Alisa Drakodaidis vs. County of OrangeMotion in LimineCal. Super. - 4th Dist.May 5, 2014© O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N N N N B N F H RF R R R R E E E = = = 0 0 N o o u n A W M N H H O V O O N O O U O A W M N = O NORMAN J. WATKINS (SBN 87327) SHANNON L. GUSTAFSON (SBN 228856) TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS (SBN 294371) LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1450 Orange, California 92868 (714) 937-1010 Telephone (714) 937-1003 Facsimile Government Code § 6103 Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF ORANGE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ALISA DRAKODAIDIS, Plaintiff, VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. CASE NO: 30-2014-00720698-CU-WT-CJC Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. Judge Walter Schwarm - Dept. C19 DEFENDANT'SMOTIONINLIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY’'S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS; EXHIBITS Trial D ate: February 2, 2018 Complaint filed: May 5, 2014 1 DEFENDANT'SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY'’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the date and time and in the department as this court 3 sets for hearing motions in [imine, Defendant COUNTY OF ORANGE will, and hereby does, 4 move this court in [imine for an order precluding any reference to, mention of, evidence of, or 5 testimony regarding Plaintiff's allegations that former Human Resources Director Steve Danley 6 made errors with respect to the contract approval for outside investigator Debra Reilly. 7 This Motion is based on this Notice, the attached M emorandum of Points and A uthorities, 8 the Declaration of Tina A. Sapounakis, any declarations and exhibits supporting the moving 9 papers, on the pleadings in the Court's file in this action, and on all other oral and documentary 10 evidence that the Court may consider at the hearing on this Motion. 11 12 ||DATED: January 22, 2018 LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation 13 1 A-Bv: 15 NOKMAN J. WATKINS SHANNON L.GUSTAFSON 16 TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF 17 ORANGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4843-9373-2698, v. 1 2 DEFENDANT’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N RR RB RR BB HB B R E E E S S U 1 A O W O N H H O O O W O N O O U 1 o o W W M N = O© O 27 28 4843-9373-2698, v. 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Alisa Drakodaidis has filed this lawsuit alleging that she was wrongfully terminated from her position as Deputy CEO with the County of Orange. As Deputy CEO, Plaintiff was an at will employee reporting directly to the County CEQ. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she engaged in a series of protected activities while she was Deputy CEO from 2007-2013 which included reporting alleged violations of law as well as reporting various EEO complaints and providing information to the District Attorneys’ office during their investigation into former County executive manager Carlos Bustamante. On July 9, 2012 she was informed by then CEO Tom M auk that he intended to resign and that before he did so he would be moving her from her position as Deputy CEO and reassigning her to the Social Services A gency where she had previously worked. In response to this conversation, Plaintiff, through her attorney, informed the County on July 11, 2012 that she would be taking leave under the California Family Rights A ct due to a serious health issue. In the same letter announcing her leave, Plaintiff's attorney asserting a laundry list of complaints that the County had violated various EEO policies, retaliated against Plaintiff, and that various Board members had engaged in fraudulent activity. Given the serious nature of Plaintiff's claims, an outside attorney investigator by the name of Debra Reilly was retained to investigate the allegations contained in Plaintiff's July 11, 2012 letter. On July 26, 2012, CEO Tom Mauk resigned. Bob Franz was appointed as the Interim CEO and tasked with the job of restoring order to the County in the wake of the Bustamante sexual harassment scandal that had resulted in the termination of the Director of Public Works, one of the County's largest Departments, the retirement of the County's Human Resources Director and the resignation of the CEQ. In the midst of this turmoil, the County received notice that Plaintiff intended to return to work on or about September 21, 2012. To prevent further disruption to County operations while her claims were being investigated, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave where she retained her position, salary, and benefits, but was instructed to remain home during her working hours. 3 DEFENDANT'SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY'’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N RR RB RR BB HB B R E E E S S U 1 A O W O N H H O O O W O N O O U 1 o o W W M N = O© O 27 28 4843-9373-2698, v. 1 On March 13, 2013, Ms. Reilly completed her investigation concluding that none of Plaintiff's scandalous claims could be substantiated. Subsequently Plaintiff was released from her at will agreement by the Interim CEO on March 15, 2013 based upon legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons related to her negative impact on County operations, employees and the CEO's ability to work effectively with the Board of Supervisors. Plaintiff however, contends that the County's decision to place her on administrative leave and then terminate her at will agreement constituted Retaliation in violation of FEHA; Violation of the California Family Rights Act; Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code §1102.5; and Gender Discrimination under FEHA. I. A MOTIONINLIMINE ISTHE PROPER PROCEDURE BY WHICH A TRIAL COURT MAY LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL. Trial courts have the inherent power, separate from any statutory authority, to control the litigation before them by entertaining and granting motions in limine. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.A pp.4th 1582, 1595 (2008). The purpose of a motion in limine is to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury in order to “avoid rnthe obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell’” when highly prejudicial evidence is offered and then stricken at trial. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co., 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337 (1978). By resolving critical evidentiary issues at the outset, motions in limine enhance efficiency of the trial process, minimize disruption during trial and permit a more careful consideration of evidentiary issues than would take place during the stress oftrial. People v. Morris, 53 Cal.3d 152, 188, (1991) (overruling on other grounds recognized by People v. Bautista, 163 Cal.A pp.4th 762, 785 (2008)). Here Plaintiff's counsel has evidenced his intent to call former County Human Resources Director Steve Danley in order to lodge various accusations about how he handled approving the contract with outside attorney investigator Debra Reilly. As set forth more fully below, none of these allegations pertaining to Danley have any relevance to Plaintiff's lawsuit and should therefore be excluded. [11 [11 4 DEFENDANT'SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY'’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N RR RB RR BB HB B R E E E S S U 1 A O W O N H H O O O W O N O O U 1 o o W W M N = O© O 27 28 4843-9373-2698, v. 1 Il. PLAINTIFF'SCLAIMSABOUT DANLEY'SHANDLING OF THE REILLY CONTRACT ARE IRRELEVANT AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED Evidence Code section 350 provides that “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” “Relevant evidence”is defined as evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Cal. Evid. Code, § 210. “W hat matters are in issue (and consequently material) is determined by the pleadings, the rules in pleading, and the substantive law relating to the particular kind of case.” Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) § 3, at pp. 360-361. Applied here, Plaintiff alleges that placing her on administrative leave and then terminating her from her position as Deputy CEO constituted Retaliation in violation of FEHA and the Labor Code; Gender Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; and also violated the California Family Rights A ct. With respect to the employment actions in question, interim CEO Bob Franz has testified that he alone made the decision to terminate Plaintiff without consulting with the HR Director at the time Steve Danley. (Exhibit “A"- Franz Depo. 8:11-19). Danley also confirmed that he was not involved in either the decision to place Plaintiff on administrative leave or the decision to terminate her. (Exhibit “B"- Danley Depo. 21:5-15, 145:24-147:24). Y et despite Danley’s lack of involvement in Plaintiff's alleged adverse employment actions, Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he intends to attack former HR Director Steve Danley regarding the manner in which he handled obtaining approval for the contract of outside investigatory Debra Reilly. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel has informed his retained expert that “Danley himself was inaccurate and misused ASR s on contracting for Reilly and her investigation in the following respects: (1) the initial Reilly contract for $30,000 was inappropriately backdated; (2) the second Reilly contract for an additional $25,000 in funds specifically and publicly stated the confidential protected claims made by Alisa on which the Reilly investigation was focused; and (3) in one of the ASR’s Danley specifically stated that ! Agenda Staff Report 5 DEFENDANT'SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY'’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N RR RB RR BB HB B R E E E S S U 1 A O W O N H H O O O W O N O O U 1 o o W W M N = O© O 27 28 4843-9373-2698, v. 1 Reilly was investigating claims against Alisa rather than claims by Alisa.” (Exhibit “C"- Baruch Letter p.14).” None of these alleged errors by Danley do anything to prove or disprove that Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and/or terminated in violation of FEHA, the Labor Code or the Family Rights Act. Asthe HR Director, Danley was tasked with finalizing the initial contract with outside investigator Debra Reilly and then later seeking approval from the Board of Supervisors to extend her contract when additional funds needing Board approval were required. As part of this process, Plaintiff contends that Danley backdated the initial contract such that the date the contract indicates it was signed is not accurate. Plaintiff further complains that the contractlists the nature of the claims Ms. Reilly was investigating and therefore Plaintiff's claims were not kept confidential. Finally, despite the fact that the contract itself very clearly indicates that M s. Reilly was being retained to investigate claims made by Drakodaidis and then even lists out what those claims were, (Exhibit “D"- Reilly Contract), the request for approval (ASR) submitted to the Board of Supervisors mistakenly states that M s. Reilly was being retained to “investigate allegations from County staff against a County executive.” (Exhibit “D"- ASR attachment- Sole Source Proprietary Request Form, pg. 2). These alleged irregularities with Reilly's contract as prepared by Danley, do nothing to establish that Plaintiff was discriminated against or retaliated against. Even if these contract issues were relevant— and they are not— this evidence would still be subject to exclusion under Cal. Evid. Code § 352. That section provides that evidence may be excluded if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Simply put, Section 352 considerations barthis evidence. As set forth above, the probative value of mistakes made by Danely when finalizing Debra Reilly's contract are nonexistent. However, the prejudicial effect of the jury hearing argument that the Human Resources Director made mistakes when negotiating the contract may cause the jury to improperly conclude that Reilly's investigation itself was improperly conducted without 6 DEFENDANT'SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY'’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N RR RB RR BB HB B R E E E S S U 1 A O W O N H H O O O W O N O O U 1 o o W W M N = O© O 27 28 4843-9373-2698, v. 1 considering the evidence as to what she investigated and what her results were. “Undue consumption of time” represents another grounds for excluding such evidence. Raising the issues will add needless time to the trial explaining the complex process of how and when contracts are submitted to the Board for approval and what information is required, none of which has anything to do with Plaintiff's claims. Thus, for this reason alone, the court should order an in limine exclusion of this evidence under Cal. Evid. Code § 352. IV. CONCLUSION In sum, Defendant requests that the court grant them a fair, focused trial on Plaintiff's claimed wrongful termination, free from the taint of this prejudicial evidence. See, Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350, 352, 1101. Accordingly, on this point, Defendant's motion should be granted as prayed. DATED: January 22, 2018 LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation BV: SIAL NO#MAN J. WATKINS SHANNON L.GUSTAFSON TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF ORANGE 7 DEFENDANT'SMOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY'’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N N N N B N F H RF R R R R E E E = = = 0 0 N o o u n A W M N H H O V O O N O O U O A W M N = O DECLARATION OF TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS |, TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS, do declare and state as follows: 1. | am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California and am an associate with the law firm Lynberg & Watkins, A Professional Corporation,attorneys of record for Defendant County of Orange in the above-referenced matter. | have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except those stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, | believe them to be true. If called upon to testify to the matters herein, | could and would competently do so. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Bob Franz’ deposition. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Steve Danely’s deposition. 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit “C" are the relevant portions of a lengthy letter prepared by Plaintiff's counsel to his retained expert, Scott Barer dated November 9, 2017. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D"” is the Agenda Staff Report with the attached contracts pertaining to Debra Reilly that are at issue in this Motion in Limine. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 22, 2018, at Orange, California. Al TINA A.SAPOUNAKIS Declarant 8 DECLARATION OF TINA A. SAPOUNAKIS EXHIBIT A Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange Deposition of BOB FRANZ May 28, 2015 Media Included NE - . I — 1Exhibits Transcript | Word Index | 866.999.8310 | aptusCR.com COURT REPORTING 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ALISA DRAKODAIDIS, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO: 30-2014-00720698 COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity; and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. DEPOSITION OF BOB FRANZ Irvine, California May 28, 2015 Reported By: Lisa Taylor CSR No. 13511 Job No.: 10016618 www.aptusCR.com Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ALISA DRAKODAIDIS, Plaintiff, COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity; and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Deposition of BOB FRANZ, taken on behalf of Plaintiff, at 2020 Main Street, Suite 900, Irvine, California, beginning at 9:04 a.m., and ending at 10:01 a.m., on Thursday, May 28, 2015, before Lisa M. Taylor, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 13511. vs. CASE NO: 30-2014-00720698 www.aptusCR.com Page 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange APPEARANCES : FOR PLAINTIFF: LAW OFFICES OF JOEL W. BARUCH, PC BY: JOEL W. BARUCH, ESQUIRE BY: COREY HALL, ESQUIRE 2020 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 864-9662 (949) 851-3185 FOR DEFENDANTS: LYNBERG & WATKINS BY: NORMAN J. WATKINS, ESQUIRE BY: TINA SAPOUNAKIS 1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1450 Orange, California 92868 (714) 937-1010 (714) 937-1003 E-mail: nwatkins@lynberg.com www.aptusCR.com Page 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange INDEX WITNESS EXAMINATION BOB FRANZ PAGE BY MR. BARUCH 5 EXHIBITS (None. ) Page 4 www.aptusCR.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange DEPOSITION OF BOB FRANZ MAY 28, 2015 BOB FRANZ, having been first duly sworn, testifies as follows: BY MR. BARUCH: Q Mr. Franz, this is a deposition under oath. You've taken a deposition before in your career? A Yes. Q All right. I'm going to dispense with the admonitions, if that's okay with counsel. MR. WATKINS: That's fine. BY MR. BARUCH: Q And it's okay with you, Mr. Franz? A Yes. Q All right. Okay. And you understand that you've taken the oath. You have a duty to tell the truth. I'm sure you know that. This is a PMK deposition. But, first, I need to know a little bit about you. You were at one time the acting CEO of the County; is that correct? A Correct. www.aptusCR.com Page 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange Q All right. So this PMK deposition is going to ask about certain topics, and I think that there's only five of them actually. The first one is the identity of the person or persons who made the decision to terminate Plaintiff from her employment effective on or about March 15th, 2013. And just as a caveat, I believe I saw a letter, and I thought that you may have signed that letter on March 15th, 2013. I don't have it with me. A That's correct. Q Who were the persons who made the decision to terminate Plaintiff? A That was me. Q Okay. Did the board of supervisors have any input in that decision? A No. Q Did anybody else other than you have input into that decision? A No. Q Did you consult anyone before making that decision? A I consulted county counsel. Q Anyone in particular? A I believe primarily the county counsel, Nick Chrisos. Page 8 www.aptusCR.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bob Franz Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION I, Lisa Taylor, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California, hereby certify: That the foregoing witness was by me duly sworn; that the deposition was then taken before me at the time and place herein set forth; that the testimony and proceedings were reported stenographically by me and later transcribed into typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a true record of the testimony and proceedings taken at that time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name this 28th day of May, 2015. C7 Lisa Taylor, CSR No. 13511 i Page 45 www.aptusCR.com EXHIBIT B Steve Danley June 27, 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ALISA DRAKODAIDIS, Plaintiff, Vv. CASE NO. 30-2014- 00720698-CU-WT-CJC COUNTY OF ORANGE, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF STEVE DANLEY June 27, 2017 10:19 a.m. 2020 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, California REPORTED BY: Leah L. Nelson CSR No. 12561 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 APPEARANCES: For For Plaintiff: LAW OFFICES OF JOEL W. BARUCH, PC JOEL W. BARUCH COREY HALL 2020 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, California 92614 (949) B64-9662 (949) 851-3185 Fax joel@joelwbaruch. com corey@joelwbaruch. com Deponent and Defendant County of Orange: LYNBERG & WATKINS NORMAN J. WATKINS 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1450 Orange, California 92868 (714) 937-1010 (714) 937-1003 Fax nwatkins@lynberg.com Also Present: CHRISTOPHER VASI, Videographer U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 INDEX TO EXAMINATION WITNESS: STEVE DANLEY EXAMINATION By Mr. Baruch WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER Page Line 47 18 70 13 90 8 90 15 93 2 93 7 94 10 94 18 PAGE U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 MARKED Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit INDEX TO EXHIBITS STEVE DANLEY Alisa Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange 10 Tuesday, June 27, 2017 Leah L. Nelson, CSR No. 12561 DESCRIPTION PAGE Deposition Subpoena for Personal 8 Appearance and Production of Documents and Things Chair's Position on EEO Complaints 101 Salary Adjustments for Management 103 And Non-Represented Staff 7/11/12 Letter 104 Re: CFRA Leave/Retaliation Issues Of Alisa Drakodaidis; Attachments 8/15/12 Letter 123 Re: Alisa Drakodaidis 8/17/12 Letter 127 Re: Alisa Drakodaidis 9/11/12 Letter 133 Re: Alisa Drakodaidis- Re Attached Letter of August 27, 2012 From Nick Chrisos and Your Investigation 1/15/13 Agenda Staff Report 136 3/13/13 Letter Re: Notice of 142 Completion of Investigation into July 2012 Allegations of Discrimination and Retaliation 3/15/13 Termination Letter 145 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017, 10:19 A.M. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are on the record. This is the recorded video deposition of Steve Danley in the matter of Alisa Drakodaidis vs. County of Orange, et al. This deposition is taking place at 2020 Main Street, Suite 900, Irvine, California, on June 27th, 2017, at approximately 10:20 a.m. My name is Christopher Vasi. I'm the videographer with U.S. Legal Support, located at 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 400, Costa Mesa, California. Would all present please identify themselves, beginning with the witness. THE WITNESS: Steve Danley. MR. WATKINS: Norm Watkins on behalf of the witness and the county. MR. HALL: Corey Hall on behalf of plaintiff Drakodaidis with the Law Offices of Joel Baruch. MR. BARUCH: Joel Baruch on behalf of Drakodaidis. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. The certified court reporter is Leah Nelson. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 got an issue here where she's made some complaints. Our typical procedure is to do X, Y, Z, so, you know, I just want to make sure you understand that that's what I plan to do. Do you have any problems with that?" Q. Okay. I'll get into that more a little bit later, because it's -- I'm going to try to follow a timeline approach in my questioning. Number 11 on the request for production of the documents attendant to this deposition subpoena is any and all documents relating to your participation, if any, in the decision to place Alisa Drakodaidis on administrative leave on or about September 2012. I think you've just told us that you did not participate in that decision. Correct? A. Not in the decision, no. Q. All right. Number 12 is any and all documents relating to your participation, if any, in the decision to terminate Alisa Drakodaidis on or about March 15, 2013. Just in general, did you participate in that decision? A. Not that I recall. Q. Number 13 is any and all documents relating to your participation, if any, in the decision to allow Carlos Bustamante to resign from his employment with U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 retaliatory? A. Vaguely. Q. And do you recall that it was changed as a result of that on October 18th, 2012? A. No. Q. Okay. All right. So as of March 13th, 2013, Debra Reilly's finished with her investigation. She found the allegations that Alisa Drakodaidis had made to be unsubstantiated. So why, if you know, wasn't Alisa allowed to come back to work? A. I said that I didn't know why. Q. You were never consulted about that? MR. WATKINS: Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: No. (Exhibit 10 marked) BY MR. BARUCH: Q. All right. So next in order, 10. I'm going to show you a letter dated March 15th, 2013, two days after Alisa Drakodaidis was informed the investigation into her allegations had been completed, that she was terminated. When did you first learn that Alisa Drakodaidis had been terminated by CEO Franz? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 145 (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 A. TI don't recall. Q. After or before? A. I think before. Q. What did he tell you? A. He's letting her go. Q. Why? A. He didn't say why. Q. Did you ask him words to the effect of, Hey, you know, you're not investigating her. She had an investigation. Her allegations were unfounded. Why aren't you just bringing her back to work to the deputy CEQ position? MR. WATKINS: This has been asked at least a half dozen times. MR. BARUCH: No, it hasn't. MR. WATKINS: You can go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: He just didn't talk about it. He just said he was letting her go. I said, okay. BY MR. BARUCH: Q. Well, but don't you have some kind of authority to interpose objections such as, Hey, Bob don't you think it will look like retaliation, she makes protected complaints? Yeah, it's true we didn't find anything of value, but she's got the right to do that. Why are you firing her? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 146 (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 A. He had had all those conversations with county counsel in this matter, so I just assumed that he was going through all those things and didn't want my input on it, so I didn't involve myself. Q. Bob Franz was your boss? A. Yes. Q. By the way, who replaced Alisa Drakodaidis as deputy CEO when she was on administrative leave? A. I'm not sure. Q. Was it Steve Eldrin (phonetic)? A. Yes. I think you're right. Q. Okay. Was he given $192,000 a year instead of Alisa Drakodaidis's $188,000 a year? A. I don't know. Q. Who appointed Steve Eldrin as the deputy CEO? A. I'm not sure. Q. Would you figure it would be Bob Franz? A. Him or whoever took Bob Franz's place. I don't know what the timing was. Q. And so to this day, you've never had a conversation with Bob Franz outside the presence of counsel as to why he terminated Alisa Drakodaidis? A. It was pretty clear he didn't want to talk about it. Q. This letter, Exhibit 10, apparently he's citing U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 147 (714) 486-0737 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Danley June 27, 2017 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Leah L. Nelson, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify: That prior to being examined, the witness in the foregoing proceedings was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; That said proceedings were taken before me at the time and place therein set forth and were taken down by me in shorthand and thereafter transcribed into typewriting under my direction and supervision; I further certify that I am neither counsel for, nor related to, any party to said proceedings, not in any way interested in the outcome thereof. In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name. Dated: July 5, 2017 Leah L. Nelson CSR No. 12561 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (714) 486-0737 158 EXHIBIT C L.Aw OFFICES OF JOEL W. BARUCH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 2020 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, California 92614-8203 Telephone 949/864-9662 949/851-3185 Facsimile November 9, 2017 VIA EMAIL Scott L. Barer EXTII 153 Stagecoach Road Bell Canyon, California 91307 Re: Expert Materials For Drakodaidis v. County of Orange— Trial Date— February 5, 2018 Dear Mr. Barer: As you know, you have been designated in this case as our expert on sound human resources policies, practices, and procedures. The County of Orange has not counter- designated their own human resources expert and, instead, will be relying on outside counsel/ investigator Debra Reilly and human resources employees as non-retained experts. I have been promising you a schedule of “player- participants” and a timeline. Frankly, because this is a complex case which has occurred over many years,this has been a gargantuan task. In my effort to simplify the facts and events, I have had several starts, only to tear up what I have done and to start again. There areliterally thousands of documents which I have had to review. Hopefully, what is presented here will be clear. Given the February 5, 2018 trial date,I anticipate your deposition will have to occur sometime between January 10-20, 2018. I would rather that you not write your conclusions in a report, unless you tell me that this is the normal way you operate. Also, your declaration will not be necessary because the parties have made an agreement to pare down the allegations from the initial complaintin return for a promise notto file a motion for summary judgment/ summary adjudication. What followsis the summary along with attached exhibits. EXTTI - 000318 Page Fourteen On September 20, 2012, without warning, and without any input from HR Director Danley, Franz sent Alisa a notice that she was being placed on administrative leave with pay and would not be able to return to work on September 21, 2012 as everyone thought. Danley testified: (1) that he was not consulted by Franz; and, (2) thatthis was thefirst time in OC, ofwhich he was aware, that OCplaced the accuserin a protected complaint investigation on administrative leave. The administrative leave on which Alisa was put on was very restrictive and, for example, forbid herto go to the Orange County Airport to pick up her sister. On September 20, 2012, I wrote a letter to Bob Franz, objecting to these restrictions. On October 18,2012, Bob Franz impliedly admitted that the limitations in the September 20™ letter were too restrictive, and removed some ofthem. While all of the above was happening, Danley participated in the hiring and retention under contract of Debra Reilly to investigate Alisa’s complaints. On Alisa’s behalf, I had objected to any investigation started while Alisa was on CFRA/ FMLA leave; instead, I wanted her to be able to return to work on September 21, 2012 so she would have access to her computer and critical documents to prove her claims. When Alisa was placed on administrative leave, she was notable to return to work, and the investigation moved forward anyway. Asto the contracting of Debra Reilly, the process was done through what are called Agenda Staff Reports (ASR’s). The misuse and inaccurate use of ASR’s by OCPW personnelis a significant retaliation point by the Independent Review Team’s investigation of the culture and morale at OCPW following the Bustamante and Materials Lab sexual harassment saga. (Note: See above note under “Danley” and note comments on IRT team andits report, supra). Danley himself was inaccurate and misused the ASR’s on contracting for Reilly and her investigation in the following respects: (1) the initial Reilly contract for $30,000 was inappropriately backdated; (2) the second Reilly contract for an additional $25,000 in funds specifically and publicly stated the confidential protected claims made by Alisa on which the Reilly investigation was focused; and, (3) in one of the ASR’s, Danley specifically stated that Reilly was investigating claims against Alisa rather than claims by Alisa. Although Danley attempted to correct EXTTI - 000331 Page Thirty-One Exhibit FFE: July 25, 2012 rendition of what was read to Board of Supervisors re Alisa’s retaliation complaint because IRT group report was publicly disseminated by OCPW Interim Director and his team on July 18, 2012 (while Alisa was on CFRA/ FMLA leave). This was read by my paralegal, Penny McSweeney. CONCLUSION Mr. Barer, thank you very much for your expert help in this. Very truly yours, oI I W. BARUCH cc: Alisa Drakodaidis EXTTI - 000349 EXHIBIT D 9/2/13 AGENDA STAFF REPORT Agenda Item ASR Control 13-000017 MEETING DATE: 01/15/13 LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors BOARD OF SUPERVISORS All Districts DISTRICT(S): SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT: Human Resource Services (Approved) DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Steve Danley (714) 834-2836 Nick Chrisos (714) 834-3303 SUBJECT: Approve Contract Amendments for Personnel Investigative Services CEO CONCUR COUNTYCOUNSEL REVIEW CLERK OF THEBOARD Concur Approved Agreement to Form Consent Calendar 3 Votes Board Majority Budgeted: Yes Current Year Cost: $39,832.50 Annual Cost; N/A Staffing Impact: No # of Positions: Sole Source: Yes Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/A Funding Source: 100% General Fund Prior Board Action: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTIONS): I. Authorize the County Purchasing Agent or Authorized Deputy to amend and execute CT-054-13010483 with Debra L. Reilly, DBA Reilly Workplace Investigations, for the continued provision of as-needed Personnel Investigative Legal Services from August 9, 2012 to August 8, 2013, and increase the maximum obligation by $30,000 in an amount not to exceed $54,000 per Board policy. 2. Authorize the County Purchasing Agent or Authorized Deputy to amend and execute CT-054-13010255 with Bickmore and Associates, Inc., for the continued provision of as- needed Personnel Investigation Legal Services from August 8, 2012 to August 7, 2013, and increase the maximum obligation by $9,832.50 to an amount not to exceed $33,832.50 per Board policy. SUMMARY: The Human Resource Services (HRS) department requests approval to amend the Agreements with Debra L. Reilly, and Bickmore and Associates, Inc., to provide for the completion ofcertain Personnel Investigative Legal cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher_SanvAgenda01_15_2013_files/images/A13-000017.HTM 13 EXTTI - 008726 9/2113 AGENDA STAFF REPORT Services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2012, the Compliance Oversight Committee (Human Resources Director, Internal Audit Director, County Counsel) was formed, in part, to coordinate, review and ensure quality EEO investigations. One outcome was the decision to have all EEO allegations against County executives performed by independent investigators. Investigative personnel services include the comprehensive research of testimonial and written evidence, formal interviewing of complainants and witnesses, and the completion of a comprehensive, confidential investigative report. The investigator will also, if necessary, be available to testify in depositions or personnel hearings. In orderto expedite the immediate need to investigate the then-existing number ofcomplaints, the Human Resource Services (HRS) department and County Counsel interviewed and selected investigators with contracts of less than $25,000; contract amounts would subsequently be amended at a later date if necessary for the completion of each investigation. At the same time, HRS and County Counsel developed and released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the establishment of an on-call list of investigators to be used on an as-needed basis in the future. At present, interviewsare scheduled to select investigators for the on-call list. Regular updates regarding the investigations are provided to County Counsel. All of the initial pre-RFP investigations are either complete or near completion. Each investigation is unique with varying degrees of complexity and effort required for completion. Some are relatively straightforward while others are complex with multiple variables and interviews required for adjudication. Accordingly, some investigations have been completed for less than the $25,000 contract limit while others necessarily require work over that amount. In one case, the same investigator was used to perform two separate investigations. In another case, the investigation has required extensive efforts over an extended period oftime to adequately address the number ofissues that have been raised. This Agenda Staff Report is to address those contracts which require a monetary increase above the current $25,000 amount to complete the investigations. In one instance, the contractor is approaching the $25,000 contract limit and requires an additional $30,000 in additional funding to complete the investigation. In another instance, the vendor completed the first investigation under the $25,000 limit, but at the conclusion of the second investigation, the investigator has billed an amount that is $9,832.50 over the $25,000 total contract limit. HRSrequests your Honorable Board's approval ofthese monetary increases to cover the estimated increased time and costs for completion ofthese investigations, FINANCIAL IMPACT: The costs of both contract amendments are being paid out of the General Fund. The amendments will increase the maximum obligation for Debra L. Reilly from $24,000 to $54,000; for Bickmore and Associates from $24,000 to $33,832.50. The increased costs of the amendments will be paid within existing appropriations of the Human Resource Services FY 2012-13 Budget. cams.ocgov.comMWeb_Publisher_Sanmv/Agenda01_15_2013_files/images/A13-000017.HTM 2/3 EXTTI- 008727 9/2/13 AGENDA STAFF REPORT STAFFING IMPACT: N/A REVIEWING AGENCIES: County Executive Office County Counsel ATTACHMENT(S): Sole Source Justification (2) Agreement for Professional Services (2) Amendment | (2) cams.ocgov.comWeb_Publisher_SamvAgenda01_15_2013_files/images/A13-000017.HTM EXTTI - 008728 Attachment - Sole Source/ Proprietary Request Form « C Our Community Our Commitment COUNTY POLICY ON SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS: It is the policy of the County of Orangeto solicit competitive bids and proposals for its procurement requirements. Sole source procurement shall not be used unless there is clear and convincing evidence that only one source exists to fulfill the County's requirements. All sole source purchases requiring Board of Supervisors approval shall be justified as meeting the sole source standard in the Agenda Staff Report. The Agenda Staff Report shall clearly state thatit is a sole source procurement. The Sole Source Justification, as described below, shall be attached within the Agenda Staff Report (CPM, Section 4.4) SECTION | — INSTRUCTION FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM: 1. Formal justification is required for sole source procurements when competitive bid guidelines require pricing from competing firms. 2. A written justification will be prepared by the department and approved by the department head or designee. 3. Prior to execution of a contract, the County Purchasing Agent or designee shall approve ALL sole source requests for commodities that exceed $250,000 and services exceeding $50,000 or a two (2) year consecutive term, regardless of the contract amount. 4. If vendor is a retired, former Orange County employee, CEO Budget shall approve the sole source request, regardless of the sole source amount. 5. Board approval is required for all sole source contracts for commodities that exceed $250,000 and services exceeding $50,000 or a two (2) year consecutive term, regardless of the contract amount. 6. The Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) shall retain a copy of the justification as part of the contract file. 7. Valid sole source request contain strong technological and/or programmatic justifications. 8. Sole source procurements may be approved based upon emergency situations in which there is not adequate time for competitive bidding. 9. Sole source requests for Human Service contracts will be guided by the regulations of the funding source. 10. Each question in Section lll of this form must be answered in detail and signed by the department head with concurrence of the Deputy Purchasing Agent. SECTION i —- DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Department: Date: Human Resource Services 01/7/13 Vendor Name: Sale Source BidSync Number: Debra L. Reilly, DBA Reilly Workplace 054-559125-48 Investigations Is the above named vendor a retired employee of the County of Orange? 0 Yes No {f “Yas”, review and ApprovalIs required from CEO Budget prior to contract execution. Amount; Contract Term (Dates): Is Agreement Grant Funded? Funding Source: Percent Funded: Proprietary? 30,000 08/09/12 and on as Oyes XNo GF 100% Ovyes XNo needed basis Type of Request: 0 New O Renewal OmMmulti-year B® Amendment Oincrease ORetired Former Employee Board Date: ASR Number: If not scheduled to go to the Board explain why? 01/15/13 Click here to entertext. N/A Does Contract Include Non-Standard Language? If yes, explain in detail, Click here to enter text. Was Contract Approved by Risk Mgmt? Was Contract Approved by CoCo? N/A Yes Page 10f 3 Sole Source Proprietary Request Form (Rev 08/07/12) ecr EXTT! - 008729 Were any exceptions taken? If yes, explain in detail. Click here to entertext. SECTION ill — SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION 1 2. 3. Provide a description of the type of contract to be established. (For example: is the contract a commodity, service, human service, public works, or other — please explain.) Thisis a service contract and the required services are of an investigative and legal nature. Provide a detailed description of services/commodities to be provided by the vendor. (This information may be obtainedfrom the scope of work prepared by the County and the vendor's proposalthat provides a detailed description of the services/supplies). Attach additional sheet if necessary. Debra L. Reilly, DBA Workplace Investigations has been retained to investigate claims and allegations from County staff against a County executive. The services include interviewing witnesses and respondent(s), gathering facts, making credible determinations of complaintant(s), witnesses and respondent(s) to determine if respondent(s) violated County policies. The consultant will provide a confidential report of the findings, and if necessary, testify in personnel hearings, depositions and in Court. Please state why the recommended vendor is the only one capable of providing the required supplies and/or commodities. Include any back-up information or documentation which supports your recommendation. (Acceptable responsesto this question will include strong programmatically/technological Information that supports the claim that there is only one vendor that can provide the services and/or commodities). Attach additional sheet If necessary. The original contract was not expected to exceed $24,000, however, the investigation is taking longer than anticipated due to the number ofallegations made. Itis critical that this vendor be retained in order to conclude the investigation and mitigate possible litigation. 4, Please list any other sources that have been contacted and explain in detail why they cannot fulfill the County’s requirements. (Responses to this section should include information pertaining to any research that was conducted to establish that the vendor Is a sole source. Responses should include information pertaining to discussions with other potential suppliers and why they were no longer being considered by the County). Answers to this section may be provided by the requestor and the Deputy Purchasing Agent as appropriate. Attach additional sheet If necessary. The Board of Supervisors directed the HRS Director to address allegations against County executives in a specific manner. Investigators are required to be attorneys and could not previously be employed by the County. Additionally, dependent on the allegation, female investigators were required. Several investigations are ongoing and multiple vendors are being used to ensure that all investigations are conducted in a timely manner. How does recommended vendor's prices or fees compare to the general market? Attach quotes for comparable services or supplies, if available. Attach additional sheetIf necessary. Page 2 of 3 Sole Source Proprietary Request Form (Rev 08/07/12) ecr EXTTI - 008730 This vendor's prices are comparable to other vendors currently contracting with the County for investigative services. 6. If recommended vendor could not provide the product or service, how would the County accomplish this particular task? Attach additional sheetif necessary. If this vendor could not provide the service forthis investigation, duplicative efforts would be needed and costs would increase. 7. If vendoris a retired, former employee, has the vendor previously been rehired as a working retiree or a contractor within the last three years? J Yes No If yes, provide the following information: a) If a working retiree, provide time periods worked, hours worked, and hourly amounts paid. bj If a contractor {regardless of scope of work}, provide contract dates, scope of work, and total amounts paid under each contract. Attach additional sheets if necessary. N/A 8. If the vendor is a retired, former employee, provide explanation/support for hiring the retired, former employee as a vendor instead of a working retiree. Attach additional sheet If necessary. N/A SECTIONIV ~ AUTHOR/REQUESTOR Signature; Print Name: Date: Stephanie Smith-Pitts 1/7/13 SECTION V — CEQ BUDGET APPROVAL (Review and approval Is required when vendoris a Retired, Former Employee.) Signature: Print Name: Date: Click here to enter text, Click here to enter test. SECTION VI —- DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT CONCURRENCE Signature: Print Name: Date: Click here 10 enter ext. Click here to enter text. = SECTION VII - DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL Signature: / Print Mame: Nate St / / Steve Danley 1/7/13 / > ’ L Us 5 ” | SECTION Vill - COUNTY PROCUREMENT OFFICE ( County Procurement Officereview and approval required when the value of the sole source agreement exceeds $50,000. Approvals obtained electronically through BidSync. Page 3 of 3 Sole Source Proprietary Request Form (Rev 08/07/12) ecr EXTT! - 008731 CtC Sole Source/ Proprietary Request Form. Our Community Our Commitment COUNTY POLICY ON SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS: It is the policy of the County of Orangeto solicit competitive bids and proposals forits procurement requirements. Sole source procurementshall not be used unless there is clear and convincing evidence that only one source exists to fulfill the County's requirements. All sole source purchases requiring Board of Supervisors approval shall be justified as meeting the sole source standard in the Agenda Staff Report. The Agenda Staff Report shall clearly state thatit is a sole source procurement. The Sole Source Justification, as described below, shall be attached within the Agenda Staff Report (CPM, Section 4.4) SECTION | = INSTRUCTION FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM: 1. Formaljustification is required for sole source procurements when competitive bid guidelines require pricing from competing firms, 2. Awrittenjustification will be prepared by the department and approved by the department head or designee. Prior to execution of a contract, the County Purchasing Agent or designee shall approve ALL sole source requests for commodities that exceed $250,000 and services exceeding $50,000 or a two (2) year consecutive term, regardless of the contract amount. 4. If vendor is a retired, former Orange County employee, CEO Budget shall approve the sole source request, regardless of the sole source amount. 5. Board approval is required for all sole source contracts for commodities that exceed $250,000 and services exceeding $50,000 or a two (2) year consecutive term, regardless of the contract amount. 6. The Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) shall retain a copy of the justification as part of the contractfile. 7. Valid sole source request contain strong technological and/or programmatic justifications. 8. Sole source procurements may be approved based upon emergency situations in which there is not adequate time for competitive bidding. 9. Sole source requests for Human Service contracts will be guided by the regulations of the funding source. 10. Each question in Section Ill of this form must be answered in detail and signed by the department head with concurrence of the Deputy Purchasing Agent. SECTION i — DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Department: Date: Human Resource Services 01/7/13 Vendor Name: Sole Source BidSync Number: Bickmore and Associates DBA Bickmore Risk 054-557384-48 Services Is the above named vendor a retired employee of the County of Orange? 0 Yes XNo If “Yes”, review andApproval Is required from CEO Budget prior to contract ition. Amount: Contract Term (Dates): Is Agreement Grant Funded? Funding Source: Percent Funded: Proprietary? 9,832.50 08/08/12 and on as OvYes XNo GF 100% Oves XNo needed basis Type of Request: OC New O Renewal OmMulti-Year X Amendment Oincrease [IRetired Former Employee Board Date; ASR Number: If not scheduled to go to the Board explain why? 01/15/13 Click here to entertext. N/A Does Contract include Non-Standard Language? If yes, explain in detail, Click here to enter text. Was Contract Approved by Risk Mgmt? Was Contract Approved by CoCo? N/A Yes Page 10f 3 Sole Source Proprietary Request Form (Rev 08/07/12) ecr EXTTI - 008732 Were any exceptions taken? If yes, explain in detail, Click here to enter text. SECTION lil - SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION 1, 3. Provide a description of the type of contract to be established. (For example: is the contract a commodity, service, human service, public works, or other — please explain.) This is a professional services consultant contract. The required services are of an investigative nature. Provide a detailed description of services/commodities to be provided by the vendor. (This information may be obtainedfrom the scope of work prepared by the County and the vendor's proposal that provides a detailed description of the services/supplies). Attach additional sheet If necessary. Bickmore Risk Services has been retained to investigate claims and allegations from County staff against two County executives. The services they are providing include interviewing witnesses and respondents, gathering facts, making credible determinations of complaintants, witnesses and respondents to determine if respondents violated County policies. The consultant will provide a confidential report ofthe findings for each of the investigations. Please state why the recommended vendor is the only one capable of providing the required supplies and/or commodities. Include any back-up information or documentation which supports your recommendation. (Acceptable responses to this question will include strong programmatically/technological information that supports the claim that there Is only one vendor that can provide the services and/or commodities). Attach additional sheet if necessary. The original contract was not expected to exceed $24,000 for an investigation of one County executive. However,a second investigation was initiated based on allegations against another executive who is an elected official. It is critical that this vendor be retained in order to conclude the second investigation. 4. Please list any other sources that have been contacted and explain in detail why they cannot fulfill the County’s requirements, (Responses to this section should include information pertaining to any research that was conducted to establish that the vendor is a sole source. Responses should include information pertaining to discussions with other potential suppliers and why they were no longer being considered by the County). Answers to this section may be provided by the requestor and the Deputy Purchasing Agent as appropriate. Attach additional sheet If necessary. The Board of Supervisors directed the HRS Director to address allegations against County executives in a specific manner. Investigators are required to be attorneys and could not previously be employed by the County. Additionally, dependent on the allegation, female investigators were required. Several investigations are ongoing and multiple vendors are being used to ensure that all investigations are conducted in a timely manner. How does recommended vendor's prices or fees compare to the general market? Attach quotes for comparable services or supplies, if available. Attach additional sheet if necessary. Page20of3 Sole Source Proprietary Request Form (Rev 08/07/12) ecr EXTTI - 008733 This vendor's prices are comparable to other vendors currently contracting with the County for investigative services. If recommended vendor could not provide the product or service, how would the County accomplish this particular task? Attach additional sheet if necessary. Ifthis vendor could not provide the service forthis investigation, duplicative efforts would be needed and costs would increase. If vendor is a retired, former employee, has the vendor previously been rehired as a working retiree or a contractor within the last three years? 0 Yes ® No If yes, provide the following information: a) If a working retiree, provide time periods worked, hours worked, and hourly amounts paid. b) If a contractor (regardless of scope of work), provide contract dates, scope of work, and total amounts paid under each contract. anach additional sheets if necessary. N/A If the vendor is a retired, former employee, provide explanation/support for hiring the retired, former employee as a vendor instead of a working retiree, attach additional sheetif necessary. N/A SECTION IV - AUTHOR/REQUESTOR | signature: Print Name: Date: | Stephanie Smith-Pitts 1/7/13 SECTION V — CEO BUDGET APPROVAL (Review and approvalis required when vendor Is a Retired, Former Employee.) Signature: Print Name: Date: N/A Click here to entertext. SECTION VI — DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT CONCURRENCE Signature: Print Name: I Date Click here to enter test. Click here to enter test. =a SECTION VII - DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL I Signature; ~4(2 Steve Danl ey 1/7/13 Print Naine: Date SECTION VII - COUNTY PROCU REMENT OFFICE County Procurement-OfficeJeview and approval required when the value of the sole source agreement exceeds$50,000. Approvals obtained electronically through BidSync. Page 3of 3 Sole Source Proprietary Request Form (Rev 08/07/12) ecr EXTTI - 008734 Amendment Number One To Contract Number CT-054-13010483 With Debra L. Reilly, DBA Reilly Workplace Investigations For Professional Services For Human Resource Services (HRS) This Amendment Number One (hereinafter “Amendment”) 10 Contract Number CT-054-13010483 (hereinafter “Contract” is made and entered into upon exceution ofall necessary signatures or approval by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, whichever occurs later, between Debra L. Reilly, DBA Reilly Workplace Investigations, with a place ofbusiness at 2240 Encinitas Bivd., Suite D-104, Encinitas, CA 92024-4345 (hereinafier “Contractor”) and the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter “County"), with County and Contractor sometimes individually referred to as “Party”, or collectively referred 10 as “Panies™. WHEREAS, Countyand Contracior catered into a Contract for Professional Secviecs for Workplace Investigation Services, effective August 9, 2012 through and including August 8, 2013, with a “maximum” dollar arnount of $24,000.00; and WHEREAS, the County desires 10 aniend the Contractto reflect change to a Sole Source Contract; to increase the “maximum” dollar amount by $30,000.00 for additional investigatory work; and to add language for Payment - Invoicing Instructions; NOWTHEREFORE, in consideration of thc mutual obligations sct forth herein, both County and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Article 6, "COMPENSATION", shall be amended 10 read as follows: COUNTY shail compensate CONSULTANT as full consideration for the faithful performance of the requirements and obligations at the hourly rate of $235.00. The maxintum amount of compensation pursuanLo this agreement shall not exceed $54,000.00. 2. Article 20 "PAYMENT-INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS", shall be added as follows: The Contractor will provide an invoice in arrears and on the 15® of each month on the Contractor's letterhead for services not previously invoiced The Contractor shall reimburse the County of Orange for any monics paid to the Contractor for services not provided or when services do not meet the Contract requirements, Payments made by the County shall not prectude the right of the County from (hereafter disputing any services involved or billed under this Contract and shalt not be construed as acceptance ofany part of the services. 3. Except as amended herein, all terms and conditions, including those terms of the Original Contract and any amendments‘modifications are incorporated by this reference as iffully set forth herein and shall remain in full force. - Signature Page Follows - County ofOrange CT-017-13010463-4AM! Page 1 of2 Human Resource Services (HRS) Debra L Reilly, File No.: 559125 DRA Reilly Workplace Investigations EXTTI - 008735 ~ Signature Page - The Parties hereto have executed this AmendmentNumber Onc to Contract an the dates shown opposite their respective signatures below. Debra L. Reilly, DBA Reilly Workplace Investigations *; Debra L. Reilly Bllorney | owner 3 Title vl Olen )-H-2013 Signature Jf’ Date Print Name Title Signature Date * If ¢the Contractor is a corporation, signatures ofcorporateare required as further sct forth. o The first corporate officer signature must be one of the following: 1) the Chairman of the Board; 2) the President; 3) any Vice President. ¢ The second corporate officer signature must be one of the following: a) Secretary; b) Assistant Secretary; c) Chief Financial Officer; d) Assistant Treasurer. In the alternative, a single corporate signature is acceptable when accompanied by a corporate resolution demonstrating the legal authority ofthe signature to bind the company. BEREANRRACENRERCRRTRRTURECRTRIANAERENTEREDONTENTRARDNAANERRHNHRWRNERwrHirddedrdddWied COUNTYOFORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California Print Name Title Signature Date RARERARTAATEAAERRRAEERANEAARAREANIREEARSIAREATREAREEAARCEARAAAAERAAECARANEARERR APPROVED AS TO FORM Office of the County Counsel County ofOrange, California SuepuaanSt. Derory Coorg Coonssse Print Name ' Title ’ ea / . > © / = Signature Date County ofOrange CT-017-13010483-4M1 Page 20f2 Human Resource Services (HRS) Debra L Reilly, File No.: 559125 DBA Retlly Workplace Investigations EXTTI - 008736 Amendment Number One To Contract Number CT-054-13010255 With Bickmore and Associates, Inc., DBA Bickmore Risk Services For Professional Services For Human Resource Services (HRS) This Amendment Number One (hereinafter “Amendment”) to Contract Number CT-054-13010255 (hereinafter “Contract”) is made and entered into upon exccution of all necessary signatures or approval by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, whichever occurs later, between Bickmore and Associates, Inc., DBA Bickmore Risk Services, with a place of business at 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833-3648 (hereinafter “Contractor”) and the County of Orange, Human Resource Services (HRS), a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter “County™), with County and Contractor sometimes individually referred to as “Party”, or collectively referred to as “Parties”. WHEREAS, County and Contractor entered into a Contract for Professional Services to perform investigative services, effective August 8, 2012 through and including August 7, 2013, with a “maximum?”dollar amount of $24,000.00; and WHEREAS, the County desires lo amend the Contract to reflect change to a Sole Source Contract; and to increase the “maximum”dollar amount by $9,832.50 for additional investigatory work; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations set forth herein, both County and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Article 5, “COMPENSATION, shall be amended to read as follows: COUNTYshall compensate CONSULTANT as full consideration for the faithful performance of the requirements and obligations at the hourly rate of $195.00. The maximum amount of compensation pursuant to this agreement shall not exceed $33,832.50. 2. Except as amended herein,all terms and conditions, including those terms ofthe Original Contract and any amendments/modifications are incorporated by this referenceas if fully set forth herein and shall remain in full force. - Signature Page Follows - CT-017-13010255-AM! Page 1 of2 Bickmore and Associates, Inc., File No.: 557384 DBA Bickmore Risk Services County ofOrange Human Resource Services (HRS) EXTTI - 008737 - Signature Page - TheParties hereto have executed this Amendment Number One to Contract on the dates shown opposite their respective signatures below. Bickmore and Associates, Inc., DBA Bickmore Risk Services *: Lob Kramer Precrdvat Aotummie¥e=tion Prete & Seerton, Print Name Title ’ JYJl Jy[2012 Signature Date JefSF Grobbs Cc Fo Print Name Title oe, MN1/9/2002 Signature Date * If the Contractor is a corporation,signatures of two specific corporate officers are required as furtherset forth. o The first corporate officer signature must be one of the following: 1) the Chairinan of the Board; 2) the President; 3) any Vice President. » The second corporate officer signature must be one ofthe following: a) Secretary; b) Assistant Secretary; c) Chief Financial Officer; d) Assistant Treasurer. ' In the alternative, a single corporate signature is acceptable when accompanied by a corporate resolution demonstrating the legal authority of the signature to bind the company. - Weol oeeesheoe oese ole ole ole oe ole oe ole she ok sie oe she oie wl oir oe irde le oe Yr Vat dleie ol le oir ole oh oko oir le veo ole wokeeae she ole se ole oe ole oe oe ole ole le oe ole oe de ok oe oe ole oe ole oeeeoe oe oeve COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California Print Name Title Signature Date hese leheehese shele se sl le oeshe seoe she ole he ie le Se si le ole she se se ol le se le oe ole ole she vi ole ole ole leole sk ole she vie sie se oe stehe le ele she ole fe ole le ie oe she de oe oe oe Tokele ok ve ol ooeeoeeo APPROVED AS TO FORM Office ofthe County Counsel County of Orange, California Danie.Suepugrrs <¢ . Depvry Coody Coosa Print Name = Title : ! fa (- Z- (> Signature Date County ofOrange CT-017-13010255-AM] Page2 of2 Human Resource Services (HRS) Bickmore andAssociates, Inc., File No.: 557384 DBA Bickmore Risk Services EXTTI - 008738 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COUNTY OF ORANGE, COUNTY COUNSEL (hereinafter referred to as COUNTY) and DEBRA L. REILLY, ESQ. (hereinafter referred to ass CONSULTANT) in consideration of the mutual promises made herein, agree as follows: SCOPE OF RETENTION OF CONSULTANT L. COUNTY herebyretains CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT accepts said retention as a consultant. CONSULTANT agrees to Perform Investigative Legal Services of specific complaints as designated by the COUNTY’S authorized officers, administrators or designees. Debra L. Reilly will be performing duties as a licensed attorney at law, utilizing her skill, training, and professional judgment in employment law, to conduct independent, impartial, and objective employment investigations concerning various employee claims, as may arise from time to time. The limited scope engagement of this attorney is to gather facts, make factual findings, make credibility determinations (if necessary) of Complainant(s), witnesses, and Respondent(s) (accused employees), and to determine whether the Respondent(s) violated any policies of the COUNTY. This investigator will not be acting in the role of an “advocate” attomey for the COUNTY. This limited scope engagement consists only of investigating the allegations, writing a report of the factual findings and conclusions, and if necessary, testifying in personnel hearings, deposition, or court, Post-investigation legal advice and/or recommendations concerning potential “corrective action” are outside the scope ofthis retention. COUNTY certifies that this investigation is not being conducted for any other purpose, and that (if necessary under the circumstances ofthis case) it will comply with the notice and consent rules required of employers under the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civil Code Section 1786,et seq.). 2, CONSULTANT shall appear and provide testimony at any personnel hearing, deposition or court proceeding in connection with these duties. 3. With respect to the Alisa Drakodaidis allegations, Ms. Reilly will investigate the following allegations, which are subject to amendment should Complainant add new claims or should the below-referenced claims need to be modified to more accurately reflect the claims alleged: * Complainant Is Experiencing Retaliation Because She Reported Several EEO Complaints, Which Were Brought To Her Attention * Complainant Reported Sensitive Political Issues Regarding Questionable Behavior By Current Huntington Beach Councilman Matthew Harper, Mr, Harper’s Administrative Manager Chip Monaco, and Supervisor Bates * Complainant Was Vocal In Objecting To Specific Hiring and Funding Decisions Which Violated The Public Trust and Appropriate County Recruitment Policies * Independent Report Commissioned By Orange County Public Works Interim Director and Written By Four Retired Orange County Employees Was Made In -1- EXTT! - 008739 Retaliation Against Complainant and Constitutes A Hostile Work Environment Complainant's Salary Was Reduced In December Of 2011 Without Comparing It To The Salaries Of Her Male Counterparts and Without Considering Her Expanded Duties Fraudulent Activity Occurs In Orange County Government Nepotism Occurs In Orange County Government Complainant Has Suffered Public Character “Assignation Disparate Action By The Performance Audit Including Accessing Complainant's Confidential Personnel File Males Object To Reporting To A Female Females Assigned To Work For Male Managers And Told That They Are Not Qualified To Hold Higher Responsibility Or Management Positions County Has Not Responded To Verbal And Written Objections Raised Regarding Violations OfEEO Policy Female Salaries Are Not Commensurate With Male Counterpart’s Salaries Or Representative In Management Ranks In Proportional Comparison To Workforce Composition Central Human Resources Has Demonstrated Incompetent Reporting And Documenting Of Facts, Lack Of Sound Advice, Taken Erroneous Actions, And Provided Insufficient Oversight HRD Has Refused To Provide Results Of Investigatory Reports For Discipline And EEO Report Findings To Complainant Board Members Make Demeaning Comments Towards Females And Protected Classes Complainant Has Been Harassed, Subjected To Hostile Work Environment, And Retaliated Against For Holding Individuals Accountable Complainant Suffered Gender Discrimination And Retaliation When CEO Mauk Moved Complainant To A Department On An Immediate Basis So She Would Not Be In Position To Serve As Acting CEO; CEO Mauk Said He Moved Complainant For Her Protection As She Was Going To Be “Eaten Alive” EXTTI- 008740 10. 11. TERM The term of said retention hereunder shall be on an as needed basis for a period determined by the COUNTY beginning upon the execution of this agreement. REPORTING CONSULTANT shall report to the Office of County Counsel. Written Reports produced by the Consultant will be sent to the Office of The County Counsel and will be considered to be the Work Product of County Counsel. Reports will be addressed to the Attention ofNick Chrisos, County Counsel. COMPENSATION COUNTY shall compensate CONSULTANT as full consideration for the faithful performance of the requirements and obligations of this Agreementat the hourly rate of $235.00. The maximum amount of compensation pursuant to this agreement shall not exceed $15,000.00 without prior approval based on investigation progress. The maximum ofthis contract is $24,000.00, unless approval is obtained from the Board ofSupervisors. PERFORMANCE BY CONSULTANT During the term of this agreement, CONSULTANT, shall perform the duties, responsibilities and tasks under this agreement as assigned by the COUNTY in a competent, professional, and prompt manner. ASSIGNMENT The CONSULTANT shall not assign this Agreement or any part thereof without prior written consent ofthe COUNTY, CONFLICT OF INTEREST During the term of this contract for a period of six months thereafter, CONSULTANT shall not, directly or indirectly, engage, or participate in any activity that conflicts with the duties of this Agreement. TERMINATION The COUNTY or CONSULTANT may terminate this agreement and the retention hereunder any time upon ten (10) days written notice to the other. In the event of termination under this contract COUNTY'S obligations to CONSULTANT shall cease for any uncompensated services. NOTICE Any notices to be given hereunderby either party to the other shall be in writing and may be transmitted by personal delivery or by mail, registered or certified postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the COUNTY and to CONSULTANT. Each party may change that address by written notice in accordance with this section. Notices delivered personally shall be deemed communicated as of the -3- EXTTI - 008741 12. 13. 14. 15, date of actual receipt; mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of two (2) days following date ofmailing. EMPLOYEE STATUS This agreement and CONSULTANT'Sretention by the COUNTY shall not be deemed to create any rights as a regular employee of the COUNTY under any provision of the COUNTY'S Personnel Rules and Regulations or any Memorandum of Understanding. In fact, CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee ofthe COUNTY, No employee benefits shall be available, paid, or accrued to CONSULTANT during the term of this agreement. Further, CONSULTANT shall retain the obligation to pay income and self-employment taxes on compensation or indemnification for any injury, sickness, or stress arising out ofthe performance ofthis contract. CONSULTANT'S INDEMNITY COUNTY will indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT from and against all claims, suits, or causes of actions arising out of any complaint brought against CONSULTANT during or as a result of the CONSULTANT'S investigation services, COUNTY will also provide legal representation for the CONSULTANT together with COUNTY during any litigation in which CONSULTANT is named as a defendant as a result of the investigation services. This provision does not apply to claims arising out of CONSULTANT’S negligent, willful, and/or malicious conduct in the course of the investigation. CONSULTANT will indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys’ fees arising out of the performance of the services set form in the “Scope of Retention” section of this Agreement, to the extent they are caused by the willful misconduct or negligent act or omission ofCONSULTANT. MEDIA RELATIONS CONSULTANT shall not make any statement to the news media regarding any element ofthe information related to the services provided underthis agreement. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements,either oral or in writing between the parties hereto with respectto the retention of CONSULTANT by the COUNTY and contains all of the covenants and conditions between the parties with respect to that retention in any manner whatsoever. Each perty to this contract acknowledges that any parties, which are not embodied herein, orally, or otherwise have made no representation, inducements, promises or contacts, and that no other contracts, statements, or promises not contained in this contract shall be valid or binding on either party. Any modification of this contract will be effective only if it is in writing and signed by the party to the change. EFFECT OF WAIVER -4- EXTTI - 008742 16. The failure of either party to insist on strict compliance with any terms, covenants, or conditions ofthis contact by the other party shall not be deemed a waiver of that term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver of relinquishmient of any right or power at any one time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishmentofthat right or power for all or any other times. PARTIAL INVALIDITY 17. If any provision in this contract is held by a court of competentjurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT 18. This agreement is made by ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL on behalf ofthe COUNTY. LAW GOVERNING AGREEMENT 19. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Executed this 9th day ofAugust, 2012, at Santa Ana, California, COUNTY OF ORANGE CONSULTANT By: 0 By: Sv]S4,Directora Resources ebra L. Reilly, Esq. EXTTI - 008743 Revision to ASR and/or Exhibits/Attachments Date: January 14, 2013 To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ~Z A From: Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel ASR Control #(s): 13-000017 Agenda Item(s) # 19 for the January 15, 2013 Board Meeting Subject: Approve Contract Amendments for Personnel Investigative Services Explanation: oz S X Revised Recommended Action(s) . Ratify actions of County Counselto initiate legal services agreement and approve agreement CT-054-13010483 wth Debra L. Reilly, DBA Reilly Workplace Investigations, for the continued provision of as-needétl Personnel Investigative Legal Services from August 9, 2012 10 August 8, 2013, and increase the maximum obligation by $30,000 in an amount not to exceed $55,000. J] Make modifications to the: OJ Subject Background Information Summary J Revised Exhibits/Attachments (attached) J Additional Information and/or Correspondence (attached) CC: County Executive Office EXTTI - 008744 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COUNTY OF ORANGE, COUNTY COUNSEL (hereinafter referred to as COUNTY and RUTH GRAF-URASAKI (hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT)in consideration of the mutual promises made herein, agree as follows: SCOPE OF RETENTION OF CONSULTANT 1. COUNTYhereby retains CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT accepts said retention as - a consultant. CONSULTANT agrees to Perform Investigative Services of specific complaints as designated by the COUNTY'S authorized officers, administrators or designees. 24 CONSULTANT shall appear and provide testimony at any personnel hearing, deposition or court proceeding in connection with these duties. TERM 3. The term of said retention hereunder shall be on an as needed basis for a period determined by the COUNTY beginning upon the execution ofthis agreement, REPORTING 4, CONSULTANTshall report to the Human Resources Director or his designee. Written Reports produced by the Consultant will be sent to the Office of The County Counsel and will be considered to be the Work Product of County Counsel. Reports will be addressed to the Attention ofNick Chrisos, County Counsel. COMPENSATION 5. COUNTY shall compensate CONSULTANT as full consideration for the faithful performance ofthe requirements and obligations of this Agreement at the hourly rate of one hundred-ninety-five dollars ($195.00). The maximum amount of compensation pursuant to this agreement shall not exceed $15,000.00 without prior approval based on investigation progress. The maximum ofthis contract is $24,000.00, unless approval is obtained from the Board of Supervisors, PERFORMANCE BY CONSULTANT 6. During the term of this agreement, CONSULTANT, shall perform the duties, responsibilities and tasks under this agreement as assigned by the COUNTY in a competent, professional and prompt manner. ASSIGNMENT 7. The CONSULTANT shall not assign this Agreement or any part thereof without prior written consent of the COUNTY. EXTTI - 008745 10. 11. 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST During the term ofthis contract for a period of six months thereafter, CONSULTANT shall not, directly or indirectly, engage, or participate in any activity that conflicts with the duties ofthis Agreement. TERMINATION The COUNTY or CONSULTANT may terminate this agreement and the retention hereunder any time upon ten (10) days written notice to the other. In the event of termination under this contract COUNTY’S obligations to CONSULTANT shall cease for any uncompensated services. NOTICE Any notices to be given hereunder byeither party to the other shall be in writing and may be transmitted by personal delivery or by mail, registered or certified postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the COUNTY and to CONSULTANT. Each party may change that address by written notice in accordance with this section. Notices delivered personally shall be deemed communicated as of the date of actual receipt; mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of two (2) days following date of mailing. EMPLOYEE STATUS This agreement and CONSULTANT'S retention by the COUNTY shall not be deemed to create any rights as a regular employee of the COUNTY under any provision of the COUNTY?’S Personnel Rules and Regulations or any Memorandum of Understanding. In fact, CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of the COUNTY. No employee benefits shall be available, paid, or accrued to CONSULTANT during the term ofthis agreement. Further, CONSULTANT shall retain the obligation to pay income and self-employment taxes on compensation or indemnification for any injury, sickness, or stress arising out of the performance of this contract. CONSULTANT'S INDEMNITY COUNTY will indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT from and against all claims, suits, or causes of actions arising out of any complaint brought against CONSULTANT during or as a result of the CONSULTANT'S investigation services. COUNTY will also provide legal representation for the CONSULTANT together with COUNTY during any litigation in which CONSULTANT is named as a defendant as a result of the investigation services. This provision does not apply to claimsarising out of CONSULTANT'S negligent, willful, and/or malicious conduct in the course of the investigation. CONSULTANT will indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys’ fees arising out of the performanceof the services set form in the “ Scope of Retention” section of this Agreement, to the extent they are caused by the willful misconduct or negligent act or omission of CONSULTANT. 2- EXTTI - 008746 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. MEDIA RELATIONS CONSULTANTshall not make any statement to the news media regarding any element ofthe information related to the services provided under this agreement. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements,either oral or in writing between the parties hereto with respect to the retention of CONSULTANT by the COUNTY and contains all of the covenants and conditions between the parties with respect to that retention in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this contract acknowledges that any parties, which are not embodied herein, orally, or otherwise have made no representation, inducements, promises or contacts, and that no other contracts, statements, or promises not contained in this contract shall be valid or binding on either party. Any modification of this contract will be effective only if it is in writing and signed by the party to the change. EFFECT OF WAIVER The failure of either party to insist on strict compliance with any terms, covenants, or conditions of this contact by the other party shall not be deemed a waiver ofthat term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver of relinquishment of any right or power at any one time or times be deemed a waiveror relinquishmentof that right or power for all or any other times. PARTIAL INVALIDITY If any provision in this contract is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT This agreement is made by ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL on behalf ofthe COUNTY. LAW GOVERNING AGREEMENT This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Executed this 5 day of Pegust , 2012, at 2— L:.Sly At California. COUNTY OF ORANGE CONSULTANT By: A1S By: JUSf—— Steve les ) RuthrGraf-Urasaki Lob Kramer sourcesDirector, Human Re Department HO0-W-—Towrmrand-Country-Ré--Suite ATIAW Precrstval, Admntine Puck 1550-Orange,C192868 1350 Creelsicle Oakes Pr.) Hao -3- Sagamento, ga 9583 3 EXTTI - 008747 © O0 0 N N o o U 1 A& A W N B = N N N N N N N N N N B N F H RF R R R R E E E = = = 0 0 N o o u n A W M N H H O V O O N O O U O A W M N = O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE | am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 Town & Country Rd., Suite 1450, Orange, California 92868. On January 22, 2018, | served the foregoing document(s) described as DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.9TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO DANELY’S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ASR REGARDING REILLY CONTRACT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TINA A.SAPOUNAKIS; EXHIBITS on the interested parties by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Xx BY MAIL: As follows: | am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, | deposited such envelope in the mail at Orange, California. X BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: | caused all of the pages of the above-entitled document to be sent to the recipient(s) noted at the respective email address(es) indicated above. [1] BY FACSIMILE: | caused all of the pages of the above-entitled document to be sent to the recipient(s) noted via facsimile at the respective telephone numbers indicated above. [] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL: | caused the above-described document to be served on the interested parties noted as follows by Federal Express/Overnight M ail. [] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee via messenger. [] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER via electronic filing service provider: By electronically transmitting the documentlisted above to an electronic filing and service provider. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. X (State): | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on J anuary 22, 2018, at Orange, California. (loDf. ALBA DONJ UAN PROOF OF SERVICE O O O0 0 N N o o U 1 A W N N B = N N N N N N N N N N B N F H RF R R R R E E E = = = 0 0 N o o u n A W M N H H O V O O N O O U O A W M N = O SERVICE LIST Joel W. Baruch, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOEL W.BARUCH, PC 2020 Main Street, Suite #900 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 864-9662 (949) 851-3195 - Fax Counsel For Plaintiff PROOF OF SERVICE
