not be able to answer this question
3 without revealing privilege, but why didn't you look at
4 an earlier time frame than 2013?
5 MR. SONG: Objection. Attorney-client
6 privilege. Don't answer.
7 BY MS. MADJIDI:
8 Q And you're going to follow your counsel's
9 instructions?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. SONG: Yes, she is.
12 MS. MADJIDI: I'm just asking. I'm not trying
13 to be rude.
14 MR. SONG: I'm just telling every time you're
15 going to ask.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 14 of 54 Page ID
#:329
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 128 of 173 I
571
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
16 BY MS. MADJIDI:
17 Q Do you know whether or not Mr. Concialdi
18 incurred any medical expenses during his employment at
19 Jacobs?
20 A No.
21 Q You don't know, or he did not?
22 A I don't know.
23 Q Okay. Do you have that knowledge for any
24 specific time frame?
25 A I'm sorry. Can you repeat the last question?
44
1 Q Sure. Do you have any personal knowledge of
2 whether or not Mr. Concialdi incurred any medical
3 expenses throughout his employment?
4 A Personal knowledge, no.
5 Q Do you have any other basis of knowledge of
6 whether or not Mr. Concialdi incurred any medical
7 expenses during his employment at Jacobs?
8 A Only based on this detailed report.
9 Q So let's take a look at this report. Can you
10 tell me what it is?
11 A It's a detailed report which provides the gross
12 charges of expenses incurred.
13 Q And so gross charges are the charges without
14 anything being deducted, injures the total payment that's
15 owed for any medical benefit?
16 MR. SONG: Well, objection. Assumes facts not
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 15 of 54 Page ID
#:330
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 129 of 173 I
572
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:27:47 PM]
24 to have multiple items of charges for a given time frame
25 on this report?
52
1 MR. SONG: Objection. Calls for speculation,
2 lacks foundation. You can answer the question if you
3 understand, or ask for clarification.
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you can clarify, please.
5 BY MS. MADJIDI:
6 Q Sure. For example, on this one there are three
7 different line items for Mark Concialdi with three
8 different sets of charges. Is it common for an
9 individual to have multiple sets of charges for a given
10 time period?
11 A I don't know.
12 Q Okay.
13 And, Counsel, this is for you. Everything is
14 redacted except for Mark Concialdi. Is that for privacy
15 reasons?
16 MR. SONG: Yes. That's other employees. Yeah.
17 MS. MADJIDI: Can you provide me with a chart
18 that reveals what the gross charges are but the other
19 information is redacted, because that would encompass the
20 privacy concerns that you have and also give me what I'm
21 looking for as well?
22 MR. SONG: We can talk later.
23 BY MS. MADJIDI:
24 Q The number of gross charges doesn't encompass
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 16 of 54 Page ID
#:331
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 130 of 173 I
573
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
25 the full medical expense for that claim. Correct?
53
1 A Repeat the question.
2 Q Sure. We had talked earlier, and you said that
3 the number reflects the portion that Jacobs pays.
4 Correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q So it doesn't necessarily encompass what the
7 medical expense was for that claim?
8 A Correct.
9 Q Do you have any knowledge of what Mr.
10 Concialdi's medical expenses were as a whole for 2014?
11 A No.
12 Q What about 2013?
13 A No.
14 Q Any other year of his employment?
15 A No.
16 Q And if I asked you this again I apologize, but
17 does the company keep track of what an employee's medical
18 expenses are for any given time frame that you're aware
19 of?
20 A No.
21 Q No, you're not aware, or they don't?
22 A They do not.
23 Q Okay. Are you certain of that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q So the portion that Jacobs doesn't pay, do you
54
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 17 of 54 Page ID
#:332
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 13 of 173 I
574
file:///C/Users/jcastro/Desktop/New%20folder%20(2)/ROUGH%20DRAFT.TXT[9/14/2017 2:10:40 PM]
2 Q Okay. Do you know what determines what the
3 gross charges that Jacobs has to pay for any of the gross
4 charges on this exhibit?
5 A It's going to be based on the design of the
6 plan.
7 Q What about the design of the plan determines
8 what portion Jacobs pays?
9 A So whether they're a deductible to be met and
10 whether or not it's paid at an 80 percent or the $30 --
11 minus the $30 that the member would have to pay.
12 Q So anything that's not covered under the
13 insurance plan is covered by Jacobs?
14 A No.
15 Q Okay.
16 A If it's -- no. If it's not covered by the
17 insurance plan, then it would be covered by the member.
18 Q So what ultimately determines what Jacobs has to
19 pay?
20 A The insurance carrier will inform us of that
21 information, and that would be based on what -- the plan
22 benefits, so again whether or not a deductible has to be
23 met, and then after the deductible, whether it's an
24 expense that's eligible -- well, whether or not the
25 entire expense is eligible, the deductible is applied,
57
1 and then the account $$$$ would pay whatever level of
2 responsibility, whether it's 80 percent.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 18 of 54 Page ID
#:333
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 132 of 173 I
575
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 19 of 54 Page ID
#:334
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 133 of 173 I
576
Thomas Song
(714) 800-7900
thomas.song@ogletree.com
VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL
Mahru Madjidi, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES
225 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
31 0-860-0770; Fax: 310-860-0771
mmadjidi(a)shegerianlaw.com
September 25, 2017
RE: Mark J Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01068 FMO (GJSx)
Dear Ms. Madjidi:
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
Park Tower, Suite 1500
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: 714.800.7900
Facsimile: 714.754.1298
www.ogletreedeakins.com
This letter is in response to Plaintiffs meet and confer letter dated Sept. 14, 2017. In
your letter you request that Defendant produce Ms. Dolores Rubalcava-Chavez (Ms. Chavez) for
an additional day of deposition in order to ask her questions pertaining to the following:
1.) What insurance plans Defendant offered from 2009-2013.
2.) What insurance plans Plaintiff was on for the time frame of2009-2013.
3.) You also request that documents Bates labeled JACOBS000359-416 be produced
with the "gross charges" column unredacted.
You state in your letter that you reserve the right to ask questions to Ms. Chavez
regarding the information contained in the "gross charges" column.
This deposition was already noticed and taken by Plaintiffs counsel on September 11,
2017. The only objection you made regarding the completion of the deposition was that you
held open the deposition in case documents Bates labeled JACOBS000359-416 were produced
without the right-most column ("gross charges") being redacted. As explained below, Defendant
produced documents that are responsive to your request for production. No further action is
required.
Regardless, the topic "What insurance plans Defendant offered from 2009-2013," was
never a noticed topic. Your claim that the requested information was "inherently encompassed"
in topics noticed for deposition is not accurate, as you never noticed a topic regarding insurance
plans Defendant offered. In fact, the only topic that refers to an insurance plan is Topic No. 4,
which lists "Any changes to Plaintiffs Medical Insurance/Medical Insurance Plan .... "
Defendant also objected in that the request failed to describe the topic for examination with
Atlanta • Austin • &-rlin (Germany) • Bioningham • Boston • Charleston • Charlotte • Chicago • Cleveland • Columbia • Dallas • Denver
Detroit Metro Greenville Houston Indiampolis Jackson Kansas City Las V cgas Los .Angeles Memphis
Miami • Minneapolis • Morristown • Nashville • New Orleans • New York City • Ornngc County • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Pittsbwgh
Porrland • Raleigh • St Louis • St. Thomas • San Antonio • San Diego • San Ftancisco • Stamford • Tampa • Torrance • Tucson • Washington
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 20 of 54 Page ID
#:335
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 134 of 173 I
577
September 25, 2017
Page 2
reasonable particularity. (See response to Plaintiff's amended notice of taking deposition of
Defendant's PMK re: medical expenses.)
Additionally, what insurance plans Defendant offered from 2009-2013 is not relevant to
this case, as Plaintiff does not allege any wrongful conduct occurred until around July of 2015.
Therefore, although insurance plans are not relevant to begin with, surely any information
regarding insurance plans in place during 2009-2013 is irrelevant to any of Plaintiff's claims.
This line of questioning was outside the scope of noticed topics, overbroad, and disproportionate
to the needs of this case pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b )(I).
Regarding "What insurance plans Plaintiffwas onfor the time frame of2009-2013," this
information is not relevant to any claims of Plaintiff, and therefore is not proportional to the
needs of this case pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l). Again, Plaintiff in his
complaint does not allege any wrongful conduct until July of 2015, which makes any
information regarding insurance plans, especially those that Plaintiff was on back during 2009-
2013, completely overbroad, irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this litigation.
Furthermore, the only noticed topic that mentions the term "insurance plan" is Topic No.
4, which states, "Any changes to Plaintiff's Medical Insurance/Medical Insurance Plan .... " This
topic refers only to changes to Plaintiff's plan, and to the extent you are alleging it also required
Defendant to produce a witness regarding all insurance plans Plaintiff was on between 2009-
2013, Defendant additionally objects in that Plaintiff failed to identify with reasonable
particularity the subject topic. (See response to Plaintiff's amended notice of taking deposition
ofDefendant's PMK re: medical expenses.)
Despite these objections, Defendant allowed for limited questioning back through the
year 2013, which is over three (3) years prior to Plaintiff's termination date and over two (2)
years prior to any alleged wrongful conduct in Plaintiff's complaint. To continue to request
information back to 2009 is simply irrelevant, excessive and disproportionate to the needs of
discovery.
Finally, regarding your request to unredact the "gross charges" column in documents
Bates labeled JACOBS000359-416, this request is wholly unfounded and certainly does not
require Ms. Chavez to return for another full day of deposition. First of all, the documents you
requested in the subject deposition notice specifically requested "documents that reflect
Plaintiff's medical expenses .... " (See Plaintiff's amended notice of taking deposition of
Defendant's PMK re: medical expenses, Request for Production No. 1.) Defendant produced the
above documents showing Plaintiff Mark Concialdi's information, and only redacted out
information that pertains to other individuals. Therefore, Defendant produced responsive
documents and nothing more is needed.
Furthermore, your request to unredact the "gross charges" column to show other charges
outside of Mr. Concialdi's is irrelevant, overbroad, and disproportionate to this case. It also is
nonsensical that you would have any need for this information, for the information in that
column would be nothing more than a series of random figures that are of no relevance to this
action. This was brought to your attention during the deposition on Sept. 11, 2017, and you did
not provide me with any basis for how the information that was redacted under the "gross
charges" column would be relevant or necessary to discovery.
In summary, there simply is no legal basis for this Information to be produced,
notwithstanding the fact that you did not request this information to begin with. Surely, your
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 21 of 54 Page ID
#:336
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 135 of 173 I
578
September 25, 2017
Page 3
request to have Ms. Chavez appear for another day of deposition and questioning on documents
that were never requested to begin with cannot be viewed as reasonable.
I am happy to discuss these matters in further detail in order to avoid any unnecessary
motion practice with the Court.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Song
31327468.1
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 22 of 54 Page ID
#:337
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 136 of 173 I
579
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 23 of 54 Page ID
#:338
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 137 of 173 I
580
1
Jose Castro
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 3:15 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas,
Thanks for the call. After further discussion, I will wait to hear back from you by noon on Monday to see if we can reach
a resolution on this. If there are documents that you can produce that reflect the information about plaintiff’s
insurance/insurance plan for the missing time frame during his employment, that, in addition to the unredacted portion
of the gross charges column of the chart, may get us what we need and not require a second day of deposition or any
court intervention. Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I’ll wait to hear back from you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:09 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Sorry about that was in a meeting when you called. I’ll be available at 2:30 pm and will give you a call. If a better time
works please let me know.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 | Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-
1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:04 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Thomas,
I know you probably got tied up as I haven’t heard back—I just wanted to make sure that I understood your letter
correctly in that you wanted to discuss the issues we identified in our meet and confer letter regarding the PMK Re
Medical expenses further to see if we could avoid any motion practice.
If your position is not going to change from your letter I don’t want to unnecessarily take up time from either of
us. With that said, if you are open to discussing this further to see if we can come to a resolution, please let me know
when you are available today to talk.
I would like to talk as soon as possible because if we are unable to resolve these issues we will need to file an ex parte
application with the court.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 24 of 54 Page ID
#:339
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 138 of 173 I
581
2
Thanks,
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advised that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:52 AM
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 25 of 54 Page ID
#:340
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 139 of 173 I
582
3
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas, was unbale to reach you. Please give me a call back. Thanks.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: Re: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
9:30 am won't work but later this morning or early afternoon should be good. Talk to you then.
Thomas Song
Ogletree Deakins, Orange County
714‐955‐2649 (cell)
Sent from my iPhone so please pardon any typos.
On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Mahru Madjidi wrote:
I’ll give you a call in the morning tomorrow. I’ll aim for around 9:30am. Thanks.
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 26 of 54 Page ID
#:341
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 140 of 173 I
583
4
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advised that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Anthony Nguyen
Subject: Re: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Sure Wednesday morning looks better for me. But I'll wait for your call.
Thomas Song
Ogletree Deakins, Orange County
714‐955‐2649 (cell)
Sent from my iPhone so please pardon any typos.
On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:39 PM, Mahru Madjidi wrote:
Thomas, are you available to discuss on Wednesday?
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 27 of 54 Page ID
#:342
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 141 of 173 I
584
5
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 6:40 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. Please find attached Defendant’s response to your meet and confer
letter. Thanks.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 28 of 54 Page ID
#:343
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 14 of 173 I
585
6
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:16 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Yes, just saw you called. That’s fine, please let me know your response by 5pm on
Monday. Thanks.
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:36 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. I just left a voicemail for you but I think you’re in deposition.
Can Defendant have until this coming Monday, Sept. 25th, to respond to your meet and
confer? I will be out of town beginning tomorrow morning for a prescheduled business
trip (continuing through Friday), and will not have access to internet during most of the
day. Thank you and please let me know.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Cetter.nter Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:30 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
In the meantime, do you have a response to the meet and confer letter we sent out last
week?
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 29 of 54 Page ID
#:344
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 143 of 173 I
586
7
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:59 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Mahru. I’m still waiting for the version in effect at his time of Plaintiff’s termination. I
should have it by tomorrow morning and then will review. I appreciate your patience.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:49 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Thomas, following up on my email below. Please let me know about the records
retention policy.
Thank you,
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 30 of 54 Page ID
#:345
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 144 of 173 I
587
8
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:17 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Sure. Although it’s relevant will need to be produced if it was in effect during any period
of plaintiff’s employment. I’ll wait to hear back from you tomorrow as this may be a
moot issue if it was in effect at the time of his termination.
Thanks,
Mahru
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 5:34 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. I’m waiting to see the retention policy that was in effect at the time of
Plaintiff’s termination in 2016. Please give me until tomorrow to get back to you.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:31 AM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Good morning Thomas,
I’m following up on my email below. Please let me know response by the end of the day
today.
Thanks,
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 31 of 54 Page ID
#:346
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 145 of 173 I
588
9
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 11:54 AM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas,
I never heard back from you regarding whether or not you intend to provide us with
that policy and wanted to further meet and confer on this issue.
In your most recent discovery responses to Plaintiff’s RFP Set two, the responses
indicate that you had already produced all employment policies in effect at the time of
Plaintiff’s termination. This is in response to request No. 86 & 87 request all
employment handbooks and amendments of those handbook in effect during plaintiff’s
employment. Still, the records retention policy of the handbook has not been produced
yet.
Additionally, The email correspondence below also references additional details on why
we requested and are entitled to documents reflecting that policy.
Please advise by Monday if you intend to produce the records retention policy.
Thanks,
Mahru
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:40 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Hi Thomas, following up on the records retention documents. Please let me know asap
as we may want to refer to those documents in the deposition on Friday, and since
Dehamel is in Canada we need to send out the exhibits to the court reporter in
advance. Thanks.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 32 of 54 Page ID
#:347
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 146 of 173 I
589
10
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:33 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Thanks. Likewise!
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:25 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Will look into this request and get back to you. Hope your flight back was decent.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:08 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi - JACOBS000111 - JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 - JACOBS000172 - CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Hi Thomas,
Based off of Ms. Sanchez’s testimony earlier this week, it was brought to our attention
that the records retention policy referenced in the Code of Conduct, is not the actual
policy, rather, just a reference to the actual records retention policy.
Specifically, the policy Ms. Sanchez referenced is numbered GPS01‐106‐01, in the code
of conduct index. Accordingly, please produce this policy by no later than 9/7.
Thank you,
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 33 of 54 Page ID
#:348
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 147 of 173 I
590
11
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:15 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Thomas,
I looked at the index you directed me to and there are other relevant portions of the
handbook that we will still need. Those sections are:
GPS05‐106 – Employee Records
GPS05‐304 – Harassment
GPS05‐306 – Employee Conduct and Work Rules
In anticipation of the depositions next week we appreciate receiving these sooner
rather than later so we can try to circumvent the need for additional days of deposition
surrounding these documents.
Thanks,
Mahru
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:26 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: Fwd: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Look at bates 171.
Thomas Song
Ogletree Deakins, Orange County
714‐955‐2649 (cell)
Sent from my iPhone so please pardon any typos.
Begin forwarded message:
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 34 of 54 Page ID
#:349
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 148 of 173 I
591
12
From: "Song, Thomas B."
To: "Mahru Madjidi (mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com)"
Cc: "Rivera, Lynda A."
Subject: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of
Conduct, progressive discipline).PDF
Mahru. For the evals I’ve keep the numbering consistent with the
numbering used during Mr. Concialdi’s deposition. Progressive
discipline policy is attached, and you can find a list of other policies at
the end of the Code of Conduct, believe page 171.
Any questions let me know, thanks.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA
92626 | Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you
are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this
message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 35 of 54 Page ID
#:350
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 149 of 173 I
592
EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 36 of 54 Page ID
#:351
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 150 of 173 I
593
1
Jose Castro
From: Song, Thomas B.
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 3:06 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru.
Wanted to get back to you on this. Based on your demands for the insurance plan information pre‐2013, Defendant is
unable to agree to your request. That information would be several years prior to Mr. Concialdi’s termination date and
is not relevant information. Regarding your request for the right most “gross charges” column of documents
(JACOBS000359 – JACOBS000416) being unredacted, this information is not relevant in addition to the documents as
produced are responsive to what was requested. Please also refer to Jacobs’ response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer
letter, in which Defendant outlined these and other reasons.
Thank you.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 | Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-
1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 3:15 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas,
Thanks for the call. After further discussion, I will wait to hear back from you by noon on Monday to see if we can reach
a resolution on this. If there are documents that you can produce that reflect the information about plaintiff’s
insurance/insurance plan for the missing time frame during his employment, that, in addition to the unredacted portion
of the gross charges column of the chart, may get us what we need and not require a second day of deposition or any
court intervention. Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I’ll wait to hear back from you.
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 37 of 54 Page ID
#:352
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 151 of 173 I
594
2
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advised that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:09 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Sorry about that was in a meeting when you called. I’ll be available at 2:30 pm and will give you a call. If a better time
works please let me know.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 | Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 38 of 54 Page ID
#:353
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 152 of 173 I
595
3
1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:04 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Thomas,
I know you probably got tied up as I haven’t heard back—I just wanted to make sure that I understood your letter
correctly in that you wanted to discuss the issues we identified in our meet and confer letter regarding the PMK Re
Medical expenses further to see if we could avoid any motion practice.
If your position is not going to change from your letter I don’t want to unnecessarily take up time from either of
us. With that said, if you are open to discussing this further to see if we can come to a resolution, please let me know
when you are available today to talk.
I would like to talk as soon as possible because if we are unable to resolve these issues we will need to file an ex parte
application with the court.
Thanks,
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 39 of 54 Page ID
#:354
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 15 of 173 I
596
4
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advised that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:52 AM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas, was unbale to reach you. Please give me a call back. Thanks.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: Re: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
9:30 am won't work but later this morning or early afternoon should be good. Talk to you then.
Thomas Song
Ogletree Deakins, Orange County
714‐955‐2649 (cell)
Sent from my iPhone so please pardon any typos.
On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Mahru Madjidi wrote:
I’ll give you a call in the morning tomorrow. I’ll aim for around 9:30am. Thanks.
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 40 of 54 Page ID
#:355
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 15 of 173 I
597
5
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advised that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Anthony Nguyen
Subject: Re: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Sure Wednesday morning looks better for me. But I'll wait for your call.
Thomas Song
Ogletree Deakins, Orange County
714‐955‐2649 (cell)
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 41 of 54 Page ID
#:356
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 155 of 173 I
598
6
Sent from my iPhone so please pardon any typos.
On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:39 PM, Mahru Madjidi wrote:
Thomas, are you available to discuss on Wednesday?
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 42 of 54 Page ID
#:357
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 156 of 173 I
599
7
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 6:40 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. Please find attached Defendant’s response to your meet and confer
letter. Thanks.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:16 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Yes, just saw you called. That’s fine, please let me know your response by 5pm on
Monday. Thanks.
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:36 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. I just left a voicemail for you but I think you’re in deposition.
Can Defendant have until this coming Monday, Sept. 25th, to respond to your meet and
confer? I will be out of town beginning tomorrow morning for a prescheduled business
trip (continuing through Friday), and will not have access to internet during most of the
day. Thank you and please let me know.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Cetter.nter Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 43 of 54 Page ID
#:358
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 157 of 173 I
600
8
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:30 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
In the meantime, do you have a response to the meet and confer letter we sent out last
week?
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:59 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Mahru. I’m still waiting for the version in effect at his time of Plaintiff’s termination. I
should have it by tomorrow morning and then will review. I appreciate your patience.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:49 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Thomas, following up on my email below. Please let me know about the records
retention policy.
Thank you,
Mahru
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 44 of 54 Page ID
#:359
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 158 of 173 I
601
9
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:17 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Sure. Although it’s relevant will need to be produced if it was in effect during any period
of plaintiff’s employment. I’ll wait to hear back from you tomorrow as this may be a
moot issue if it was in effect at the time of his termination.
Thanks,
Mahru
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 5:34 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. I’m waiting to see the retention policy that was in effect at the time of
Plaintiff’s termination in 2016. Please give me until tomorrow to get back to you.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:31 AM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Records Retention Policy - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Good morning Thomas,
I’m following up on my email below. Please let me know response by the end of the day
today.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 45 of 54 Page ID
#:360
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 159 of 173 I
602
10
Thanks,
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 11:54 AM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: Records Retention Policy ‐ Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas,
I never heard back from you regarding whether or not you intend to provide us with
that policy and wanted to further meet and confer on this issue.
In your most recent discovery responses to Plaintiff’s RFP Set two, the responses
indicate that you had already produced all employment policies in effect at the time of
Plaintiff’s termination. This is in response to request No. 86 & 87 request all
employment handbooks and amendments of those handbook in effect during plaintiff’s
employment. Still, the records retention policy of the handbook has not been produced
yet.
Additionally, The email correspondence below also references additional details on why
we requested and are entitled to documents reflecting that policy.
Please advise by Monday if you intend to produce the records retention policy.
Thanks,
Mahru
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:40 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 46 of 54 Page ID
#:361
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 160 of 173 I
603
11
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Hi Thomas, following up on the records retention documents. Please let me know asap
as we may want to refer to those documents in the deposition on Friday, and since
Dehamel is in Canada we need to send out the exhibits to the court reporter in
advance. Thanks.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:33 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Thanks. Likewise!
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 5:25 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Will look into this request and get back to you. Hope your flight back was decent.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 |
Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:08 PM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi - JACOBS000111 - JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 - JACOBS000172 - CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Hi Thomas,
Based off of Ms. Sanchez’s testimony earlier this week, it was brought to our attention
that the records retention policy referenced in the Code of Conduct, is not the actual
policy, rather, just a reference to the actual records retention policy.
Specifically, the policy Ms. Sanchez referenced is numbered GPS01‐106‐01, in the code
of conduct index. Accordingly, please produce this policy by no later than 9/7.
Thank you,
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 47 of 54 Page ID
#:362
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 161 of 173 I
604
12
Mahru
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying docum
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advise
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in err
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
From: Mahru Madjidi
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:15 PM
To: 'Song, Thomas B.'
Cc: Cortney Shegerian ; Anthony Nguyen
Subject: RE: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Thomas,
I looked at the index you directed me to and there are other relevant portions of the
handbook that we will still need. Those sections are:
GPS05‐106 – Employee Records
GPS05‐304 – Harassment
GPS05‐306 – Employee Conduct and Work Rules
In anticipation of the depositions next week we appreciate receiving these sooner
rather than later so we can try to circumvent the need for additional days of deposition
surrounding these documents.
Thanks,
Mahru
From: Song, Thomas B. [mailto:thomas.song@ogletree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:26 PM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Subject: Fwd: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of Conduct,
progressive discipline).PDF
Look at bates 171.
Thomas Song
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 48 of 54 Page ID
#:363
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 162 of 173 I
605
13
Ogletree Deakins, Orange County
714‐955‐2649 (cell)
Sent from my iPhone so please pardon any typos.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Song, Thomas B."
To: "Mahru Madjidi (mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com)"
Cc: "Rivera, Lynda A."
Subject: Concialdi ‐ JACOBS000111 ‐ JACOBS000142 (evaluations, offer
letter).PDF;JACOBS000143 ‐ JACOBS000172 ‐ CONFIDENTIAL (Code of
Conduct, progressive discipline).PDF
Mahru. For the evals I’ve keep the numbering consistent with the
numbering used during Mr. Concialdi’s deposition. Progressive
discipline policy is attached, and you can find a list of other policies at
the end of the Code of Conduct, believe page 171.
Any questions let me know, thanks.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA
92626 | Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged
information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you
are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this
message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 49 of 54 Page ID
#:364
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 163 of 173 I
606
14
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 50 of 54 Page ID
#:365
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 164 of 173 I
607
EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 51 of 54 Page ID
#:366
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 16 of 173 I
608
1
Jose Castro
From: Song, Thomas B.
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 10:35 AM
To: Mahru Madjidi
Cc: Cortney Shegerian
Subject: RE: Ex Parte Notice - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Hi Mahru. Yes, Defendant will be opposing the ex parte. Thanks.
Thomas B. Song | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Park Tower, 695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 | Telephone: 714-800-7980 | Fax: 714-754-
1298
thomas.song@ogletree.com | www.ogletree.com | Bio
From: Mahru Madjidi [mailto:mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 9:40 AM
To: Song, Thomas B.
Cc: Cortney Shegerian; Anthony Nguyen; Sofya Perelshteyn
Subject: Ex Parte Notice - Concialdi v. Jacobs
Thomas,
Just left you a message giving you notice of the ex parte application we are filing tomorrow. I wanted to try to reach you
here as well.
We will be filing an ex parte application tomorrow to seek relief from the discovery motion cutoff date so that we set
the motion to compel deposition and documents (relating to the issues we have met and conferred on surrounding the
PMK Re Medical Expenses) heard after the discovery motion cutoff date, which is currently set for 10/20. We will be
requesting the court to allow us to set the hearing in November.
You will have 24 hours after you have been served with the ex parte to file your opposition.
Please advise as to whether or not you plan to oppose the ex parte.
Thank you,
Mahru Madjidi | Associate Attorney
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 | Santa Monica, California 90401
Office: (310) 860-0770 | Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
mmadjidi@shegerianlaw.com | shegerianlaw.com
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 52 of 54 Page ID
#:367
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 166 of 173 I
609
2
Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are
privileged and confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). If you have received this transmission in error, you are advised that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon it is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not
compromise or waive the Shegerian Law client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately delete it and contact us at privacy@shegerianlaw.com or by telephone at (310) 860-0770. Thank you.
This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited.
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 53 of 54 Page ID
#:368
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 167 of 173 I
610
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
28
CONCIALDI v. JACOBS USDC Case No. 2:17-cv-01068 FMO (GJSx)
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 225 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401.
On October 5, 2017, I served the foregoing document, described as
“DECLARATION OF MAHRU MADJIDI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MARK
J. CONCIALDI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELEIF FROM THE
DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF DATE TO ALLOW MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITION TO BE HEARD PAST THE CUTOFF DATE” on all interested
parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as
follows:
Vince M. Verde, Esq.
Thomas B. Song, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
695 Town Center Drive, Fifteenth Floor,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the
document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the
case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.
Participants in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or
by other means permitted by the court rules.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on October 5, 2017, at Santa Monica, California.
Jose Castro
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 34-1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 54 of 54 Page ID
#:369
: - - - - t 4 Filed 10/27/17 Page 168 of 173 I
611
EXHIBIT 6
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 169 of 173 Page ID
#:612
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-1068 FMO (GJSx) Date Oct. 10, 2017
Title Mark J. Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Vanessa Figueroa None Present
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present None Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Re: Ex Parte Application
Having reviewed the briefing with respect to plaintiff Mark J. Concialdi’s Ex Parte
Application for Relief from the Discovery Motion Cutoff Date (Dkt. 34, “Application”), and finding
good cause, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application (Document No. 34) is granted as set forth in this Order.
2. The discovery cutoff date is extended to December 7, 2017, for the sole purpose of
resolving plaintiff’s motion(s) to compel.
3. The parties should note that they may not redact information that they believe is
irrelevant. See In re iPhone Application Litig., 2013 WL 1095456, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (finding
“unpersuasive at best,” Apple’s contention that it may redact irrelevant information “as long as
there’s a process by which the parties can assess whether there's a good faith claim of relevance
or not”); Flynn v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 1991 WL 238186, *2 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“[I]f material really
is irrelevant, it will be inadmissible at trial and little harm can flow from discovery except the
expense of production[.]”); Seafirst Corp. v. Jenkins, 644 F.Supp. 1160, 1165 (W.D. Wash. 1986)
(party must disclose whole report even if parts are irrelevant; disclosure of irrelevant material
causes no harm and “partial disclosure may tend to distort the tenor of the reports[]”). Only
information that is protected by a state (in diversity cases only) or federal privilege (e.g., the
attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product protection) may be redacted.
4. With respect to a deposition conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), the court
does not limit the scope of the deposition to what is contained in the notice of deposition. In other
words, the reasonable particularity requirement of Rule 30(b)(6) does not limit the scope of the
deposition. See Detoy v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 366 (N.D. Cal. 2000)
(“Limiting the scope of a 30(b)(6) deposition to what is noticed in the deposition subpoena
frustrates the objectives of Rule 26(b)(1) whenever a deposing party seeks information relevant
CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 38 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:437Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 170 of 173 Page ID
#:613
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-1068 FMO (GJSx) Date Oct. 10, 2017
Title Mark J. Concialdi v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., et al.
to the subject matter of the pending litigation that was not specified.”).1 Rather, the reasonable
particularity requirement provides the entity with the information that its designated representative
must be able to supply. Once the witness satisfies the minimum standard, the scope of the
deposition is determined solely by the relevance standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(1). See, e.g.,
ChriMar Sys. Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc, 2016 WL 126556, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (“the 'reasonable
particularity' requirement of Rule 30(b)(6) cannot be used to limit what is asked of the designated
witness at a deposition”).
00 : 00
Initials of Preparer vdr
1 Of course, the court interprets Detoy in the context of the “claim or defense” amendment to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 38 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:438Case 2:17-cv-01068-F O-GJS Docu ent 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 171 of 173 Page ID
#:614
EXHIBIT 7
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 172 of 173 Page ID
#:615
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
28
CONCIALDI v. JACOBS USDC Case No. 2:17-cv-01068 FMO (GJSx)
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 225 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401.
On October 27, 2017, I served the foregoing document, described as “PLAINTIFF
MARK J. CONCIALDI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER
COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS POSED TO
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WITNESS DOLORES RUBALCAVA-CHAVEZ;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
CARNEY R. SHEGERIAN,” on all interested parties in this action by placing a true
copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
Vince M. Verde, Esq.
Thomas B. Song, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Suite 1500
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the
document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the
case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.
Participants in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or
by other means permitted by the court rules.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on October 27, 2017, at Santa Monica, California.
Jose Castro
Case 2:17-cv-01068-FMO-GJS Document 44 Filed 10/27/17 Page 173 of 173 Page ID
#:616
