Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Civil
Unique ID-C2759-38
CASE 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
VOLUME 12
TOTAL 12
VOLUME
CIV-120
FOR COURT USE ONLY
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address): - TELEPHONE NO.
TO ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS: A dismissal was entered in this action by the clerk as shown on the
Request for Dismissal. (Attach a copy comp/eted by the c/erk)
1. I am over the age of 1'8 and not a party to this cause. I am a residerit of or'employed in the county where the mailing occurred.
My residence or business address is: 3130 Fourth Avenue
_ San Diego, CA 92103
2. rfl I served acopy of the Noticeof Entry of'Dismissal and Request for'Dismissal, by mailing them, in a sealed envelope with
postage fully prepaid, as follows:
a. 13C1 l deposited the envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b. 1 I placed the envelope for collection and,processing for mailing following this business's ordinary practice with
whicb I am readily familiar. On, the same day correspondence is placed,for collection and mailing, it is deposited
in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
c. Date of deposit: July 26, 2011
d. Place of deposit (city and state): San Diego, CA 92103
e. Addressed as follows (name and address):
Michael C. Sullivan, Esq.
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP Claudette Wilson, Esq., c/o Wilson Turner Kosmo, LLP
401 F Street, Tenth Floor 550 West "C" Street Suite 1050
4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
1 Other (specify): Complaint for Money Damages: Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassment
- A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document -
Court fees and costs were waived for a party in this case. (This information may be obtained horn the clem. if this box is
checked, the declaration on the back of this form must be completed).
Date: July 6, 2011
··...H·PauKqndrisk, Esq.
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF | ATTORNEY F-1, PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE)
*If. dismissal requested is of specified, parties only of specified causes of action Attorney or party without attorney for:
only, or of speded cross-complaints only so state and identify the parties,
causes of action, or cross-complaints to be dismissed. 1 X I PlaintifUPetitioner r-3 Defendant/Respondent
£ Cross-Complainant
3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.**
Date:
** If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative Attorney or party witbout attorney for:
relief - is on file, theattomey for cross-complainant (respondent) must
F7 Plaintiff/Petitioner F--1 DefendanURespondent
sign this consentif required by Code of Civil Procedure section 581 (i)
or 0).
Fl Cross-Complainant
(To be cnpleted by clerk)
4 11 Dismissal, entered as requested on' Mate): JUL 0 8 2011
5 F7 Dismissalientered on Mate): ,as to only (name):
6. Fl Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (spec/*):
The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any recovery of $10,000 or morein value by
settlement, compromise, arbitration award, mediation settlement, or other recovery. The court's lien must
be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
1. The court waived fees and costs in this action for (name):
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true and correct.
Date:
fil Other (speci4): Complaint for Money Damages: Discrimination, Retaliation and Harassmen
- A conformed copy will not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return is provided with the document -
/1 Court fees and costs'were waived for a party in thiscase. (This infonnation may be obtained from the clet*. if this box is
checked, the declaration on the back of this form must be completed).
Date: July 6, 2011
H. Paul Kendrick, Esq. ./ d.?bitic
(TYPE:OR PRINT NAME OF | ATTORNEY -- PARTY WITHOUTATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE)
*If dismissal requested is of specified parties only of specified causes of action Attorney or party without attorney for:
only, or of speafed cross-complaints only so state and Identify the parties,
causes of action, or cross-complaints to be dismissed. [X]Plaintiff/Petitioner DefendanURespondent
1 Cross-Complainant
3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.**
Date:
- If a cross-complaint - or Response (Family Law) seeking affirmative Attorney or party without attorney for:
relief - is on file, the attorney for cross-complainant (respondent) must Fli Plaintiff/Petitioner
sign this consentif required by Code of,Civil!Procedure section 581 (i)
11 Defendant/Respondent
or 0).
1-7 Cross-Complainant
(To be cpmpleted by clerk)
4.1-*| Dismissal entered as requested on (date): JUL 0 8 2011
5 Fl Dismissal entered on (date): as to only (name):
6.1--7 Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify)*
Clv-110
The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on·any recovery of $10,000 or more in value by
settlement, compromise, arbitration award, mediation settlement, or other recovery. The court's lien must
be paid 'before the court will dismiss the case.
3. Fl All court fees and costs that'were waived in this action have been paid to the court (check one): |1 Yes E-11 No
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true and correct.
Date:
(SIGNATURE)
(TYPE OR'PRINT NAME OF|- ATTORNEY - PARlY MAKING DECLARATION)
1 { , il f.. L E) i '.'' i o ;2 1
H. Paul Kendrick, Esq., State Bar No. 88566
H. Paul Kendrick, A.P.C.
2
3130 Fourth Avenue 11 JUL -8 PM 2: 4 E
3 San Diego, California 92103-5803
LLCAR-ou:-2-;:Kir. 006/4
Telephone: (619) 291-2400 SAN DiEGO COUNTY. CA
4
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
)
13
V. )
14
SANDIP C'MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,)
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,)
16
)
Defendants. )
17
)
18
20
I am, and was, at the times of the service hereinafter mentioned, over the age of 18
21 and not a party to the within action; I am employed in the County of San Diego, California
22
where the service occurs; and my business address is 3130 Fourth Avenue, San Diego,
23
1 California.
24
26
1. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE [Form CIV-110]
27 on all interested parties to this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
28
envelopes addressed as follows:
-1- ProofofService
1
Leonid M. Zilberman, Esq.
Wilson, Cosmo & Turner LLP
2
550 West "C" Street, Suite 1050
3 San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-9600
4
Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
5
Attorneys for Defendant Sandip ("Mickey") Minhas
6
7
Michael C. Sullivan, Esq.
8
Melissa L. Klick, Esq.
Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP
9 401 "B" Street Tenth Floor
11
Facsimile: (619) 615-0700
13
X BY U.S. MAN. (AS INDICATED ABOVE): I placed the originals or copies of
14
the described docnments, as appropriate, in a sealed envelope addressed to the parties as
15
indicated above on July 7, 2011. I am miliar with the firm's practice of collection and
16
17 processing correspondence for mailing. I personally deposited the claim in the United States
18 post office or in a mailbox, substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained
19
by the government ofthe United States, in a sealed envelope, properly addressed with postage
20
paid.
21
23 documents, and gave same to our messenger service for personal delivery/service before
24 5:00 pm. on July 7, 2011 will file the original proof ofpersonal service with the Court upon
25
request.
26
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL (as indicated above): I placed a
27
true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to the parties as indicated above, on July 7,2011. I
28
2
course ofbusiness for delivery the next business day.
3
5
291-7123, I faxed a true copy(ies) of the document(s) listed above to the parties, on July 7,
6 2011, at their fax numbers listed above as indicated by their names. The document(s)
7
were/was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as
8
complete and without error. The transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting
9
facsimile machine. A copy ofthe transmission report will be attached to the proofof service
10
11
indicating that the documents were transmitted properly, as necessary, in the future.
12 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
13
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7'h day ofJuly, 2011.
14
15 ce . eld
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MINUTE ORDER
APPEARANCES
H Paul Kondrick, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Claudette Wilson, specially appearing for counsel LEONID ZILBERMAN, present for Defendant(s).
Melissa Listug Klick, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Mike Sullivan is present om behalf of Qualcomm
Settlement conference held. Court directs counsel to continue to meet and confer with their clients re
propsed offer. Counsel is to notify the Court by 6/29/11 if parties have considered the offer and reached
a settlement.
d/6-2 4:4
Calendar No.; 3
SIGN-IN SHEET
Klick, Melissa,Listug
hUils . a q K¥U- ¥SjO. c«SC
Qualcomm Incorporated et. al. [DFN] 9111Ili U-
0
I 1\ A.LxAL#i- Le As *-£4
ZIEBERMAN,4EQNIE; Minhas, Sandip et. al. [DFN]
MOCS#:3
.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STREET ADDRESS: 330 West Broadway
MAILING ADDRESS; 330 West Broadway
CITY AND ZIP'CODE: San Diego, CA 92101
BRANCH NAME: Central
CASE NUMBER:
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL IBY COWRT
37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CIL
UNLESS ONEOF THE FOLLOWING OCCURS, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE ON 08/15/2011
1) File a judgment or dismissal (see Superior Court Rules, Division ll, Rule 2.2.4, if applicable).
2) Appear ex tparte in the department listed below and show good cause why the case should not be dismissed.
Contact C-70
All inquiries regarding this notice should be referred to the department Ilisted above.
CASE NUMBER:
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of NOTICE OF DISMISSAL BY COURT was
mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated
below. The certification occurred at San Diego, California on 07/01/2011. The mailing occurred at Sacramento
on 07/05/2011.
F · 04,-84---44
Clerk of the Court, by: K. Breckenrldge
, Deputy
H P KONDRICK
3130 FOURTH AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103-5803
Page: 2
.
fli
/1 /
PERIOR COURT OF CALIFOR
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL
MINUTE ORDER
APPEARANCES
H Paul Kondrick, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Claudette Wilson, specially appearing for counsel LEONID ZILBERMAN, present for Defendant(s).
Melissa Listug Klick, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Mike Sullivan, counsel, present for defendant Qualcomm
Upon the Court's inquiry, counsel inform the Court that this matter is settled.
SIGN-IN SHEET
MOCS#:5
1
.
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, CASE NO. 37-2009-001*1537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, ! DEFENDANT QUALCOMM
12 INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
v. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PURSUANT TO
13 EVIDENCE CODE §402, HEARING
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, RELATIVE TO THE SCOPE OF
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a TESTIMONY BY DEFENDANTS' EXPERT,
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through MARK KALISH, M.D.
15 40, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
Dept: 70
19
20
21
22
23
- 24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Qualcomm's Opposition to Eyidence Code § 402
CONNAUGHTON LLP Motion re Mark Kalish, M.D,
4
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
4 motion for an Evidence Code 402 hearing to determine the scope of Dr. Kalish's testimony
5 regarding the IME 0f Plaintiff Etnyre. Etnyre's motion should be denied forseveral reasons.
6 Most notably, the court cannot actually grant Etnyre's unconventional motion, as Etnyre fails to
7 move the court to take any speciic action. At most, Etnyre has only possibly requested the court
9 should be denied because: (1) Etnyre has failed to identify the fact which is to be "predetermined"
10 by the requested 402 hearing; (2) Etnyre has failed to provide any legal basis to exclude the IME
11 or any reason that it is improper; and (3) the IME is undisputedly relevant and admissible.
12 *I.
14 Qualcomm first informed Etnyre that it would be designating Dr. Kalish on October 7,
15 2010. (Decl. Klick 112; Exh. A.) Because Etnyre refused to submit to an Independent Mental
16 Examination, after extensive meet and confer, Qualcomm was forced to bring a motion to compel,
17 which was originally filed on December 6, 2010. (Decl. Klick 11 2.) Unfortunately, the Court was
18 not able to hear that,motion until April 1, 2011. At that time, the motion was granted and the
19 IME went forward on April 20, 2011. (Decl. Klick 11 2; Exh. B.) Etnyre did not contact
20 Qualcomm to try to coordinate Dr. Kalish's deposition. (Decl. Klick 11 3.) Instead, Etnyre simply
21 noticed Dr. Kalish's deposition on top of the earlier noticed deposition of Johanna Hunsaker,
22 Ph.d. (Decl. Klick 113; Exh. C.)1' From that time forward, Qualcomm has offered Dr. Kalishon
23
24
' Notably, Dr. Hunsaker did not appear either and Etnyre chose to depose William Sailer for a second date
25
on that date instead. Qualcomm was Willing to reschedule Dr. Kalish at that time, and did provide various
alternative dates within and outside the discovery period. (Decl. Klick 11 3; Exh. D.) Etnyre made no such
26
similar attempts as to Dr. Hunsaker. Therefore, Qualcomm has moved to exclude Dr. Hunsaker's
unknown opinions.
27
28
PAUL, PILEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN & Qualcomm's Opposition to Evidence Code § 402
CONNAUGHTON LLP Motion re Mark Kalish, M.D,
.
1 several dates and Etnyre has either ignored the dates or cancelled. (Decl. Klick 11 3; Exh. D.)2
2 A. Etnyre's Motion is Not Sufficiently Specific.
3 Etnyre fails to move the court to take any specific action. Etnyre instead "moves the Court
4 to determine the scope oftrial testimony of dbfendant's expert as to the scope of testimony he
5 may offer at trial relative to statements made by plaintiff Etnyre, to him during a purported
6 defensemental examination." (Moving papers, p. 1.) The Court is not required to entertain an
7 open ended hearing to determine the scope of a witness' possible testimony, Where Entyre has not
8 deposed thewitness in question,:and has made no specific or legal objection to the witness'
9 testimony.
10 Evidence Code section 402 provides for the "procedure for determining foundation and
11 other preliminary facts." (Evid. Code 11 402.) Subsequently, Evidence Code sections 403,404,
12 and 405 provide the specific procedures to determine such preliminary facts. Section 403 deals
14 knowledge, or authenticity is disputed." Section 404 deals with "whether proffered evidence is
18 ,question of the authenticity of Dr. Kalish's examination, and is unaware of Etnyre taking the
19 position that anything she said during the examination was potentially incriminating. Section 405
20 also seems inapplicable because the question presented by Etnyre is purely legal and does not
21 seem to seek the determination of any fact. (An example of a proper question of preliminary fact
22 would be whether one offered as an expert is qualified to speak as such. Fairbank v. Hughson
23 (1881) 58 Cal. 314.) 'Since it is unclear here what finding of fact the judge would berequired to
25
26
12 At present, Dr. Kalish's deposition is not scheduled and Etnyre has provided no requested or proposed
times for the same. (Decl. Klick 11 3.)
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Qualcomm's Opposition to Evidence Code § 402 2
CONNAUGHTON'LLP Motion re.Mark Kalish: M.D.
. .
1 B. Etnyre Has Provided No Basis if a Fact Was Determined How that Would Impact
2 Trial.
3 The request for a "Evidence Code 402 hearing" appears to instead be an unconventional
4 motion in limine to exclude reference to the IME of Ms. Etnyre. However, Etnyre fails to provide
5 any legal basis to do so. The only Evidence Code sections cited by Etnyre are Section 402 and
6 Section 1220 - which actually provides for the admissibility of statements by a party-declarant.
9 Etnyre's motion fails, even ifthe motion were to be viewed as an unconventional motion
10 in limine, to exclude Entyre's IME. Etnyre, admits statements in her IME would be admissible as
11 admissions of a party opponent pursuant to Evidence Code Section 1,220. Etnyre does not dispute
12 that the statements in her IME would be relevant and probative to this case. In fact, Etnyre
13 provides no legal grounds under which her IME statements would be inadmissible. Etnyre refers
14 vaguely to CACI 218 in her moving papers, however the directions for use make clear that CACI
15 218 is not applicable to admissions of a party opponent, the admissibilityof which are controlled
17 Entyre's complaints with the IME are not that it is inadmissible, but that it was somehow
18 unfair. Essentially, Etnyre seems to be re-arguing that the exam should not have been allowed.
19 Entyre is attempting to limit the scope of the IME, without legal justification to do so, because
21 Etnyre wants to handcuff, limit, and exclude Qualcomm's expert when Etnyre has five of
22 her own treating experts available to testify at trial. Etnyre is going to place her treaters on the
23 stand to discuss her emotional state who have admitted that they are not 0bjective and are ·
24 advocates for their client. (See, e.g., Exh. E i[Wong 59:17-60:1, 109:19-2511.) Etnyre chose not to
25 designate an independent psychiatric expert. However, that should not prevent Qualcomm from
26 not only designating such an expert, but utilizing their examination and opinions at trial - just as
27 Etnyre will! with her various providers. Moreover, the fact that her treaters were given
28 inconsistent stories, did not ask detailed questions, and did not know pertinent facts goes to the
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Qualcomm's Opposition to Evidence Code § 402 3
CONNAUGHTON LLP , Motion re Mark Kalish, M.D.
1 ; weight of their testimony - and does not detract from the admissibility of Dr. Kalish's testimony.
2 The detailed questioning by Dr./Kalish is not only proper for a forensic examination, but
3 had Dr. Kalish failed to obtain such a detailed familial, personal, and event-specific history, Dr.
4 Kalish would have failed to do his job. Etnyre's treating doctoiis also state that in first meeting
5 with Etnyre or other new patients that they are thoreugh in getting a full detailed history, (Exh. F,
7 lascertain inconsistencies in a patient's story. (Exh. E, 20:9-25, 21:17-20; Exh. F, 24:12- 25:1,
8 67:10-23; 109:8-20). For Dr. Kalish's opinion to be relevant andl admissible it must be "based on
9 matter... that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion
10 upon the subject to which his testimony relates." (Evidence Code § 81.0). Dr. Kalish's opinions
11 derived from the IME are only reliable if Dr. Kalish was thorough in conducting the IME. Dr.
12 Kalish was allowedbut a few hours in which to examine Etnyre, where as Entyre's mental health
13 providers have spent countless hours over several years with Entyre. Etnyre's suggestion that the
15 HL
16 CONCLUSION
17 Accordingly, Etnyre's motion for an Evidence Code section 402 hearing on Dr. Kalish's
19
21
22
By
23 I H.EL .SULLIVAN
M I LISTUG KLICK
24 LY J. FOX
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 4
SULLIVAN.& Qualcomm's,Opposition to Evidence Code § 402
CONNAUGHTON LLP ' Motion,re Mark Kalish, M.D.
1
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, ' CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG
12 KLICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S
13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINIIAS, PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE §402,
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a HEARING RELATIVE TO THE SCOPE OF
16 Defendants.
Date: July 1, 2011
Time: 8:45 a.m.
17
Dept: 70
20
22 1. I am an associate inthe law firni ofPaul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
23 attorneys of record for Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated in the above-entitled matter, and am
24 licensed to practice before this Court. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if
26 2. I first informed Ms. Etnyre's attorney, Paul Kondrick, that Qualcomm would be
27 designating Dr. Kalish on October 7,2010. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct
28 copy of my October 7, 2010 letter to Mr. Kondrick regarding the same. Because Ms. Etnyre
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN & Decl. ofMelissa Listug Klick ISO of Oppo to
CONNAUGHTON LLP Evidence Code § 402 Motion re Kalish
,
.
1 refused to submit to an Independent Mental Examination ("IME"), after extensive meet and
2 confer, Qualcomm was forced to bring a motion to compel, which was originally filed via ex parte
3 on December 6, 2010. Unfortunately, the Court was not able to hear that motion until April 1,
4 2011. At that time, the motion was granted and the iME went forward on April 20,2011:.
5 Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of the Court's April 1, 2011 Order
7 3. Mr. Kondrick did not contact my office to try to coordinate Dr. Kalish's
8 deposition. Instead, Mr. Kondrick noticed Dr. Kalish's deposition on top of the earlier noticed
9 deposition of:Johanna.Hunsaker, Ph.D. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of
10 Qualcomm's deposition notice for Johanna Hunsaker and Ms. Etnyre's deposition notice for Dr.
11 Kalish. From that time forward, my office has offered Dr. Kalish on several dates and Ms.
12 Etnyre's counsel has either ignored the dates or cancelled last-minute. Attached hereto as Exhibit
14 deposition is not scheduled and Mr. Kondrick has provided no requested or proposed times.
15 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
16 the deposition testimony of Dr. DeeAnn Wong taken on May 4, 2011 by my office.
17 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
18 the deposition testimony ofArlene E. Pollard, LCSW taken on May 6, 2011 by my office.
19 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and correct copies of relevant portions of P
20 ' the deposition testimony of Raymond A. Fidaleo taken on May 24,2011 by my office.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California thatthe
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN & Decl. of MelissaListug Klick ISO of Oppo to
CONNAUGHTON LLP Evidence Code § 402 Motion re Kalish
EXHIBIT A
PP
401 B STREET. 7'ENTH R.CK)R. SAN DIEGO, CA 93 101
St
SULLIVAN &
MELISSA UBTUG'KLICK
(619) 2434561 mklick®paulrlevin.com
CONNAUGHTON up
October 7,2010
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
San Di6go, California 92103
Defendants will designate Dr. Mark Kalish, a licensed psychiatrist, in this matter to
testify regarding plaintiff Courtney'Etnyre's alleged emotional distress damages.
Pursuamt to Code of Civil' Procedure section 2032.020(c) and 2016.040, Defendants
request that Ms. Etnyre submit to an Independent Mental Examination by Dr. Kalish on
November 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, or 18, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.
Please confirm, in writing, by October 22, 2010, whether you will produce Ms. Etnyre
for an examination or if Defendants will be forced to file a motion to compel the
examination. As previewed at the case management conference, because Ms. Etnyre
has placed her emotional state at issue in this case, we hope that we are able to
stipulate to the examination without court intervention.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BY:
Me - -istug Klick
EXHIBIT B
.
MINUTE ORDER
APPEARANCES
H Kondrick, counsel present for Plaintiff(s).
Melissa Klick, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Mike Sullivan, counsel, present for defendant(s)
The Court hears oral argument and MODIFIES AND CONFIRMS the tentative ruling as follows·
The motion of Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated to compel independent mental examination ("IMF) of
Plaintiff Courtney Etnyre is GRANTED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.020(a) provides that "[alny party may obtain discovery ... by
means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action ... in any action in which the
mental or physical condition ...of that party ... is in controversy in the action." A court may order an IME
upon a showing of good cause. (CCP § 202.320(a).) "Good cause" is shown when the moving party
produces specific facts justifying discovery and the inquiry is relevant to the subject matter of the action
or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court
(1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, ;840.)
In this action, Plaintiff clairns she has been severely and permanent/y emotionally damaged by
Qualcomm and the Incidents giving rise to this action caused mental disability. (See Listug Klick Decl.,
1[112-4.).She daims a'/plethora of issues stemming from' the incident and her employment. for example,
she claims Defendants' Conduct caused her to suffer anxiety, short term memory loss, major depression
and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as physical injury such as musde tension, pounding heart
palpitations, chest discomfort, and stomach problems. Based on Plaintiffs allegations as well as her
responses to discovery and deposition testimony, it Is clear that Plaintiffs mental and emotional
condition are directly at issue in this action. Accordingly, the Court orders an IME.
DATE: 04/01/2011
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: C-70
Calendar No. 49
EXHIBIT C
. .
,
1 7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
!I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
17
18
23 Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street. Tenth Floor, San Diego, California.
24
The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter who is authorized to
25 administer an oath AND WILL BE VIDEOTAPED. If, for some reason, the deposition is not
26
completed on the above dates, it will be continued on mutually agreeable dates, excluding
27 Sundays and holidays, until completed.
28 Notice is further given that this office has requested a realtime-ready court reporter. If any
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 1
CONNAUGHTON UP DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
1 - attorney who is present wishes to be connected to the court reporter's system, it is your obligation
2 to contact Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC at 800-697-3210 to make arrangements fortheir
3 technical support personnel to contact you regarding your software needs and to ensure that the
4 1 court reporter brings adequate cabling and supplies.
5 Dr. Hunsaker is requested to produce the following original documents at his deposition:
1. All documents sent by plaintiff or her attorneys to Dr. Hunsaker in connection with
-0 7 his retention in this matter.
2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
9 1 matter.
12
4, All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions sheihtends
13 ' to offer in this matter.
16
6. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and plaintiff.
17
7. All documents evidencing communications between Dr. Hunsaker and any
18 member of H. Paul Kendrick, A Professional Corporation.
19 8. An updated copy of Dr. Hunsaker's curriculum vitae.
20 9. All documents evidencing Dr. Hunqaker's qimlifications to serve in an expert
21 capacity in this matter.
22 10. All documents listing the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
23 I at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.
24 11. All documents reflecting any expert testimony, either at deposition or trial. which
25 5 Dr. Hunsaker has offered in other matters.
26
12. All documents listing al! publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the last ten
27 years.
2%f W
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 2
CONNAUGHTON up DEPOSrnON OF GENE R. KONRAD
.
1
13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions she
2 intends to offer in this matter.
6 VCRAEL C. SULLIN AN
MITLISSA LISTUG KUCK
EMrY J. FOX
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8
Qualcomm Incorporated
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
ATTORNEYC.
_Michael ORSullivan
PARTY WITHOUTATTORNEY
(SBN 131817) (A=e, Sta#0 Baroumber. endaMBM FORCOURTUSEONLY
Melissa Listug nick (SEN 228470)
paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP
401 B Street, loth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
TELEPHONE NO.: 619-237-5200
FAX NO. A#0,4. 619-615-0700
E-MfIL ADDRESS (40*4
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Courtney Etnyre
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action al the following date, time, and place:
-
Date: May 25, 2011 Time:9:00 a. m. Address: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & ConnAughton, LLP
_421-L_LS*reet #1000. San Die-0 CA 92101
. F7 As a todeponent who is not a natural,person. you are ordered to designate one or more persons to testify on your behalf as
the matters described in Item 4. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)
b, E-1 You are ordered to produce the documents and things describedlin item 3.
c, 171 This deposmon will be recorded stenographically fTI through the instant visual display of testimony
and by EI] audiotape videotape,
d, F-7 This videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d),
2, The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the original records are required bythls
subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b). 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sumdent compliance
with this subpoena.
3. The documents and things to be Produced andfany testing or sampling being sought'are described as follows:
1-71 Continued on Attachment 3.
4. If the witness is a representative of a business orotherentity, the mattersupon which the witness isto be examined are described
as follows:
Continued on Attachment 4.
5. IF yOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OP CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER
CODE OF CML PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1986.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECNON HAS BEEN
SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES. AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE
AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS,
6, Atthedeposition. you wilibeaskedquestions underoath. Questions and'ensweraarerecorded stenographisally althe deposRIon; leterthey are
uansonbed forpossible use attliaL You may read the wimen record and change any inoorrect enswers before you aign the deposition. You am entitled
torecelve witness fees andmileageactually traveled.both ways. Themoney must bepaid, attheoption of the partygiving notice ofthe deposition,
either w}th se,vice of thissubpoenaoratthetimeof the deposition. Unless the courtorderaoryou agreeothemise, ilyouare being deposed asen
individual, thedeposition must take plaoe within 75 miles pf yourmaidence or within 150 miles of,ourresklence lithe deposition will be takenwithln the
county of the coun where the ection is pending. The location of the deposmon for all deponents Is governed by Code of CM Procedure section
2025.250.
-6iSOBEDIENCE OFFORTHITHE
S SUBPOENA MAYAND
SUM OF $500 BE PUNI
ALLSDAMAGES
HED AS CONTEMPT BY THIYOURAILJNE
RESULNAOM S COURT. YOUTOWIOBEY.
LL ALSO BE UABLE
Dateissued:April 28, 2011 , T><1 # 9'z/
MUR*Ate¥ PEBSOMatuanWaposwN
MAliRna Liatua Klick (SBN 228470)
frYPE OR PRINT NAME,
Anoev.*fualcomm. Intoroorated
Fmn Adopted for Mandatofy Use
(P,Dolof service on,ovemel irmt Page 1 of 2
Ju*lai Council of CaNiomia DEPOS,TION SUBPOENA FORPERSONAL APPEARANCE. . Code of Cl¥ 11 Procedure §§ 2020.510,
alap·020 IRev. January 1. 20091 AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS <. ABI 2026.220,2025.230.2006 250,20265204
2>Cmlorns Govemm,Mt(od.§08097.1
.
Attachment 3
2. 711 documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions she intends to
offer in this matter.
5. All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr. Hunsaker
for her services in this matter.
10. All documents listing the matters in which Dri Hunsaker has testified as an expert
at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.
11. All documents reflectihg any expert testimony. either at deposition or trial,
which Dr. Hunsaker has offered in other matters.
12. All documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the last
ten years.
13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions
she intends to offer in this matter.
So*
.
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that 1 am over the age of eighteen years and; not'a party
4 to this action. I am employed, or am a resident of, the County of San Diego, California, and my
[ business address is: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, 401 8 Street Tenth Floor, San
5 Diego, California 92101.
·9 I on the interested party (ies) in this action by placing a true copy thereof and addressed as follows:
10 ' R Paul Kondrick Leonid M. Zilberman
H. Paul Kondrick, a Professional Corporatioh Wilson Turner Kos,no LLP
11 3130 Fourth Avenue 550 West C Street, Suite 1050
San Diego, CA 92103 San Diego, CA 92101-3532
12 Telephone: (619) 291-2400 Telephone: (619) 236-9600
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123 Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
13 : E-Mail: kendrick@msn.com E-Mail: izilbermanawnkt. com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendant Sandip Minhas
14
0 (By MAIL SERVICE) I then sealed each envelope and, with postage thereon fully
prepaid postage, I placed each for deposit with United States Postal Service, this same day,
at my business address shown above, following ordinary business practices.
16 0 (State)foregoing
I declareisunder penalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthc State of California thalthe
true and correct.
17
18 0 (Federal) I declare
whose thattheI service
direction am employed bythe office ofa member of the bar ofthis court at
was made.
21 - AV, .
I*J+V811wf bL 'fe•©€
Ueborah Blirandwski
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVEN
SULLIVAN &
PROOF OF SERVICE 1
CONNAUGHTON'LD
1
H. Paul Kendrick, Esq., State Bar No. 88566
H. Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
2
3130 Fourth Avenue
3 San Diego, California 92103-5803
Telephone: (619) 291-2400
4
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
17 Defendants. )
)
18
19
TO: All'Parties by and through their attorneys ofrecord:
20
28 The depositions will be before a certified shorthand reporter at the law offices of
1 H, Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation, located at 31'30 Fourth Avenue, San Diego,
2 CA 92103. [(619) 291-2400]. The depositions will be continued from day-to·<lay, excluding
3
4
weekends and holidays, until completed. In the event that the depositions are not completed on
5 the aforementioned dates, the depositions will continue from day-to-day thereafter at the same
6 time and place, Sundays and holidays excepted until completed, and in the event of any
7 scheduling conflict of the witnesses, parties or counsel, thenat a mutually agreed upon date,
8 time and location.
9
10
PLRASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that applicant intends, and reserves the right, to
11 record the above-referenced deposition bymeans of videotape in addition to stenographic
12
means, and that she reserves the right to use said videotaped depositions at trial in this matter.
13
H. Paul Kondrick,
14 A Professional Corporation:
71 >1 JL
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2.
Notice of Taldng Depositions
EXHIBIT A -719
.
!
SUBP-016
ATTONINEY OR PAR,YNTHOUTATTORNEY /M,m SM,a.Barniambm, endedBast
-H.:Paul Kondrick, Esq. (State Bar # 88566) FORCOURYUSEONLY
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNK TO (name, address, and felephone number of deponent /f known)
Mark A. Kalish, MD. Telephone: (619) 282-7172
3131 Camino del Rio North, San Diego, California 92108
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFYAS A WITNESS in this action atthe following date, time, and place:
Date: Time:
Address: Law Offices of H, Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
May 25, 2011 9:00 a.m. 3130 Fourth Avenue
RAn nifyn, r.A (Dlfn
a. rn As a deponent who Is not ainatural person, you are orderedto designate one or more persons to testify on your behalfas
to the matters described in item 2. (Code Clv. Proc., § 2025.230.)
b.,fT| Thisand
deposition will be recorded stenographically [T through the instant visual display of testimony
by |1 audiotape [Tl videotape.
c. ITI Thls videotape del*sition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Clvil Procedure sectjon 2025.620(d).
2. If the witness is a representative:of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are as
follows:
3. At the deposibn, you w/// be asked questions underoath. Questions andanswmnammided stenographical, atme deposmon;
later they am transcribed for possible use at trial. You may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you
sign the deposmon. You am entitled to receive witness fees and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money must be paid, at
the opAon ofthe party giving notice ofthe deposmon, either with service of thls subpoena or at the time ofthe deposition, Unless the
couttorders oryou agree othelwlse, H you are being deposed as an Individual, the deposition must take place within 76 miles of your
residence or within 150 miles of your residence li the deposition will be taken within the county of the coutt where the action is
pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents 18 governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025,250.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE UABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: May 3,2011 il
SUBP-016
_ PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Courtney S, Etnyre ' CASE NUMBER
c. Date of delivery.
d. Time of delivery:
3. Person serving:
a. f-1 Nots registered California process server
b. Ca#fornla sheriff or marshal
c. F7 Registered California process server
d. [3 Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server
e. E-3 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b)
f. £ Registered professional photocopier
g. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, If applicable, county of registration and number:
CA
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only)
California that the foregoing is trueand correct.
I certily that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
Date:
(SIGNATURE)
(SIGTURE)
EXHI BIT 8 9
SUBP-015
ATTORNEY OR PARTYNTHOUTATTORNEY 8*3118. **B,rnumbe4 andedchis)
-H. Paull Kondrick, Esq. (State Bar # 88566) FOR COURT USE ONLY
3. Atthe deposition, you willbe asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographlcally at the deposition:
laterthey are transcribed forpossible use st triaL You may read the wrmen record and change any incorrectanawers before you
sign the deposttion. Youere entjtled to receive witness fees and mileage actually traveled both'ways. The money must be paid, at
the option ofthe peltyglving notice of the deposmon, elther w#h servlce ofthis subpoena oratthe timeofthedeposltion, Unless the
court orders oryou agree otherwise, if you are being deposed as an individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles of your
maidence orwithin 150 miles of yourresidence K the deposition win be taken within the counlyofthe court where the action is
pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents la governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.260,
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE UABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
Date issued: May 3, 2011
1. '1:served thfs Deposmon Subpoena for Pemona/Appeamnce by personally delivering acopy totheperson served as follows:
a. Person seived (name):
c. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivepy:
3. Person serving:
CA
(SIGNATURE)
*GNATURE)
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAT.TFORNIA
9
13 v.
)
14 )
SANDF ("MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,)
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,)
16 )
17 Defendants. )
)
18
21
I Bin: and was at the times ofthe service herejnafter mentioned, over the age of 18 md
22 not a party to the within action; I am employed in the County of San Diego, California where
23 the service occurs; and my business address is 3130 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, California.
24 On May 3,2011, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
25 1. PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE'S NOTICEOF TAKING
26 DEPOSmON OF DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S
DESIGNATED EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA
27
'll
28
-1-
ProofofService
1 1 on all interested parties to this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
2
envelopes addressed as follows:
3
11
550 West "C" Street Suite 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
12 Tel: 619-236-9600
Fax: 619-236-9669
13
18
processing correspondence for mailing. I personally deposited the claim in the United States
119 post office or in a mailbox, substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained
20 by the government ofthe United States, in a sealed envelope, properly addressed with postage
21 paid.
24
documents, and gave same to our messenger service for personal delivery/service before
25 5:00 p.m. on May 3, 2011 will file the original proof ofpersonal service withthe Court upon
26 request
27
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed
28 envelope addressed to the parties as indicated' above, on May 3,2011. I personally caused it
Proof of Service
1
to be deposited with Federal Express on the same day in the ordinary course of business for
2
delivery thenext business day.
3
4
BY FACSIMILE: Byuseof facsimile machine number, (619) 291-7123, I faxed atrue
5 copy(ies) ofthe document(s) listed above totheparties, onMay 3,2011, attheir fax numbers
6
listed above as indicated by their names. The document(s) were/was transmitted by facsimile
7
transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. The
8
transmission report was properly issued by'the transmitting facsimile machine. A copy of the
9
10
transmission report will be attached to the proof of service indicating that the documents were
11 Ansmitted properly, as necessary, in the future.
12
I declare under penalty ofpedury under the laws of the State of California that the
13
foregoing istrue and correct, Executed this 3rd day ofMay, 2011.
14
15 Candice E. Caufield
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
-3-
Proof of Service
EXHIIBIT E
.
1 CERTIFIED COPY
) 37-2009-0010153'7-
6 Plaintiff, ) CU-OE-CTL
)
7 VS. )
)
8 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, )
individually, QUALCOMM )
9 INCORPORATED, a Delaware )
corporation. and DOES 1 through )
10 40, inclusive, )
)
11 Defendants. )
)
12
13
17 May 4, 2011
18
19
20
22
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommend Adobe AcrobatorAdobe Reader(free.at http://get.adobe.corn/reader/).
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Wong, M.D., Deeann on 05/04/2011
8 setting.
20 asking them?
25 reDortina?
1 Q Anything else7
6 Q Anything else?
9 Q Anything else?
16 A Correct.
20 A Possibly.
24 right7
*4}-
I, HEIDI J. JOHNSON, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
;
mr;
./
4
O W-1 Vtc
24
E u: CERTIFICATION 1 E »tey'
= T : TRANSCRIPT : & E
·re
.r.-
25
3 + :.
I ./ .....
./ O S
0
HEIDI J. JOHNSON, RPR, CSR NO. 12525
,
I.../..
*O
7,4 SEAL 00 74
4,1,1,1 'i,1,%"
Exhilbit F
6
1 CERTIFIED COPY
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
12
13
19 CSR 11272.
20
22
23
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COURT'REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommend Adobe AcrobatorAdobe Reader(free at: http:#get.adobe.com/reader/).
. .
7 Q. Okay.
15 problems? 10:31
17 lonaer term?
18 0. Yes.
19 A. Correct.
21 value and try to help the person deal with it; is that
22 correct7
1 -RL 10:33
20 you have someone who comes in and says, I was -- I was 10::34
1 Q. Yes. 10:44
6 keep no notes?
7 A. Correct.
17 counseled her7
21 her -- the status of her work with Dr. Wong and what her
25 therapy, and what it was that she was looking for that 10 i45
16 status at work?
4 occurred?
9 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
20 A. Possibly. 12:08
121 0. Okay.
12:08
25 looking at your notes, here are the issues that I
2 A. No.
7 A. No.
14 of a client7
25 A. No. 14:29
8 Procedure;
13
16
19 and correct.
20
20th
WITNESS my hand this day of ...N.W.&,
4%' COURT * 44
21
May 2011
22
loh %
23 E u : TRANSCRIPT : Do :
Et \ CERTIFICATION f P' 5
:t. -'t- 0
24
-A :
Je *nette Kinikin, CSR 11272
2
SEAL 00
4'/'00,0,"§0*'
210
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) CU-OE-CTL
13
14
20 RPR, CRR.
21
23
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Both of them?
10 Etnyre?
13 recollection?
21 your notes and let me just talk to you and ask you from
24 problem was?
9 on RED 4 c l q 9-0 £ 1
10
11
RA)YMb , K. FIS EO, M.D.
12
I.
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
8 Procedure;
13
1
1
MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
2 MELISSA LISTUGKLICK (SBN 228470}
EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) F I Len
3 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP Clerk of Bhe Supellor COM =
401 B Street, Tenth Floor . 11
JEIN 30 201'1
4 San Diego, California 92101-4232
Telephone: 619-237-5200 By: Anthony Shirley, Der*
5 Facsimile: 6119-615-0700
13 V.
Dept: 70
14 SANDIP ("MICKEY") Mit*IAS, Judget Honorable Randa Trapp
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
15 Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through Trial Date: July 1, 204 1
40, inclusive,
16
Defendants.,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
ProofofService
1
SULLIVAN &
)NNAUGHTON LLP
.
1
I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age
2
of eighteen, employed in the'County of San Diego, State of California, and not a party to the
3
within-entitled action. My business address is P.O. Box 12037, San Diego, California, 92101.
4
On June 30,2011' I served a true copy of the within:
1j
5 .
DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE §402,
6
HEARING RELATIVE TO THE SCOPE OF TESTIMONY BY
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT, MARK KALISH, M.D.
7
. DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG KLICK IN SUPPORT OF
8 DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE §402,
9 HEARING RELATIVE TO THE SCOPE OF TESTIMONY BY
DEFENDANTS' EXPERT, MARK KALISH, M.D.
10
18
I hereby certify that I am employed by Accutech Messenger Service, San Diego,
19
California, at whose direction the personal service was made.
20 ,
21
ACCUU MESS*LGER 0
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL. PLEVIN,
Proof of Service 2
SULLIVAN: &
)NNAUGHION LLP
1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) FILED
Cleric of She Supmtor Couit
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106)
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
3 401 B Street Tenth Floor
JUN 29 2011 I
San Diego, California 92101-4232 By: Anmony Shirle1% OOPUV
4 Telephone: 629-237-5200
Facsimile: 649-615-0700
8
SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT QUALCOMM
12 INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
v. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
13 PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS' EXPERT,
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, MARK KALISH, M.D., FROM OPINING AS
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a TO PLAINTIFF'S TRUTHFULNESS OR
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through BELIEVABILITY
15 40, inclusive,
Il of 21
16 Defendants.
17
Date: July 1, 2011
18 Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: 70
19 Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
20 Trial Date: July 1, 2011
21
22
23
24
25
26 i
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Oppo To MIL To Preclude Kalish From,Opining As
CONNAUGHTON up To Plaintiffs Truthfulness Or Believability ORIGINAL
..
1 1
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff Courtney Etnyre has brought a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Kalish from
4 offering an opinion about the "truthfulness or believability" of plaintiff Courtney Etnyre. This
6 (1) Etnyre has not deposed Dr. Kalish and so it is unclear exactly what opinion, and in
8 (2) It is inappropriate to prematurely handcuff Dr. Kalish from testifying when Etnyre's
9 treating physicians (who are also designated as experts) have already testified as to her veracity on
1f (3) Dr. Kalish's opinions regarding Etnyre's perception and version of her story in this
12 case, and in particular, regarding emotional distress related to that story is an appropriate, and
13 important, subject matter for expert testimony. For example, one of the areas that Dr. Kalish
14 assessed was whether Etnyre's account of events is consistent with, or inconsistent with, the
15 documentation in order to evaluate whether her current symptoms are caused by the alleged event
17 Accordingly, Etnyre's motion in limine to exclude Dr. Kalish from opining as to the
18 believability or truthfulness of Etnyre in regard to her story as to the reason thatshe has been
20 II.
22 Qualcomm first informed Etnyre that it would be designating Dr. Kalish on October 7,
23 ' 2010. (Decl. Klick 112; Exh. A.) Because Etnyre refused to submit to an Independent Mental
24 t Examination ("IME"), after extensive meet and confer, Qualcomm was forced to bring a motion
25 Ito compel, which was originally filed via ex parte on December 6, 20.10. (Decl. Klick 11.2.)
26 Unfortunately, the COUK Was notable to hear that motion until April t, 2011. At thattime, the
27 motion was' granted and the IME went forward on April 20, 2011. (Decl. Klick 112; Exh. B.)
28 After the exam (and before), Etnyre did' not make any attempt to contact Qualcomm to try to
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Oppo To MIL To Preclude Kalish From Opining.As 1
CONNAUGHTON,LLP To Plaintiffs Truthfulness Or'Believability
/,
1 coordinate Dr. KalisWs deposition. (Decl. Klick 11 3.) Instead, Etnyre simply noticed Dr, Kalish's
2 deposition on top of the earlier noticed deposition of Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D. (Decl. Klick 9 3;
3 Exh. C.)1 From that time forward, Qualcomm has offered Dr, Kalish on several dates and Etnyre
4 has either ignored the dates orcancelled last-minute. (Decl. Klick 19 3; Exh. D.)?
6 Etnyre does not provide withspecificity, as required, the evidence (testimeny or exhibits)
7 that she seeks to exclude by way of this motion. (Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc. (2005) 127
8 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1675 ["A motion in limine to exclude evidence is not a sufficient objection
10 I suggestion that Dr. Kalish will seek to opine as to the general or non-specific "truthfulness" or
11 "believability" ofEtnyre - rather, it maybe part ofhis testimony regarding the facts of the case.
12 Because Etnyre has not identified the specific testimony she seeks to exclude, and has not
15 Etnyre's treaters (two ofwhich are listed in Etnyre's expert designation) are expected to
16 testify as to whether they believed portions of Etnyre's story, found it credible, or found her
17 current symptoms to be caused by events that only she relayed to them. (Decl. Klick 11 5; Exhs. F,
18 G, H.) Dr. Kalish must be allowed to offer similar opinions based on his expertise and
19 examination of this case. (Kennemur v. State OfCalg (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907, 922-23 [An
20 expert witness may be impeached by calling an opposing expert to contradict the assumptions
21
22
i Notably, Dr. Hunsaker was not prepared on that date and Etnyre chose to·depose William Sailer for a
second session on that date instead. Qualcomm was willing to reschedule Dr. Kalish at that time, and did
provide various alternative dates within and outside the discovery period. (Decl. Klick 113; Exh. D.)
23
Etnyre made no such similar attempts as to,Dr. Hunsaker indicating rather her unavailability. Therefore,
Qualcomm has moved to exclude Dr. Hunsaker's unknown opinions.
24
2 At,present, Dr. Kalish's deposition is not scheduled and Etnyre has provided no requested or proposed
25
time for the same. (Decl. Klick 11 3.)
26
3 There is also no suggestion that this isthetype ofevidence or question that could' not be objected to at
the time oftrial.
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 2
SULLIVAN & Oppo To MIL To Preclude Kalish From Opining As
CONNAWGHTON LLP To Plaintiffs Truthfulness Or Believability
1 upon which the expert based his or her opinion."]) Indeed, it is axiomatic that an expert witness
2 may be impeached by showing the falsity of any matter upon which the expert based his or her
3 opinion (i.e., foundational facts). Sometimes this isdone on cross-examination but, more
4 frequently, contradiction is shown by calling other expert witnesses to testify to the nonexistence
8 Moreover, it is,appropriate for Dr. Kalish to opine regarding his findings that are particular
9 to the facts of this case. (Corn v. State Bar (1968) 68 Cal.2d 461, 466, [an expert opinion is not
10 inadmissible merely because it coincides with an ultimate issue of fact].) If Dr. Kalish opines as
11 to whether or not Etnyre suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), he must be
12 allowed to testify as to reasons for his diagnosis. One of the key components, of PTSD, according
13 to the DSM-IV, is whether or not an individual actually suffered a traumatic event or whether
14 there are ether explanations for the current symptoms. (Exh. E.) Indeed, Dr. Kalish's evaluation
15 includes a determination of whether or not Etnyre is an accurate historian as to the alleged events
16 at issue.
17 Etnyre's providers, including Dr. Wong, Arlene Pollard, and Dr. Judith Matson have
18 testified that: (1) in treating a patient, the provider makes a determination of believability so as to
19 understand the sort of treatment that would be appropriate; and (2) that inconsistent versions of a
20 story is a key indicator of whether or not the symptoms were caused by the event described or
21 perhaps the result of another mental machination. (Decl. Klick '115; Exhs. F, G, H.) Therefore,
22 Qualcomm's expert must be allowed to testify as to the reasons and basis for the opinions that he
23 offers. To fail to do so, would mislead and confuse the jury into believing that Dr. Kalish's
24 analysis is. incomplete or flawed. The basis of Dr. Kalish's opinion is a necessary component of
25 his opinion. Indeed, his testimony could be excluded if Dr. Kalish could not explain his opinion.
27
28 Ill
PAUL, PLEVIN, 3
SULLIVAN & Oppo To MIL To Preclude Kalish From,Opining As
CONNAUGHTON p 1 To Plaintiffs Truthfulness Or Believability
.
.
1 III.
2 CONCLUSION
4 Etnyre's truthfulness or believability should be denied. Specifically, Dr. Kalish should not be
5 precluded from, 0pining on ariy topics mentioned or discussed in the treaters' testimony or that go
7
Dated: June 29,2011 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN &
8 CONNAUGHTON LLP
B/LL 3-
9
10
11 C. SULLIVAN
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK
12 EMILY J. FOX
Attorneys for Defendant
13 Qualcomm Incorporated
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Oppo To MIL To Preclude Kalish From Opining As 4
CONNAUGHTON LLP To Plaintiffs Truthfulness,Or Believability
4.
j
1 11
MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470)
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) FILE D
Clerk of lhe Superior Court
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
3 401 B Street, Tenth Floor JUN 29 2011
San Diego, California 92101-4232
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200 By: Anthony Shirley, Depu¥
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
5
JUN 29 '11 PM 305
Attorneys for Defendant
6 Qualcomm Incorporated
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
i0
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG
12 KLICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S
13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS'
14 individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated, a EXPERT, MARKKALISH, M.D., FROM
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through OPINING AS TO PLAINTIFF'S
16 Defendants.
Il of 21
17
Date: July 1, 2011
18 Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: 70
19 Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
20 Trial Date: July 1, 2011
21
23 1. I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
24 ' attorneys of record for Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated in the above-entitled matter, and am
25 licensed to practice before this Court. I have personal knowledge ofthe following facts and, if
ill
27
28 m
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISOofOppo toMIL 1 ORIGINAL
Re: Kalish
.
.
1 2. I first informed Ms. Etnyre's attorney, Paul Kondrick, that it would be designating
2 Dr. Kalish on October 7, 2010. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of my
3 October 7, 2010 letter to Mr. Kendrick regarding the same. Because Ms. Etnyre refused to submit
4 to an Independent Mental Examination (*'IME"), after extensive meet and confer, Qualcomm was
5 forced to bring a motion to compel, which was originally filed via ex parte on December 6,20110:
6 Unfortunately, the Court was not able to hear that motion until April 1,2011. Atthattime, the
7 motion was granted and the IME went forward on April 20, 2011. Attached as Exhibit B hereto
8 is a true and correct copy of the Court's April 1, 2011 Order compeHing the IME.
9 3. Mr. Kondrick did not contact my office to try to coordinate Dr. Kalish's
10 : deposition. Instead, Mr. Kondricknoticed Dr. Kalish's deposition on top ofthe earlier noticed
11 i deposition of Johanna Hunsaker, Ph.D. Attached as Exhibit C herete is a true and correct copy of
12 Qualcomm's deposition notice for Johanna Hunsaker and Ms. Etnyre's deposition notice for Dr.
13 Kalish. From that time forward, my office has offered Dr. Kalish on several dates and Ms.
14 Etnyre's counsel has either ignored the dates or cancelled last-minute. Attached hereto as Exhibit
16 deposition is not scheduled and Mr. Kendrick has provided no requested or proposed times.
18 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
19 Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association. This is a readily used and available
20 publication.
21 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
22 the deposition testimony of Dr. DeeAnn Wong taken on May 4, 2011 and June 10, 2011 by my
23 office.
1
24 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
26 9/1
27 m
28 ///
PAUL, PLEVIN,
Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO of Oppo to MIL
2
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP Re: Kalish
4
1 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are true and correct copies 0f relevant portions of
2 the deposition testimony of Dr. Judith Matson taken on March 25, 2011 by my office.
3I I declare under penalty of pegury under the laws of the State of California that the
7 - lissa¥stug Kliek
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i I
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Decl. ofMelissa Listug Klick ISO ofOppo to MIL 3
C0NNAUGHTON LLP Re: Kalish
EXHIBIT A
..
1' .,
C.t.
D PAUL, PLEVIN,
PHONE 619·237·5200 | FAX 619·615·0700 | WWW.PAULPLEVIN.COM
St SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
MELISSA USTUG KUCK (619) 243-1561 mklick@paulplevin.com
October 7, 201:0
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, California 92103
Defendants will designate Dr. Mark Kalish, a licensed' psychiatrist, in this matter to
testify regarding plaintiff Courtney Etnyre's alleged emotional distress damages.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.020(c) and 2016.040, Defendants
request that Ms. Etnyre submit to an Independent Mental Examination by Dr. Kalish on
November 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, or 18, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.
Please confirm, in writing, by October 22, 2010, whether you will produce Ms. Etnyre
for an examination or if Defendants will be forced to file a motion to compel the
examination. As previewed at the case management conference, because Ms. Etnyre
has placed her emotional state at issue in this case, we hope that we are able to
stipulate to the examination without court intervention.
Sincerely,
BY:
Me Istug Klick
EXHIBIT B
..
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL
.
MINUTE ORDER
L 44/r.
15% 6
M 'Al
APPEARANCES
./ Wi#f« .
ack .a /22-
The Court hears oral argument and MODIRIES,AND, (3641¢18*15 th,e tintative ruling as follows:
fy * .4*#. 44
The motion of Defendant Qualcommflincporats,16*dpel io«pendent mental examination ("IME") of
Plaintiff Courtney Etnyte is GR»iKEE*- Okh & :2'4=
St .4 . 6.
Code of Civil Procedure s«Etibn«2032.020(af*86*ides Ptl.lat "[alny party may obtain discovery ... by
5 means of a physical or._m@itdl 16xaminatian of (1) a *ty to the action ... in any action in which the
mental or physical con&*Sil*df that patt*..'is in cdntroversy in the action." A court may order an IME
upon a showing of 905!f*0se. (GC@*262.3200py "Good cause" is showm when the moving party
produces specific fatts·,tistiTying di#06*1*' andd!*inquiry is relevant to the subject matter of the action
or reasonably taldwlated@to lead tolhe disco*ery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court
(1987) 43 Cal.3d*833>840.) * . r'i
XY,» 75''t
*.V
In this action, Plaintiff *Sla®sfjshe ha*6een severely and permanently emotionally damaged by
Qualcomm and the Incidemts*Ving rise¥*16 this action caused mental disability. (See Listug Klick Decl.,
lili 2-4.) She daims d*11*pa ofiss@6 stemming from the incident and her employment. For example,
she claims Defendants'*enduct chused her to suffer anxiety, short term memory loss, major depressiom
and posttraumatic stress*disorder, as well as physical injury such as muscle tension, poundingi 'heart
palpitations, chest discomfort„ and stomach iproblems. Based on Plaintiffs allegations as well as her
responses to discovery and deposition testimony, it is clear that Plaintiffs mentali and emotional
condition are directly at issue in this action, Accordingly, the Court orders an IME.
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHANNA
V. HUNSAKER PH.D. AND REOUEST FOR
13 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (VIA
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, SUBPOENA)
14 individually, QUALCOMMIncorporated, a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
15 40, inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
Trial Date: None Set
16 Defendants.
17
18
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
21 2025.010 et seq., defendant Qualcomm Incorporated will take the deposition ofplaintiffs expert
22 Johanna Hunsaker Ph.D. on May 25, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of Paul, Plevin,
23 Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, 401 B Street, Tenth Floor, San Diego, California.
24 The deposition will be taken before a certified shorthand reporter who is authorized to
25 administer an oath AND WILL BE VII}EOTAPED. lf, for some reason, the deposition is not
26 completed on the above dates, it will be continued on mutually agreeable dates, excluding
28 Notice is further given that this office has requested a realtime-ready court reporter. If any
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 1
CONNAUGHTON LLP
DEPOSITION'OF GENE R KONRAD
. .
1 attorney who is present wishes to be connected to the court reporter's system, it is your obligation
2 to contact Hutchings Court Reporters, LLC at 800-697-3210 to make arrangements for their
3 technical support personnel to contact you regarding your software needs and to ensure that the
5 Dr. Hunsaker is requested to produce the following original documents at his deposition:
6 1. All documents sent by plaintiff or her attorneys to Dr, Hunsaker in connection with
7 his retention in this matter.
8 2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
9 matter. r-
110 3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
11 matter.
12 4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions she intends
22 10. All documents listing the matters in which Dr. Hunsaker has testified as an expert
24 11. All documents reflecting any expert testimony, either at deposition or trial, which
25 Dr. Hunsaker has offered in other matters.
26 12.
All documents listing all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker within the last ten
27 yearl
28 l1l
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 2
CONNAUGHTON LLP
i DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
1 13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions she
2 intends to offer in this matter.
5 By'
C ' C. SULLIVAN,
6 LI A LISTUG KLICK
E J. FOX
7 Attorneys for Defendant
Qualcomm Incorporated
8
10
/1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLE¥IN
SULLIVAN & NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED 3
CONNAUGHTON LLP
DEPOSITION OF GENE R. KONRAD
.
SUBP-020
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY 0\lame, State Bar number, endaddess) FOR COURTUSE ONLY
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Courtney Etnyre
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent if known):
Johanna Hunsaker; University of San Diego-- School of Business Administration; Olin
Hall, 313; San Diego, CA; Phone: (619), 260-4858
1, YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action at the following date, time, and place:
Date: May 25„ 2011 1lme: 9:00 a,m.
Address: Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, LLP
401 W. B Street #1000, San Diego, CA 92101
a..Fl As a deponentwho is,not a natural person, you are ordered to designate one or'more persons to testify on your behalf as
to the matters described in item 4. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230,)
b. Fl You are ordered to produce the documents and things described in:item 3.
c. Exl This deposition will be recorded stenographically 1-361 through the instant visual display of testimony
and by El audiotape 171 videotape.
d. 11 This videotape deposition is intendedfor possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025,620(d).
2. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of the original records are required by this
subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code sections 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not bedeemed sufficient compliance
with this subpoena.
3. The documents and things to be produced and any testing or sampling being sought are described as follows:
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESU
Nx \ Av A - /
ROM YOUR AILJJNE TO OBEY
Attachment 3
2. All documents reviewed by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
3. All documents created by Dr. Hunsaker in connection with her retention in this
matter.
4. All documents relied upon by Dr. Hunsaker to formulate the opinions she intends to
offer in this matter.
5. All documents evidencing payments plaintiff or her attorneys made to Dr. Hunsaker
for her services in this matter.
13. A copy of all publications authored by Dr. Hunsaker that relate to the opinions
she intends to offer in this matter.
so86
.
9 on the interested party (ies) in this action by placing a true copy thereof and addressed as follows:
0 (Federal) I declare that I am employed by the office of a member of the bar of this court at
18
whose direction the service was made.
20
21
!I
6-waki ,1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL PLEVIN
SULLIVAN &
PROOF OF SERVICE
CONNAUGHTON UP
.
-1
H. Paul Kondrick, Esq„ State Bar No. 88566
H. Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
2
3130 Fourth Avenue
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11
COIJRTNEY S. ETNYRE, individualiy, ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
)
12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S.
) ETNYRE'S NOTICE OF TAKING
13
) DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT,
14 ) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,) DESIGNATED EXPERT WITNESSES
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware ) PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA
17
Defendants. )
)
18
19
TO: All Parties by and through their,attorneys ofrecord:
20
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE ("ETNYRE"). will
21
23 designated expert witnesses, pursuant to subpoenas, attached, hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B",
-1-
Notice of.Expert Witness Depositions
.
1 H. Paul Kondrick, AProfessional Corporation located at 3130 F6urth Avenue, San Diego,
2 CA 92103 [(619) 291-24001. The depositions will be continued from day-to-day, excluding
3
weekends and holidays, until completed. In the event that the depositions are not cempleted on
4
5 the aforementioned dates, the depositions will continue from day-to-day thereafter at the same
6 time and place, Sundays and holidays excepted, until completed, and in the event of any
7 scheduling conflict ofthe witnesses, parties or counsel, then at a mutually agreed upon date,
8
time and location.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that applicant intends, and reservesthe right, to
10
12 means, and that she reserves the right to use said videotaped depositions at trial' in this matter.
13 H. Paul Kondrick,
14 A Professional Corporation:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Notice of Taking Depositions
.
EXH'IBIT A ..
. .
SUBP-015
ATTORNEY OR PARTYWTHOUTATTORNEY #anne, State Barnumber, enda#ess):
FOR COURT USE ONLY
-H. Paul Kondrick, Esq. (State Bar # 88566)
H. Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation
3130 Fourth Avenue
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. TO (name, address, and le/ephone number of deponent if known):
Mark A. Kalish, M.b. Telephone: (619) 282-7172
3131 Camino del Rio North, San Diego, California 92108
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS in this action atthe following date, time, and place:
Date: Time:
Address: Law Offices of H. Paul Kondrick, AP.C.
May 25,2011 9:00 am. 3130 Fourth Avenue
RAn ntegn rA 971011
a. 1-| Asa deponent who Is nola natural person, you are ordered to designate one,or more persons to testify on:your behalf as
to the matters described in Item 2. (Code Clv. Proc„ § 2025.230.)
b. 1T| This deposition will be recordedstenographically & through the instant visual display of testimony
and by El audiotape [3[1 videotape.
c. 1T1 This videotape deposition is intended for. possible use at trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.620(d).
2. £ If the witness is a representative of a business or other entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are as
follows:
3. At the deposition, you will be asked questions under oath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographically at the deposition;
laterthey are transcribed forpossible use attlial. You may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you
sign the deposmon. You are entitled to receive witnessfees and mileage actually traveled both ways, The money must be paid, at
the option of the party giving notice of the deposition, either with service of this subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the
court orders or you agree otherwise, if you am being deposed as an individual, the deposmon must take place within 75 miles of your
residence orwithin 150 miles of your residence K the deposition will be taken within the county of the court where the action is
pending. The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE UABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY,
4 Mil-Jf
Date issued: May 3,2011
SUBP-015
37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip C'Mickey'D Minhas, et al,
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE t
1. I served'thls Deposmon Subpoena forPemona/Appeamnce bypersonally dellvering a copy to,the person semed as follows:
a. Person served (name):
c Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
f, Fee forservice:....:.................. $
3. Person serving:
a. 1 Not a registered California process server
b. ' California sheriff or marshal
c. r---i Registered Califomiaprocess server
d. Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server
e. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section,22350(b)
f. F7 Registered professional photocopier
9. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, ifapplicable, county of registration and number:
CA
I declare under penalty of perjury under tbe laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only),
California that the foregoing is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Date:
(BIGNATURE)
(SIGNATURE)
EXHIBIT 8 7'4
.
SUBP-015
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUTATTORNEY (Name, State Barnumber, andadhss):
FOR COURT USE ON£Y
-H. Paul Kondrick, Esq. (State Bar# 88566)
H. Paul Kondrick, A Professional Corporation
3130 Fourth Avenue
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone numberof deponent if known):
Laura Fuchs Dolan Telephone: (714) 662-0800
LECG, LLC, 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1350, Costa Mesa, California 92626
1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS In this action at the following date, time, and place:
Date: Time:
Address: Law Offices of H. Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
May 26,2011 9:00 a.m. RAn nler. CA 971(11
3130 Fourth Avenue
a. 7 As a.deponent who is not a,natural person, you are ordered to designate one or more persons to'testify on your behalf:as
to the matters described in item 2. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)
b, fT| This deposition will be recorded stenographically through the instant visual display of testimony
and by Fl audiotape 1-Fl videotape.
c. [Fl Ihis videotape deposition is intended for possible use at trial under Code of Civil' Procedure section 2025.620(d).
2. F-1 If the witness is,a representative of a business orother entity, the matters upon which the witness is to be examined are as
follows:
3. At the deposiOon, you wilibe asked questions underoath. Questions and answers are recorded stenographically atthedeposition;
later they am transcribed for possible use at trial. You·may read the written record and change any incorrect answers before you
sign the deposition. You are entitled to receive witness,fees and mileage actually traveled both ways. The money must be paid, at
the option of the party giving notice ofthe deposition, elther with service of this subpoena or at the time of the deposition. Unless the
court orders or you agree othenvise, if you are being deposed as an individual, the deposition must take place within 75 miles,of your
residence or within 150 miles of your residence if the deposition will be taken within the county of the court where the action Is
pending, The location of the deposition for all deponents is governed by Code·of Civil Procedure,section 2025.250.
DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE
FOR THE SUM OF $500 AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY.
MILȢ
Date issued: May 3, 2011
SUBP-015
37-2009-00101,537-CU-OE-CTL '
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Sandip ("Mickey") Minhas, et al.
1. I served this Deposition Subpoena for Pemonal Appearance by personally delivering a copy to theiperson served as follows:
a. Person served (name):
c. Date of delivery:
d. Time of delivery:
3. Person serving:
a. £ Not a registered Callfomlacprocess server
b. California sheriff or marshal
c. r--| Registered California process server
d. Employee·or independent contractor of a registered California process server
e. Exempt from registrationunder BUsiness and Professions·Code section 22350(b)
f. Registered professional phot6copier
g. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451
h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number:
CA
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State,of (For California sheriff ormarshal use only)
California that the foregoing,is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true.and correct.
b
Date: Date:
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
1
H. Paul Kondrick, Esq., State Bar No. 88566
H. Paul Kondrick, A.P.C.
2
3130 Fourth Avenue
5
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURlNEY S. ETNYRE
6
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
11
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually, ) Case No. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
)
12 Plaintiff, ) PROOF OF SERVICE
)
13
V.
14
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, individually,)
15 QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive,)
16
)
17 Defendants. )
)
18
19
I, Candice E. Caufield, declare that:
20
I am, and was at the times ofthe service hereinafter mentioned, over the age of 18 and
21
not a party to the within action; I am employed in the Ceunty of San Dieg6, California where
22
23 the service occurs; and my business address is 3130 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, California.
24
On May 3,2011, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
25
1. PLAINTIFF, COURTNEY S. ETNYRE'S NOTICE OF TAKING
26 DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S
DESIGNATED EXPERT' WITNESSES PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA
27
1 1,1
28
8
Attorneys for Defendant, QUALCOMM Incorporated
9
Fax: 619-236-9669
13
14
Attorneys for Defendant, SANDIP ("MICKEY")MINHAS
15 X BY US. MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to the parties as
16
indicated above on May 3, 2011. I am familiar with the firm's, practice of collection and
17
processing correspondence for mailing. I personally deposited the claim in the United States
18
post office or in a mailbox, substation, mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained
19
20 by the government ofthe United States, in a sealed envelope, properly addressed with postage
21 paid.
22
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally gathered a true copy of the above
23
documents, andgave same to our messenger service for personal delivery/service before
24
25
5:00 pm on May 3, 2011 will file the original· proof ofpersonal service with the Court upon
26 request.
27
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed
28
envelope addressed to the parties as indicated abeve, on May 3, 2011. I personally caused it
1
to be deposited with Federal Express on the same day in the ordinary course of business for
2
delivery the next business day.
3
BY FACSIMILE: By use of facsimile machine number, (619) 291-7123,1 faxed a true
4
5
copy(ies) of the document(s) listed above to the parties, on May 3, 2011, at their fax numbers
6 listed above as indicated by their names, The document(s) were/was transmitted by facsimile
7
transmission and the transmission wasreported as complete and without error. The i
8
transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. A copy of the,
9
transmission report will be attached to the proof ofservice indicating that the documents were
10
11
transmitted' properly, as necessary, in the future.
12 I declare under penalty of pedury under the laws of the State of California that the
13
foregoing is true and correct Executed this 3rd day ofMay, 2011.
14
15 Candice E. Caufield
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I!
25
26
27
28
PP
401 B STREEr, TENTH FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
May 5, 201:1
Paul:'Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
As to depositions that you referenced in your May 4, 2011 letter, please send out an
amended notice for Mr. Rouse on May 119th at 1:30 p.m. as you indicated this date
worked for you. Further, we have not received a response from you regarding our
offer to produce Mr.. Sailer on May 11th at 9:30 a.m. for his continued deposition.
Mary Stewart is available foT her continued depositibn on the following dates from 9:00
to 12:30: May 12th,'May 17th, and May 19th. Please confirm the dates that you need Y
Please let us know when Mr. Konrad's file will be ready for copying so that we can
reschedule his deposition. If he has the file and there was a miscommunication with
the deposition officer, iplease clarify so we can arrange to have the file copied this
week. If not, please let us know when you or he anticipates the file being ready. We
would prefer for you to coordinate this effort, but we have been unable to obtain any
dates from you either for production or deposition.
We are in receipt of your deposition notice for Dr. Kalish and Ms. Fuchs Dolan. We
would be happy to coordinate dates with them, but since you did not contact us, we
will contact Dr. Kalish and Ms. Fuchs Dolan to check to see if they happen to be
available as noticed.
Sincerely,
M ssa'istug KlicK--
Page 1 of 1
.
Claudette
Ms. Klick,
I'm ok with an am start on that date so long as we can re-schedule Hunsaker &
Katish. Say start with Mr. Sailer around 9:30 am. By copying at! counsel, I
request their inputs as well.
-Paul Kendrick
-- Original,Message ---
From: Melissa Listua Klick
To: Paul Kondrick
Paul,
Bill Sailer is available on May 25th, but needs to be done by 4:00. He can start early at 8:00 or
8:30, so I presume this will work. Again, please simply confirm by responding to this email or
send a confirming notice as soon as possible. To do this, he has to move some appointments,
so please let us know as soon as possible. Thank you.
Melissa
n C Paul, plevin,
1- -r, . Sullivan &
4 F ' connaughton,LLP
L)/7 % 401 B Street, Tenth Floor
l ' San Diego, CA 92101
__21« T: 619.237.5200> 1 F: 619.615.0700
www.Daulnlevin.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you
have received this e-mall in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or
contact admin®gaulnlevin.com.
6/27/2011
Page 1 of 1
-P. Kondrick
Paul,
I incorporated your changes into the deposition stipulation that is attached. Please sign and
send back to my office for filing next week. As you know, we need to get this filed as soon as
possible. Although you wanted me to change the dates in the stipulation to a "mutually
agreeable" date, below are proposed dates for Ms. Dolan and Dr. Kalish. Please confirm these
dates as soon as possible. If these dates do not work for you, then please provide alternate
dates. Also, I think we need to discuss the Hunsaker stipulation as I did not understand your
note. As to Dr. Hunsaker, could you please provide us with a date when she will be prepared
and available to testify? Thank you.
Melissa
Paul, Plevin,
r Sullivan &
Connaughton LLP
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or
contact admin@gaulnlevin.com
6/27/2011
..
401 B STREET, TENTH FLOOR, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
St
SULLIVAN & MELISSA LISTUO KLICK (619) 243-1561 mklick@paulplevin.corn
CONNAUGHTON LLP
Paul Kondrick
3130 Fourth Avenue
Dear Paul:
As we have previowsly advised, Dr. Kalish is available for deposition on June 8th, 15th
and 16th in the afternoon for his deposition. You have advised that you are not
available on June 8th for,his deposition. Please advise as soon as possible if you
would like to take his deposition on June 15th or 16th.
Further, Dr. Kalish still has not been contacted by Advanced Attorney Services to have
his file copied. As we stated at the ex parte hearing on May 24th, his file is ready to
be copied.
Sincerely,
Msda«Eistug Klick
cc: Leonid M. Zilberman
Page 1 of 2
.
Melissa Listug Klick
Paul,
We have spoken to Dr. Kalish's omce regarding scheduling his deposition given
your availability below. He is available on June 20th .in the morning or anytime
on June 21*. Please confirm as soon as possible. Thank you.
Melissa
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact
admin@gaulnlevin.com
Counsel,
To follow up from our CMC meet & confer last Friday, in particular on the
issue of remaining deposition discovery, at present, the following deposition
remain to be concluded:
1. Mary Stewart;
2. Tom Rouse;
3. Sandip Minhas;
4. Fuchs-Dolan;
5. Kalish;
6. Wong;
7. Hunsaker;
8. Cambridge PMK & dox production
I rearranged nip schedule to proceed with the Rouse deposition tomorrow, June
7th, @ 9:00 am, ® our law office. -
6/27/2011
Page 2 of 2
proceed AFTER her notes/charting comments were transcribed. To date, I have yet to
either be notified that the notes have been transcribed or otherwise available. We
recently discussed the need for those notes in order for the Wong deposition to
effectively efficiently go forward.
I will be engaged in trial during June 13-16. We were assigned out this morning. In
addition, I have oral argument during the afternoon of June 15th. Therefore, it looks
like June 1.7th is the earliest date available to our ojjice to resume depositions.
Dr. Hunsaker is, as mentioned, con¢luding her sabbatical in Europe. She returns
June 13th. In our last communication, she still needed the Mary Stewart deposition &
exhibits. We've tried to expedite providing her with deposition materials.
I understand that there is an ex parte hearing scheduled for tomorrow, June 7, @ 8:30
am, followed by the Rouse deposition. I suggest that we confer, with our calendars, in
hand, sometime tomorrow morningi to coordinate the remaining depositions, resolve
stipulations, extending the discovery cut-off, including addressing Dr. Kalish & Dr.
Hunsaker motion in limine related issues.
-Paul Kondrick
6/27/2011
Page 1 of 1
.
Melissa Listug Klick
Melissa,
Thanks, again, for your prompt response. I suggest we proceed with Dr.
Kalish's depo on Monday, June 20th @ 10:30 am at our office. Fuchs-Dolan's
deposition would then follow on June 21 @ 10:00 am at our law omce.
Since Dr. Hunsaker will be in town as of that week, e.g., the week of 7/20, is there
a date, Melissa, that you would like us to work around? Just let me know, & we'll
pass the dates along to her for a quick response7 Let us know, ok?
Trust this schedule, at least for Dr. Kalish & Fuchs-Dolan works for ail parties
& counsel If anyone has issues/problems with these dates, then let me know.
-Paul Kondrick
Paul,
We have spoken to Dr. Kalish's omce regarding scheduling his deposition given
your availability below. He is available on June 20th in the morning or anytime
on June 21st.
Melissa
6/27/2011
Page 1 of 2
.
Melissa Listug Klick
To: Melissa Listug Klick; Paul Kondrick; Mike Sullivan; Zilberman, Lonny M.
Subject: RE: Fuchs-Dolan Depo
Confirmed.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact
admin@oaulolevin.com
Melissa,
-Paul Kondrick
I Paul,
We have contacted Ms. Fuchs Dolan based on your email below regarding
availability and she is available at 10:00 on either June 20 or 21. Please let us
know which date you would like to depose her as soon as possible.
6/27./201 1
Page 2 of 2
.
.
Thank you.
Melissa
6/27/2011
Page 1 of 4
.
Melissa Listug Klick
Melissa,
I'm stiti on for the met & confer on Friday. We have a lot to cover... so
As for Dr. Kalish, Pls let's look at a reschedule date. I think I could, if
necessary, do it the same morning as Fuchs Dolan, if QC still intends to use
her.
Appreciate the need to communicate with upcoming deadlines. Tonite was the
lEt time Vve been in .the o#ice this week, except to pick up files, & head to
court This is niy last email, & I'm now OBice to get some dinner. Thanks tho:
-PK
Paul,
I have two more questions based on your email
First, does this mean that you wilt be unavaitable to meet on 6/17 in the
afternoon? Let us know if we need to try to reschedule that meeting.
Have a good evening (and please do not feel compelled to respond after-hours to
an email from Mike or I, we're simply trying to get things to you as soon as-
possible as deadlines approach). Thanks.
Melissa
6/27/2011
Page 2 of 4
.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact
fadmin@gaulglevin.com
-Paul
- Original Message --
From: Wilson Claudette G.
To:.kondrickamsn.com ; mklickagaulglevin.com ; msullivan(a*aulglevin,com
Cc: Zilberman. Lonnv M.
Understand ...that sometimes there is a truly urgent matter, especially with the
continued TRC coming up, etc.. A day off is nice every now & then ... even to watch
a ball game with the kids.
Thanks for your prompt reply ... esp. @ 7:07 pm ... go home.
7PK
-- Original Message --
From: Mike Sullivan,
To: Paul Kendrick ; Melissa, Listua 1Klick
Cc: Wilson Claudette G. ; Zilberman. Lonny M.
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:07 PM
Subject: RE: QC/Etnyre - Follow Up - Kondrick Reply
Paul,
1We'll do our best not to bother you, but we can't agree not to communicate on
important items with trial approaching.
6/27/2011
Page 3 of 4
.
Thanks. Mike
Connaughton LLP
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the
recipients listed above. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it
immediately and inform the sender Of the error or contact admin(*paulplevin.com
<mailto:admin@Daulpievin.com>
Melissa,
I just saw this email I've been in trial since Monday, & as I may have mentioned,
argued a matter to the 4th DCA this afternoon. The trial was to conclude today,
but not later than tomorrow, June 16th; however, the other side is still putting on
its case-in-chief, & they informed the court today, that they will have witnesses
thru Monday, June 20th. That will affect the presently scheduled Kalish
deposition date for starters.
I've just contacted Dr. Hunsaker to firm up her availability since she just returned
to the US. a few days ago. I expect that you would like to see her jile before her
6/27/2011
Page 4 of 4
.
depo, e.g., the dox you may have been seeking via subpoena. My understanding is
that most of her file is electronic so that that should expedite getting your office
what you want produced by her.
As mentioned, I will now be in trial thru at least next Monday. I advised the court
in that matter that I have a 4:00 pm TRC with Judge Trapp scheduled for Monday,
June 20*h.
-P. Kendrick
6/27/2011
Page 1 of l
r 1 Paul, plevin,
- I Sullivan &
rn 1 3 Connaughton LLP
L_)/-k, 401 B Street, Tenth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
--' T: 619.237.5200 FF: 619.61'5.0700
www.Daulolevin.corn,
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact admin@Daulolevin.com
6/27/2011
Page 1 of 1
.
Melissa Listug Klick
CC: Zilberman, Lonny M.; 'Wilson Claudette G.'; Mike Sullivan; Deborah Baranowski
Subject: Etnyre v. QC = Dr. Kalish
Paul,
Dr. Kalish is available for his deposition on June 27th at 1:00,28th at 9:00, or 29th at 1:00. He would like
to do the deposition at'his office. Please let us know which date you prefer. Then, let us kmow when you
Would be available for the pre-trial meeting of counsel. Thank yeu.
Melissa
Paul, Plevin,
P Sullivan &
sp Connaughton LLP
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or contact admin@Daulolevin.com
6/27/2011
Page 1 of 1
Melissa,
-Paul
Paul,
Dr. Kalish is available for his deposition on June 27th at 1:00, 28th at 9:00, or 29th at 1:00. He
would like to do the deposition at his office. Please let us know which date you prefer. Then,
let us know when you would be available for the pre-trial meeting of counsel. Thank you.
Melissa
Paul, Plevin,
Sullivan &
Connaughton LLP
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the recipients listed above. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it immediately and inform the sender of the error or
contact admin@Daulolevin.com
6/27/201 i
EXHIBIT E
art
I.
fj I
D. If another Axis I disorder is present, the contemt of the obsessions or compulsions Ils
not restricted to it (e.g., preoccupation with food inthe presence of an Eating Disor-
15
der; hair pulling in the presence of Trichotillomania; concern with appearance in the
presence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder; preoccupation with drugs:in the presence of
a Substance Use Disorder; preoccupation with having a setious illness in the presence
of Hypochondriasis: preoccupation with sexual urges or fantasies in the presence of
a Paraphilia; or guilty ruminations in the presence of Major Depressive Disorder). 12
E. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of. a substance (e.g., a
drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition. :{i
21
Specify if:
With Poor insight if, for most of the time during the current episode, theiper-
son does not recognize that the obsessions and compulsions are excessiveor un-
reasonable
1,1,4 f 1
-i
11.1
Diagnostic Features
jiti
The essential feature of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is the development of charac-
.1,],ir
teristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving di-
rect personal; experience ef an event that involves actual or threatened death or
serious injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that
involves death, injury, or a threat to thephysical integrity of another person; or learn-
ing about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threatof deathor injury ex- t
periencedl by a family member or other close associate (Criterion Al). The person's
1
response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror (or in chil-
-#PE 31
dren, the response must involve disorganized or agitated behavior) (Criterion A2).
The characteristic symptoms resulting from the exposure to the extreme trauma in-
clude persistent reexperiencing of the traumatic event (Criterion B), persistent avoid-
ance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness
(Criterion C), and persistent symptoms of increased arousal (Criterion D). The full
symptom picture must be present for more than 1 month (Criterion E), and the dis-
-i
turbance must cause clinirally significant distress or impairment in social, oceupa-
tional, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion F).
Traumatic events that are experienced directly include, but are not limited to, mil-
15{
itary combat, violent personal assault (sexual assault, physical attack, robbery, mug-
ging), being kidnapped, being taken hostage, terrorist attack, torture, incarceration as 1 1 1,
a prisoner of war or in a concentration camp, natural or manmade disasters, severe
F
|464 Anxiety Disorders. 31
d 9
4$
L 1 4 L:4
1..: -3.2
1.- *f:
465 1 51 , 4, 11• 7,
f. 1 1, '11
'f '1
*t 1:H'f
1
l',1
Specifiers
A.'3
The following specifiers may be used to specify onset and duration of thesymptoms /' 1
1 'flf' rf#
flf#*r of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder:
B-*555 I 1 1!*
1 4 1 ZI
14*S€ -
Acute. This specifier should be used when the duration of symptoms is less 8.11.11 -1 , 3
than 3 months.
Chronic. This specifier should be used when the symptoms last 3 months or f 1, 45 1 :t ·'
*5
1 . .5 If :/f,
With Delayed Onset. This specifier indicates that at least 6 months have
longer.
Erei. 05 passed between the traumatic event and the onset of the symptoms. 4. ,\1, j
1; f
Is 't
}34' -1
Associated Features and Disorders i'/1
L
1
vorce, or loss of job. Auditory hallucinations and paranoid ideation canbe present m
'' 4 f 1 1,1 2
.«36 *19, I /{ 4 i . 1
1 somemay
severe and chronic cases. The following associated constellation of symptoms
occur and are more commonly seen in association with an interpersonal stressor 2 i k 1111 1
1 6111 1
4 4 - Phobiaconcurrently
r .
& f 'L.5,
, and Bipolawith
- lp·
S. fy,. 11'I,t,z8//84
23 . '
ies of autonomic functioning (eg., heart rate, electromyography, sweat gland activity). )Sh} W. -.
I.e i w .4 A lf.
Rht, 31 1
-*5 2
* 9 Associated physical examination findings and general medical conditions. il Ski} 4,• :
.!'' b 1 1 ... .'
Physicalinjunes may occur as a direct consequence of the trauma. In addition, chron- 1' % i it 18 9
S *i
complaints and, possibly, general medical conditions. 1': jill Af- 1 255,
Scy i.:;
his'
.
* A 011'
k.lipt I -
If
I 2 , ' fili ,
aill:
466 Anxiety Disorders
In younger children, distressing dreams of the event may, within several weeks,
change into generalized nightmares of monsters, of rescuing others, or of threats to
self or others. Young children usually do not have the sense that they are reliving the
past; rather, the reliving of the trauma may occur through repetitive play (e.g., a child
who was involved in a serious automobile accident repeatedly reenacts car crashes
with toy cars). Because it may be difficult for children to reportillminished interest in
significant activities and constriction of affect, these symptoms should be carefully
evaluated with reports from parents, teachers, and other observers. In children, the
sense of a foreshortened future may be evidenced by the belief that life will be too
short to include becoming an adult. There may also be"omen formation"-that is, be-
lief in,an ability to foreseefuture untoward events.Children may also exhibit various
physical symptoms, such as stomachaches and headaches.
Prevalence
Course
Pesttraumatic Stress Disorder can occur at any age, including childhood. Symptoms
usually begin within the first 3 months after the trauma, although there may be a de-
lay of months, or even years, before symptoms appear. Frequently, a person's reac-
tion to a trauma initially meets criteria for Acute Stress Disorder (see p. 469) in the
immediate aftermath of the trauma. The symptoms of the disorder and the relative
predominance of reexperiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal symptoms may vary
over time. Duration of the symptoms varies, with completerecovery occurring within
3 months in approximately half of cases, with many others having persisting symp-
toms for longer than 12 months after the trauma. In some cases, the course is charac-
terized by a waxing and waning of symptoms. Symptom reactivation may occur in
response to reminders of the original trauma, life stressors, or new traumatic events. 2.
Familial Pattern
Differentla.11 Diagnosis
In Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, the stressor must be of an extreme (i.e.,life-threat-
ening) nature. In contrast, in Adjustment Disorder, the stressor can be of any sever-
i
ity, The diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder is appropriate both for situations in which
the response to an extreme·stressor does not meet the criteria for Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder (or another specific mental disorder) and for situations in which the symp-
tom pattern of Posttraumatic Stress, Diaorder occurs in response to a stressor that is
not extreme (e.g., spouse leaving, being fired).
Not all psychopathology that occurs in individuals exposed to an extreme stressor
should necessarily be attributed to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Symptoms of
avoidance, numbing, and increased arousal that are present before exposure to the
stressor do not meet criteria for the diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and
require consideration of other diagnoses (e.g., a Mood Disorder or another Anxiety
/! i
Disorder). Moreover, if the symptom response pattern to the extreme stressor meets
criteria for another mental disorder (e.g., Brief Psychotic Disorder, Conversion Dis-
order, Major Depressive Disorder), these diagnoses should be given instead of, or in
addition to, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Acute Stress Disorder is distinguished from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder be-
cause the symptom pattern in Acute Stress Disorder must occur within 4 weeks of the
traumatic event and resolve within that 4-week period. If the symptoms persist for
more than 1 month and meet criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, the diagnosis
is changed from Acute Stress Disorder to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
In Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, there are recurrent intrusive thoughts, but
these are experienced as inappropriate and are not related to an,experienced traumat-
ic event. Flashbacks in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder must be distinguished from
illusions, hallucinations, and otherperceptual disturbances that may occur in.Schizo- P, i'{ff )
phrenia, other Psychotic Disorders, Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, a de-
lirium, Substance-Induced Disordem, and Psychotic Disorders Due to a General
Medical Condition.
Malingering should be ruled out in those situations in, which financial remunera-
tion, benefit eligibility, and forensic determinations play a role.
21
(1) the person experienced.·witnessed. or was confronted with an event or events 11·'#r
that involved' actual or. threatened death: or serious injury, or a threat to the
physical integrity of self or otheri
(2) the person's response involved intense fear. belplessness, or honror. Note: In
children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior
468
Anxiety Disorders
32.:.
f:
..f
(1) recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images,
thoughts. or perceptions. Note: In young children, repetitiveplay may occur
in which themes or aspects of the tfaurna are expressed:
(2) recurrent distressihg dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may be
frightening dreams without recognizable content.
(3) acting or feeling, as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of
reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback epi-
sodes, including those that occur on awakening or When into*icated). Note:
lin young children, trauma-specific reenactment may occur.
(4) intense psychological distress at exposure to iinternal or external cues that sym-
bolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event
(5) physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize
or resemble an aspect of'the traumatic event
6
:%# f
C
Persistent avoidance:of stimuli associated with the trauma, and numbing of general
responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as,indicated by three (or more) of
the following:
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicat-
ed by two (or more), of the following:
f/
(1) difficulty falling or staying asleep
(2) irritability or outbursts of anger
(3) difficulty concentrating
(4) hypervigilance
(5) exaggerated startle response
With Delayed Onset: if onset of symptoms is atjleast 6 months after the stressor
Exhibit F
.
*?
1 CERTIFIED COPY
4
)
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, individually,) Case No.:
) 37-2009-0010:1537-
6 Plaintiff. ) CU-OE-CTL
)
7 VS. )
)
8 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, )
individually, QUALCOMM )
9 INCORPORATED, a Delaware )
corporation, and DOES 1 through )
10 40, inclusive. )
)
11 Defendants. )
)
12
13
17 May 4, 2011
18
19
20
22
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COU RT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommend Adobe AcrobatorAdobe Reader(free ati http://getadobe.com/reader/).
.
COURTNEY S. EINYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Wong, M.D., Deeann on 05/04/2011
8 setting.
20 asking them?
25 reporting?
I1 Q Anything elsel'
6 Q Anything else?
9 Q Anything else?
16 A Correct.
20 A Possibly.
24 right?
3 Hydrocephalus?
4 A Hydrocephalus.
5 Q What is that?
14 veracity?
16 Q Truthfulness.
19 apnointment?
20 0 Yes.
24 accurate7
25 A Correct.
13 MR. SULLIVAN: SO
15 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
16 Q Why not7
1 A Correct.
7 A No.
12 A No.
18 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
22 A "Research" meaning?
24 clarification on that.
1 CERTIFIED COPY
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 VS. )No. 37-2009-00101537
) CU-OE-CTL
8 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, )
individually, QUALCOMM )
9 Incorporated. a Delaware )
corporation and DOES 1 through 40, )
10 inclusive, )
)
11 Defendanes. )
)
12
13 VOLUME II
20
22
23
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COU RT REPO!RTERS
800 697-3210 www.hutchings.com
5 A. No. 3$14P
11 A. No.
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Yes?
18 A. Yes.
21 A. Yes.
25 A. Correct. 3115P
4 declare:
9 Procedure;
10
14
17
20 and correct.
21
E : CERTIFICATION /3 25
.
r, .
Je2ik#*]rK.r45%.rlt-?rESR 8-543
.
25
144
6,*..2.......0.*1-:
-/tts
HUTCHINGS -COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL 'fmaEk'SCES
80,0.697.3210
Exhibit G
1
CE*TIFIED COPY
2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 VS.
No. 37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
8 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, )
individually, QUALCOMM Incorporated. )
9
a Delaware corporation and DOES )
1 through 40. inclusive, )
10
)
Defendants. )
11
)
12
13
14
DEPOSITION OF ARLENE E. POLLARD. LCSW, a witness
15
herein, noticed by Paul. Plevin. Sullivan &
16
Connaughton. LLP, at 401 B Street, Tenth Floor,
17
San Diego, California, at 10:06 a.m., on Friday,
18
May 6, 2011. before Jeannette M. Kinikin,
19 CSR 11272.
20
21
Hutchings Number 310934
22
23
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
800 697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommend Adobe AcrobatorAdobe Reader(free at: http:#get.adobe.com/reader/),
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Pollard, LCSW, Arlene on 05/06/2011
1
be, or if a referral would be more appropriate. 10:31
2
Q. Okay. And then, fram that point, once you
4
what do you do -- what is your goal in terms of
5
addressing that? Are you trying to help them actually 10:.31
6
resolve those issues in their life or are you trying to
7
help them resolve the emotional issues internally, learn
9
A. Almost always the latter because I may not have
10 any influence or control or ability to change the 10:32
12
0. Right. Riaht. Okay. And I'm assuming there's
13
not really a fact-finding component to your treatment7
14
I'll ask you that a better way.
15
If someone comes into your office and says. my 10:32
17
whether the person coming in to you is telling you the
18 truth about that?
19 A. Correct.
21
value and try to help the person deal with it; is that
22 correct7
1 of.
10:33
2
Q. Okay. And if you found inconsistencies, and
1
A. I would question a client as part of, yau know,
1 10 complete information gathering. I'll leave it there. 10.:33
11
Q. If you determine that a client was
12
misrepresenting the facts of their circumstances, would
13
you confront them with that conclusion?
14 A. Yes. Yes, I would.
15
Q. Okay. Would you do any investigation to find 10:34
19
there be circumstances where you would -- for example,
20
you have someone who comes in and says, I was -- I was 10:34
21
attacked on the street and the person was arrestedand
22
put in jail and, for various reasons, you don' t believe
23
they're telling the truth, would you ever go out and do
24
a fact finding to see if there was a criminal record or
25 anything like that7 10:34
1
whether or not that is what's going on in terms of a 12:07
2
reinterpretation of the events if someone's story
3
changes constantly over exactly how those events
4 occurred7
'1 5
A. Could you rephrase that? 12:07
6
Q. Yeah. That wasn't a very good one either.
7
If in a circumstance where you have someone who
8
and we'll just use the example of consensually had sex.
9 A. Yes.
11
really rearets the decision and starts rewriting history
12 in their own mind as to what haDDened. is it more likely
13
that thev're rewritina history if they're inconsistent
14
in how they describe those events over time. and the
15 events change over time7 12:08
16
A. I would think that would be likely.
17 0. That that would --
18 A. Yes.
20
A. Possiblv. [ 12:08
21 0. Okay.
24
Q. Okay. And, again, just going back to generally
25
looking at your notes, here are the issues that I 12:08
2 A. Yes.
3
0. Okay. And you. I'm assuming. never really
4
exDlored that with Ms. Etnvre because you thought she
6 A. That's right.
7
Q. Okay. Would you describe Ms. Etnyre as
10 A. Sometimes. I3:42
12
A. Well, I'm trying to think of a specific
13
example. I'm thinking back on numerous conversations
14
about conflicts at work or with co-workers where, if one
15
could interpret something very personally or not, it 13::42
16
would more likely feel very personal. And I can't think
17 of a specific example right now.
18
Q. Okay. And one that I saw that may be in that
19
category was, I know -- I think it was in your notes,
20
that Dr. Wong had gone into her reception room and not 13:42
22
A. That was not in my notes.
2 A. No.
7 A. No.
13
that you use or look for in order to assess credibility
14 of a client7
25 A. No. 14:29
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as
i P.
F 196.
3 I, Jennifer K. Winters, CSR 8'543, do hereby
1 ).
4 declare:
4. 5
sal
9 Procedure;
I.
10
14
17
20 and correct.
f 21
1lth
22, WITNESS ,my hand this day of 1
%,t%§,8,5,1„044
23
April 2011 40 rOURTP "4
..0.
fs/
iii i
i i C=*11 j'3,3
24
K Qr .* .4-*i,,) I \K-JV-_-
25 0-
:
'h -2
d
9 99
2.- 1 *F*'5/
.
t''
I1 112
: 11
i!·l
Exhibit H
0
.
1 CERTIFIED COPY
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, )
)
6 Plaintiff. )
)
7 VS. )No. 37-2009-00101537
) CU-OE-CTL
13
19 CSR 8543.
20
22
23
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COU RT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommend Adobe AcrobatorAdobe Reader(free at http://get.adobe:com/readerO.
4
.
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Matson, Ph.D., Judith on 03/25/2011
2 Q. Did she ask you if she was -- did she ever ask
7 delusional.
12 to be credible.
13 A. In aeneral. yes.
21 A. She might.
7*2
gi
1 · STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
C-r=
{ffi,
[H I
'41
11 That ,said deposition was taken down by me in lili
1...4 12 shorthand at the time and place therein named and lili
SM-
13 thereafter reduced to text under my direction. uI
14
11, 1.
t:11
15 I further declare that I have no interest in the
17
'11 , 11
20 and correct.
111 ,
21
; r.'
11th 111 t
d E
22 WITNESS my hand this
April 2011
day of
/10
t.,9,50,0..0.
u RT .'
111!:1
' jpl 23 , .0 5 ....0006.:.4
IP,
fs/ :.04%
I Se
\AE
4/ 6.__ i l d CERTIFICATION , -5
Itil
-CAL'*©.*1
1,
25
1 + Stf ,&/
1 M 1% 99 :
-2 14
%
J ...
- '.· t.
& iw:
7
21 IN GQ'11 28 305
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIF6RNiA
15
Defendants. 12 of 21
16
18 Dept: 70
Judge: Honorable Randa Trapp
19 Complaint Filed: November 2,2009
Trial Date: July 1, 2011
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL, PLEVIN
SULLIVAN & ' OPPo to MIL to Preclude Defs. Presenting Evidence
CONNAUGHTON uP Concerning Plaintiffs Prior Employment ORIGINAL
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 In her' second motion in limine, plaintiff Courtney Etnyre ("Etnyre") seeks to exclude
4 , evidence regarding her prior employment (including her performance, complaints or reasons for
5 leaving). As grounds for her motion, she asserts that such information is irrelevant and
6 prejudicial, but fails to provide any showing whatsoever as to why. Citing to non-controHing
7 Indiana law and inapplicable California cases addressing the standard for the discovery of
8 personnel' records - which have already been produced - Etnyre also claims that she has a right to
9 privacy in her prior work history. Etnyre's motion fails for several' reasons:
10 • Evidence of her prior work history is probative and directly relevant to the issue of
14 opinions that Etnyre has difficulty speaking up, and is necessary to Qualcomm's
16 • Not only is Etnyre's reliance on Indiana law misplaced in this Caiifornia case, but
I7 she has waived her right to privacy under California law by allowing discovery and
19 Because this evidence is probative, and is not unduly prejudicial, Etnyre's motion must be
20 denied.
21 II.
22 BACKGROUND
24 discoveryto Qualcomm after a "first look" by Etnyre that allowed her to object to certain records
25 being produced. She turned over the records, however, without objection.
26 To summarize this evidence, it demonstrates that Etnyre had conflicts with her supervisors
27 arising out of criticism of her job performance, or conflicts with coworkers, at those prior jobs;
28 : that she always responded in a strong, vindictive and untruthful manner; and that she was then
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
SULLIVAN & Oppo to MIL to Preclude Defs. Presenting Evidence
CONNAUGHTON up Concerning Plaintiffs Prior Employment
..
1 0 terminated or resigned from employment with these prior employers and was untruthful about the
2 circumstances of her departures. These previous employers include the law firms of Casey Gerry,
4 1 Etnyre's employment records from Casey Gerry clearly evidence that she was
5 1 in*oluntarity terminated from employment, indeed, the records specifically note that she did"not
6 respond well to being supervised." (Klick Decl. 112, Exh. A [CASEY 113,106,57,56,531.) In
7 response to her involuntary termination, Etnyre retained an attorney and sent a letter to Casey
8 Gerry threatening a lawsuit for retaliation and wrongful termination. (Klick Decl. 112, Exh. A
9 [CASEY 251.) Notably, Etnyre was untruthful in her deposition and in her application to
10 Qualcomm about the reason that she left Casey Gerry. (Klick Decl 117; Exh. F [Etnyre Depo.
11 970:20-971:51.)
12 During Etnyre's employment with the Howrey & Simon law firm, she received a negative
13 performance review fromher female supervisor. (Klick Decl. 11 3, Exh. B [HOWREY 58-60].)
14 Her immediate respense was to send an email to management accusing her supervisor of
15 harassment, retaliation and a"blatantly hostile and discriminating working environment." (Klick
16 Decl. 113, Exh. B [HOWREY 631.) During her independent medicalexamination ("IME")
17 conducted by Qualcomm's psychiatric expert, Dr. Mark Kalish, Etnyre admits she did not like her
18 supervisor at Howrey & Simon, but denies any performance problems. (Klick Decl. 7 5, Exh. D
20 During her IME, Etnyre states that her employment at Pfizer was terminated for altering 1
21 another employee's resume with derogatory sexual and profane language, but Etnyre alleges it
22 was because she was a witness to a sexual harassment claim and was upset at the person she ,
23 believed brought the claim, (Ilick Decl. lili 4-5, Exhs. C IPFIZER 15-18]; D [IME transcript,
24 73:6- 75:131.) Significantly, Etnyre admits she altered the employee's resume because Etnyre did
25 not like this employee and was "angry" with her and was"getting back at her" for allegedly
26 causing the termination of another employee. Ud) When she applied for her position at
1
27 1 Qualcomm, her next employer, she lied about her reasons for leaving Pfizer. (Decl. Klick 1,7;
5 Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed
6 fact that is of consequence to the determination ofthe action." (Evid. Code § 210; OWearn v.
7 Hillcrest Gym andFitness Center, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th.491, 501.) Evidence of a person's
8 habitor custom is admissible to prove conduct on a specified occasion in conformity with that
9 habit or custom. (Evid. Code § 1105; Marshall v. Brown (1983) 141 Cal. App.3d 408, 416.)
10 Here, evidence of Etnyre's prior work history with three 6mplbyers prior to Qualcomm, as
,11 described above, is probative and directly relevant to the issue of her habit of vindictive and
i
12 untruthful behavior when an employer criticizes her work performance. Indeed, here, Etnyre did
13 not complain about Minhas until after she was unsatisfied with a performance review (a 4.5 rating
14 out of 5) and only after it was determined that her review was fair. Notably, at that time, although
15 she used the words "sexual harassment" she did not admit to having sex with Minhas until after
16 Minhas admitted to the conduct and she affirmed that his version was accurate.
17 Again, in the next review cycle, she received a review that she felt was not good enough,
18 complained about the review, and again, when it was not changed to her liking, she filed the
19 workers' compensation claim that predicated her current story of a brutal rape. Qualcomm must
20 be allowed to admit evidence that this was, indeed, her mode of operation - rather than a once,
21 twice, three times occurrence. Indeed, it occurred on five occasions (including the three prior
23 IV.
26 Etnyre's treaters have opined that Etnyre has difficulty voicing her complaints and tries to
27 i1 offer explanations as to why Etnyre was not truthful, forthcoming, 0r consistent in her reports of
28 Ithe alleged rape. (Klick Decl 11 6, Exh. E [Wong Depo. 130:2-6, 131 :15-22, 132:1-13, 134:1047,
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN & Oppo to MIL to Preclude Defs, P.resenting Evidence 3
CONNAUGHTON LLP Concerning Plaintiff's Prior Employment
.
2 97:6-20].)Dr. Wong rendered her opinion without having reviewed Etnyre's prior work history.
3 (Klick Decl. 116, Exh. E [Wong Depo. 55:12-58:171.) Qualcomm's psychiatric expert, Dr. Mark
4 Kalish, on the other hand, has reviewed Etnyre's prior work history and records, as described
5 above, and based on this evidence, will testify that her past work history reveals that Etnyre is
6 assertive and vindictive when confronted with negative situations at work. Moreover, he will
7 testify that this history is important in assessing Etnyre's current symptoms, her diagnosis, and her
8 claims ofcausation. He will rebut the justifications provided by Etnyre's providers because her
12 V.
15 Without any explanation whatsoever, Etnyre asserts that evidence ofher prior work
16 history should be excluded as unduly prejudicial pursuant to Evidence Code sectien 352. Her
17 motion should be denied for failure to provide any reason why such information is unduly
18 prejudicial.
19 In any event, to establish "undue prejudice," it is not enough to allege that evidence is
20 I damaging. Most evidence offered againsta party is"prejudicial," but that is no basis to exclude it
21 , under Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529,588 (overruled
22 on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069) ["prejudicial" is not
24 § 352 "does not mean 'damaging' to a party's case, it means evoking an emotional response that
26 For the reasons set forth herein, Etnyre's prior work history is probative ofthe issue of
27 Etnyre's pattern and practice of vindictive and untruthful behavior when an employer criticizes
3 HISTORY
4 Etnyre' s reliance on Indiana law and California discovery cases to assert that she has a
5 right to privacy in her prior work history is misplaced. Indiana state law on rights to privacy is
6 not controlling in this California case. Additionally, plaintiffhas waived her right to privacy by
7 providing, or allowing the production 0f, information regarding her prior employment in
8 discovery. (See Evidence Code § 912; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal'.3d 844,858.)
9 Etnyre did not object to the production of her prior employers' production of her personnel
10 records in this case after she was providedan opportunity to review them first, nor to her
11 discussion'of same with Dr. Kalish during her independent mental examination.1 In.any event,
12 any potential right to privacy in this information is outweighed by the direct relevance of this
13 information to the issue of Etnyre's pattern and practice ofvindictive anduntruthful behavior
14 when an employer criticizes her performance, and Dr. Kalish's opinion regarding same, as set
16 VII.
17 CONCLUSION
18 For these reasons, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court deny Etnyre's motion in
21
22 I B
C C. SUUWAN
23 LISTUG KLICK
Attorneys for Defendant
24 Qualcomm Incorporated 11
25
26
1 The Court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice ofEtnyre'sopposition to<Qualcomm's motion
to compel her independent mental examination which contained numerous objections andconditions, but
27
none of which addressed her former employment history.
28
PAUL, PLEVIN,
SULLIVAN &
Oppo to MIL to Preclude Defs. Presenting Evidence 5
CONNAUGHTONLIP Concerning Plaintiffs Prior Employment
.
(7 1 1
5€,1,4 ESrk,6 L 4-5
A,6 (ejurniA t,; Couiel
1 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470) A'.
2 EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106)
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
3 401 B Street, Tenth Fioor
San Diego, California 92101-4232 FiLEn
Clerk of the Superlor Court
4 Telephone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
JUN 29 2011
5 JUN 29 '11 00 7:72
Attorneys for Defendant By: Antkny ill,Mdkbepull
6 Qualcomm Incorporated
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'
10
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, CASE NO. 37-2009-00101537-CU-OE-CTL
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OFMELISSA LISTUG
12 KLICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S
13 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS
17 [2 of 21
18
Date: July 1, 2011
19 Time: 8:45 a.in.
Dept: 70
22
24 1. I am an associate in the law firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP,
26 i matter, and am licensed to practice before this Court. I have personal' knowledge of the following
27 facts and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.
28 111
PnTE.ployment ORIGINAL
PAUL, PLEVIN, r
SULLIVAN& Decl. of Melissa Listug Klick ISO ofOppo to MIL re
CONNAUGHTON up
f
. .
1 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of certain relevant
2 personnel records of plaintiff Courtney Etnyre received by Qualcomm from the law firm of Casey,
4 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of certain relevant
5 personnel records ofplaintiff received by Qualcomm fromthe law firm ofHowrey & Simon in
7 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of certain relevant
8 personnel records ofplaintiff received by Qualcomm from Pfizer, Inc. in response to Qualcomm's
10 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
11 the transcript ofthe April 20, 2011 independent medical exam of plaintiff conducted by Dr. Mark
12 Kalish.
13 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
14 the deposition testimony of DeeAnn Wong taken on May 4, 2011 and June 10, 2011 by
15 Qualcomm'scounsel.
16 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies ofrelevant portions of
17 the deposition testimony of Courtney Etnyre taken on July 20, 2010 by my office.
18 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is atrue and correct copy of Etnyre's application for
20 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
21 the deposition testimony of Raymond Fidalee, M.D. taken on May 24, 2011 by my office.
22 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
23 ithe deposition testimeny of Arlene Pollard taken on May 6, 2011 bymy office.
24 I declare under penalty of pedury under the laws ofthe State of California that the
27
-
6 -X
7 COURTNEY S . ETNYRE,
8 Plaintiff,
10 against
11
15 Defendant.
16 ---------------------X
18 Central Division
21
23
24
25
Page 1
1 A. Yes.
3 A. Yes.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q+ All right.
9 work?
10 Pfizer.
12 there?
13 A-L Yes.
Page 73
2 No.
3 0. Okay.
5 Okay.
22 understand.
24 of -- of her boss.
Page 74
1 Yes.
3 al her?
4 Yes.
8 I guess so.
9 0. That's fair?
12 of that in there?
13 Yes.
16 Howrey.
18 H-0-W-R-E-Y.
20 8_._ Yes.
24 there?
25 Yes.
Page 75
7 employer?
11 her?
16 NO.
19 A. Yes.
21 Howrey?
23 Q. L-Y-0-N?
24 A. Yes.
Page 76
1
CERTIFIED COPY
)
5
COURTNEYS. ETNYRE. individually,) Case No.:
) 37-2,009-00101537-
6 Plaintiff. ) CU-OE-CTL
)
7 VS. )
)
8 SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS, )
individually, QUALCOMM )
9 INCORPORATED, a Delaware )
corporation, and DOES 1 through )
10 40, inclusive, )
)
11 Defendants. )
)
12
13
16
San Diego. California
17 May 4, 2011
18
19
20
22
23
Hutchings Number: 318125
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommendAdobe Acrobator.Adobe Reader (free at: http:#get. adobe. corn/reader/),
..
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Wong, M.D., Deeann on 05/04/2011
2 A
That was my source of information.
3 Q Right.
4 A Yes.
6 then --
7 A Right.
8
Q -- those ether sources.
9
But much of what she described to you had to
10
do with her employment at Qualcomm, correct7
11 A Correct.
12
0 Okay. Did you ever have any discussions with
13
her about her employment with anv prior employers?
14 A No.
15
0 Did you ever have any discussions with her
16 about anv relationshigs that she had had. sexual
17
relationships. prior to aoina to Oualcomm?
18
MR. KONDRICK: Objection. Inappropriate
19 question. Invades Drivacy.
20 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
23
THE WITNESS: Okay. The only relationshiD
24
that comes to mind that occurred prior to Qualcomm was
25 the relationship with her daughter's father.
1 BY MR. SULLIVAN:
11
or assessing her medically for the depression and PTSD?
12 0 Both.
13 A
I did not feel that either were particularlv
14
relevant to the PTSD or the maior depression. which is
15 the main focus of my treatment with her.
17
depression and PTSD. not determining what events did or
18 did not haDDen at Oualcomm?
19 A Correct.
23
to the maior depressive disorder or the post-traumatic
24 stress svndrome. correct?
25 A Correct.
2
you weren't making an assessment of what did or did not
3
happen to her durina her employment at Oualcomm. you
4
did not feel it was necessary to gain any information
5
about her Drior employment history?
6 A Correct.
8
her prior emplovment history would not be relevant in
9
terms of vour assessment of her maior depressive
t 10 disorder and/or post-traumatic stress syndrome?
11
A Can vou repeat the question again?
12
0 Sure. Mv understanding was vou never made
13
any inquiry about her Drior employment history,
14 correct?
15 A Correct.
16
0 And why wasn't that relevant to what you were
17
assessina with regard to her psvchiatric condition?
18
A Because when you're assessing for maior
19
depression, what you're Drimarily going on is svmptoms,
20
the current state. as well as svmptoms in the previous
21 state.
22
Her current stressors were she was having
23 trouble with her current -- her current employer at
24
Oualcomm. And to diagnose maior depression as well as
25
PTSD. vou do not have to have a Drevious work history
2 0 Can it be helpful?
3
A Possibly. but it's secondary to really what
6
0 Would it be fair to sav that the prior work
7 history could be more or less relevant deDendina UDOn
11
A For the purposes of what I was treating
12 Ms. Etnyre for, it was probablv less relevant.
20 respective counsel.
24
5 zE TRANSCRIPT 12,1 11 i '. 5:/,r-Wiblizr
E 2 : CERTIFICATION i v' E UU
/ AS
25 15 + ... ... 1 2 HEIDI J. JOHNSON, RPR, CSR NO. 12525
,* SE;f * 6'* 74
-.
0 0
1 CERTIFIED COPY
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE. )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 VS. )No. 37-2009-00101537
) CU-OE-CTL
13 VOLUME II
20
22
23
24
25
HfUTCHINGS
COU RT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommend Adobe AcrobatorAdobe'Reader(free at http://get.adobe.com/reader/).
..
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Wong, M,D., Deeann on 06/10/2011
1 A. Yes.
6 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yes.
13 impairment?
17 statement?
18 Q. Sure.
I1 A. What?
13 A. More or less.
14 MR. SULLIVAN:
22 occurred.
25 A. I don't recall.
5 business triD.
7 in New York?
14 Q. Okay. And was there any other time that she 4:13P
16 dissociation?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. Yes?
9 A. Yes.
17 dissociation.
19 dissociation event other than this one time when she was
21 relations, correct7
25 Q. As you sit here now you don't recall any other 4:17P
1 event, correct7
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is that correct?
4 A. Not to my recollection.
5 Q. So that's correct?
6 A. Yes.
10 relations?
11 A. I don't know.
14 A. I do not know.
17 dissociation?
18 A. No.
11 their memory.
16 dissociation?
20 correct?
3 practice.
9 as opposed to dissociation?
10 A. No. 4:22P
14 A. That is incorrect.
22 of rec611ection?
11 disorder?
16 involved.
20 point in time.
23 time?
20 respective counsel.
24
% w : CERTIFICATION ?A- L./ 0
· :AS
25 ..·< Ob. HEIDI J. JOHNSON, RPR, 'CSR NO. 12525
44, SEAL ' 74
440""Hn.
Exhibit F
· ORIGINAL
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE', )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
VOLUME V
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES
HEADQUARTERS:
800.597.3110 323.888.6300
PAK: 323.888.6333 • www.hutchings. com
970
2 A. No.
11 MR. SULLIVAN:
13 Mullin, correct?
14 A. As a temp, yes.
16 Sheppard Mullin?
17 A. I was a temp.
19 A. Yes.
21 Gerry?
24 Gerry?
25 A. Mm-hmm. Yen.
.
971
2 MR. SULLIVAN:
4 paralegal school?
5 A. Yes.
9 A. Calendar clerk.
13 that?
15 MR. SULLIVAN:
I8 don't know.
19 A. I don't know.
22 A. No.
25 A. Yes.
.
.
1
***
r:\.
7
1
Executed at Dan .LA eC) , California,
on Awy*t 23,2_CA O
8
9
1
10
1
11
i
12
CO S. 1RIA
l 0
13
j 14
15
16
17
18
19
<#,1:.:
20
21
22
23
42
24
25
994
..::Sfl*r -A.'·
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC - GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICES
'800:697.321,0
'1'=25**E44*..t:
-0*56
' ».W
H Zh,·
.. 'ff
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
DI
2
#494'
10
That said deposition was taken down by me in
11 shorthand at the time and place therein named and
12 thereafter reduced to text under my direction.
13
14
I further declare that I have no interest in the
16
20
22
August ,
3
/6 666 42 *--e*::I.-000.0,b,
'A 8
:g.
Exhibit U
MySourcer
Courtney S. Etnyre
,Location: Jamul, CA
Date Received: 04/03/2003
.ofile - Summary
Recent Company: Pflzer
Recent Job Title: Senior Paralegal
ID: 1622750
23 EInt
CANDIDATE
Name:
Courtney S. Etnyre
Address: 13726 Whispering Meadows Lane
Country: United States
City: Jamul
Stale: California Zip: 91935
SSN: 229-02-3132
San Diego, CA
Location:
Source
r,rst Year Experience: 10
Student? No
Student Where?
Student Program:
Seeking Internship: No
Security Clearance:
Patents:
Publications:
:EO
.der: Female
liltps://metro.qualcomm.com/my:ourao/:tafBng.asplpage=summor,&candld=1622750&print=print 5/8/2001
OTHER
DPL Verified: OK
,didale Type: New Hire
-livity Code:
Date App
Further Review: No 04/25/2003
Mnalked:
los
Other Information7
( RK EXPERIENCE
Is Current Job: Y
Responsibilities: Prosecution of Plizer's intellectual property portfolio US and PCT filings Drafting and'formatting
EDUCATION
litips://mao.qualoomm.com/mpoorce/slamng.asplpage=sommary&candld=1622750&print=print 5/8/2003
Phone: 450-5749
Occupation: Patent Counsel
Heterenee Text:
Staffing Comments:
Reference Text:
Staffing Comments:
DOCUMENTS
hlips://motro.qualoomm.com/my:ourse/stamng.asp?pariammary&0:ndld=16227508,print=print 5/8/2001
1 CERTIFIED COPY
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE. )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 VS. ) Case No. 37-2008-00101537
) CU-OE-CTL
individually, QUALCOMM )
9 Incorporated, a Delaware )
corporation and DOES 1 )
10 through 40, inclusive, )
)
11 Defendants. )
)
12
13
14
20 RPR, CRR.
21
23
24
2;5
HUTCHINGS
COU RT REPORTERS
800 697-3210 www.hutchings.com
1 the PTSD was from the family issues, the duration of it?
5 parents at all?
15 resoonsive.
2 brother7
7 from that.
15 She was not assertive with anybody. That was the big
22 reviewing it.
25 employer?
.
-1
***
-1
9 on 212 2 t- l 4 1-0 L I
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
i.
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as
8 Procedure;
16
20
6th day of
21 WITNESS my hand this
2011
22 June
23
A.
24
L/V\/
/
121
5 COURTNEY S. ETNYRE, )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
)
7 VS. ) No. 37-2009-0010
) 1537-CU-OE-CTL
12
13
19 CSR 11272.
20
22
23
24
25
HUTCHINGS
COURT REPORTERS
800-697-3210 www.hutchings.com
Forbestresults, we recommendAdobe AcrobatorAdobe Reader(freeat http://getadobe.com/readerO.
..
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE vs. SANDIP ("MICKEY") MINHAS
Pollard, LCSW, Arlene on 05/06/2011
11 observed it.
13 observed it in7
15 visibly withdrawn and did not make eye contact, anything 14:06
25 Q. Okay. 14:07
5--41 1,
lilli
4"ill
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
F
d
2
-53.f *'
5
I.M,
9 Procedure;
10
11 L li 1
f.,t i 11 That said deposition was taken down by me in 11
irt
:f',
13 thereafter reduced to text under my direction. 1j
«4
»4
14
n
17
and correct. r
21
11th
22 WITNESS my hand this day of
I £*
9.
23
April 2011
42 COURTD .
·:> 06 .··..-.·4'4 '0
....0-60.
: 7. 5 il
I. t A Y 24
.
5 Ji TRANSCRIPT *p---
25 1 I \K-XES E Y : CERTIFICATION-//+
:3 : 1 1D:5
-r A x,A/4..(.t , '
a .%. "-A f
i *»3
Jennif*HK.
U
Wnters, CSR 8543
99 Il
9 9 E AL %/ ,
HUTCHINGS COURT REPORTERS, LLC GLOBAL LEGAL /ERVreEN
1.
YE 4 +
800..697.32.10
4
1 69
1*25
.
1
MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817)
2 MELISSA LISTUG KLICK (SBN 228470)
EMILY J. FOX (SBN 262106) FILED
Clerk of the Superior Court
3 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
401 B Street, Tenth Floor JUN 2 9 201,1
4 San Diego, California 92101-4232
Telephone: 619-237-5200 By: Anmpm,St*le* Depu¥
5 Facsimile: 619-615-0700 .Vwn £3 '11 PM 364
6 Attorneys for Defendant
Qualcomm Incorporated
7
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 V.
Dept: 70
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
«PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
Proof of Service
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
.3 ..
1 I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age
2 of eighteen, employed in the County of San Diego, State of California, and not a party to the
3 within-entitledl action. My business address is P.O. Box 112037, San Diego, California 92101.
8
DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS'
9
EXPERT, MARK KALISH, M.D., FROM OPINING AS TO PLAINTIFF'S
TRUTHFULNESS OR BELIEVABILITY 11 of 21
10 • DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS
11 PRESENTING EVIDENCE CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S PRIOR
EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING HER PERFORMANCE, COMPLAINTS OR
12 REASONS FOR LEAVING [2 of 21
• DECLARATION OF MELISSA LISTUG KLICK IN SUPPORT OF
13
DEFENDANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS
14
PRESENTING EVIDENCE CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S PRIOR
15
EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING HER PERFORMANCE, COMPLAINTS OR
REASONS FOR LEAVING [2 of 21
16
by delivering for personal service to the following:
17
22 Place of delivery is San Diego, California. Executed this 29th day of June 2011, at San
23 Diego, California.
26
27
CUTEd'R MEMSENGER
28
PAUL, PLEVIN, 1
Proof of Service
SULLIVAN &
CONNAUGHTON LLP
. ORIGINAL
1 H. PAUL KONDRICK, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
H. PAUL KONDRICK (88566)
2 3130 Fourth Avenue -
San Diego, CA 92103 '
3 Telephone: (619) 291-2400
Facsimile: (619) 291-7123
w;:+p:L-- E.:»:in 1
964(0,11,61®erk* Citw 1
4
19 CENTRAL DIVISION
Rt
21 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [pROPeSED]
ORDER REGARDING
22 V. INADVERTENT ATTORNEY-
CLIENT DISCLOSURES
23 SANDIP ("MICKY'D MIN(HAS, individually,
QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware Complaint Filed: November 4,2009
24 corporation, and DOES 1-40, inclusive
Trial: July 1, 2011
25 Defendants. Time: 8:45 a.m.
Judge: -Randa Trapp
26 Dept.: C-70
27
28
3 healthcare i,roviders and counselors, including DeeAnn Wong, M.D., Cathy Hammond, Rh.D.,
4 Judith Matson, Ph.D., Charles Nelson, Ph.D„ Arlene Pollard, and defendants' expert,
6 WHEREAS, Plaintiff.and Defendants have met and conferred regarding this Motion;
8 between Plaintiff and her attorney(s) inadvertently disclosedby Plaintiff to healthcare providers, and
9 counselors, including DeeAnn Wong, M.D., Cathy Hammond, Ph.D., Judith Matson, Ph.D., 'Charles
13 Defendahts witt not seek to introduce evidenceof communications between Plaintiff and her
15 DeeAnn Wong, M.D., Cathy Hammond, Ph.D., Judith Matson, Ph.D., Charles Nelson, Ph.D., Arlene
16 Pollard, and defdndants' expert, Mark Kalish, M.D.. If, duing the course oftrial, Defendants do
17 seek to, introduce ,evidence of communications between Plaintiff and her attorney(s) inadvertently
18 i disclosed by Plaintiffto healthcare providers and counselors, including DeeAnn Wong, M.D., Cathy
19 Hammond, Ph.D., Judith Matson, Ph.D., Charles Nelson, Ph.D., Arlene Pollard, and defendants'
20 expert, Mark Kalish, M.D., Defendants shall notify Plaintiffbefore doing se and allow Plaintiff a
21 Ill
22 111
23 '111 -
24
25
26
27
28
1 'reasonable opportunity to brief the issue for the Court before any efforts are made to introduce such
2 evidence.
p#. 4/1 p
H. PAUL KONDIICK AUDETTE . WIESON i
8 - ,
Attorney for Plaintiff LEONID M. ZILBERMAN
COURTNEY S. ETNYRE JESSICA A. CHASW
Attorneys for Defendant
9 . SANDIP MINHAS
Dated: June 3< , 2011
10
11 CONNABTrl
1'2 By: CYLL 1 _
A MUCIAL'e>*ULLIN AN
13 'l-Ni4*A L. KLICK
Mttorney for Defendant
14 QUALCOMM INC.
15
t6
17 ORDER
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
17
) Sr
19 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND *PRepeSEE)1
) ORDER REGARDING
20 V. PLAINTIFF'S SEXUAL CONDUCT
)
21 SANDIP (*'MICKY') MINHAS, individually, ) Date: July 1, 2011
QUALCOMM Incorporated, a Delaware ) Time: 8:45 a.m.
22 corporation, and DOES 1 through 40, inclusive, ) Department: DC-70
Judge: Hon. Randa Trapp
23 )
Defendants. )
24 )
26 Plaintiff's sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator in this action,
28 WHEREAS, Pluintiff and Defendants have met and conferred regarding this Motion;
2 Plaintiff's sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator in this action,
5 Defendants will not seek to introduce evidence concerning Plaintiffs sexual conduct with
6 individuals other than the alleged perpetrator in this action, namely Defendant, SANDIP
7 C*MIC:Ky") MINHAS. If, during the course of trial, Defenciants do seek to introduce evidence
8 concerning Plaintiff's sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator in this
9 action, Defendants shall notify Plaintiffbefore doing so and allow Plaintiff a reasonable
10 opportunity to briefthe issue for the Court before any efforts are made to introduce such
11 evidence.
15
4 *- AL ly BM
16 H. Paul Kondrick Cl*d6tte G. Wilson
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. Leonid M. Zilberman
17
ETNYRE
Jessica A. Chasin
20
Paul, Plevin Sullivan & Connaughton:
21
22
23
Ildlsitaelg. Wlivan
MelksaL. Klick
25
ORDER
26
rT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
Dated: *Ul¢ 14,90//
0
»6241 orable Randa Trapp
Judge ofthe Superior Court
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
17
26 Plaintiff's alleged or supposed altercation at a soccer game, or any arrest or litigation related
27 thereto;
28 WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred regarding this Motion;
2 concerning Plaintiffs alleged or supposed altercation at a soccer game, or any arrest or litigation
3 related thereto;
5 Defendants will not seek to introduce evidence concerning Plaintiffs alleged or supposed
6 altercation at a soccer game, or any arrest or litigation related thereto. If during the course of
8 altercation at a soccer game, or any arrest or litigation related thereto, Defendants shall notify
9 Plaintiffbefore doing so and allow Plaintiff areasonable opportunity to briefthe issue forthe
15
BM
-0.lb/L1/
H. Paul Kondrick
-
Cl*fette G. MIson
Attorney for Plaintiff, COURTNEY S. Monid M. Zilberman
16 ETNYRE
Jessica A. Chasin
19
Paul, Plevin Sulliv Connaughton:
20
21
Michael C. an
22
Melissa ick
24
ORDER
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated:
3£,bjt O24i,40," H*#ilanda4Iapp
Judge ofthe Superior Court
-2-
Stipulation Re Soccer Game & [Proposed] Order
ORIGINAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO COURT USE ONLY
, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
,
TITLEOF CASE (ABBREVIATED)
PROOF OF SERVICE-CI¥IL
1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. My residence or'business address is: 550 West C Street Suite 1050, San Diego, CA 92101
3, .0 The fax number or electronic notiFication address from which I served the documents is:(complete if service was by fax or
electronic service):
IE The documents are listed' in the Attachment to 'Proof of Service-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-040(D)).
b. 5 (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or nvssenger service.) Business or
residential address where person was served:
(1) Fax number or electronic notification address where person was served:
01 The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachnent to Proof of Service--
Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)).
a. 0, By personal service. I personally dltivered: the documents:to the persons at the addresses listed h item 5.
(11') For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was madeto the attorney or at the attorney's office by
leaving the 'documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with
a receptionist or an individual in charge ofthe office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in
the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's
residence with some person not younger'than 18 years: of age between tir hours of eight in themoming-and
six in the evening.
b. f# By United States mail. I enclosed thedocuments in a sealed envelope or package addressed,to the persons
at the addresses in item 5 and (specify, one):
(1) O . deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, With the postage fully prepaid.
(2) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices, I am
readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On
the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing it is deposited in the ordinary course
of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully:prepaid.
I am, a resident or,employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or packagewas placed in the
maill at San Diego, California:
C. 0 By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided byan overnight
delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package
for collection and oyernight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop boxof the overnight delivery
carrier.
a. U By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the
persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messeng,r service for service.
(A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration
of Messenger below.)
e. !El By fax transmission. Based on an agreement ofthe parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed
the documents to the personsat the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine
that I used. A copy ofthe record ofthe fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached.
f. 0 By electronic service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic
transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification addresses listed
in item 5. I did not receive, withina reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
00361946
FILE
2 Clerk of the Superior Court I)
3
JUN 2 8 201]
Cy: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
4
14
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING:
16
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, during trial, the parties will not introduce evidence
17
through exhibits or questioning regarding inadmissible hearsay statements made to Etnyre by
18
Nancy Barnhardt, individuals from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"),
19
or Marvin Glover.2 Additionally, counsel will make no mention of reference to such statements
20
in front ofthejury.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 A-
23 Dated: 44,26,2011
HONORABLE RANDA TRAPP
24
25
26
1 Within her deposition Etnyre erroneously referred to Marvin Glover as "Marvin Jefferson", sothe same
stipulation will also apply to discussions with "Marvin Jefferson" referenced Within her deposition.
27
28
3
Stipulation and [Proposedl Order
. .
1
li Bi 01 : 1 1 ,·, f 1 :49
2 VF-i . L -E 11
Clerk of the Superior Court
3 JUN 2 8 2011
4
By: Anthony Shirley, Deputy
15
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING:
17
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, during trial no party will mention or introduce any
18
evidence of, or related to, any settlement or mediation related communications.
19
Specifically, the following will be excluded:
20
1. Any discussion or communications relating to the parties' April 2008 mediation,
21
including any agreement believed by any party to have been reached during mediation, Etnyre's
22
decision not to resolve the matterat that time, Etnyre's resulting resignation/termination, and any
23
i follow-up communications.
24
2. The parties' September 2009 mediation.
25
3. Any communications between the parties regarding the agreements made to toll
26
Etnyre's claims while the parties attempted to resolve their disputes.
27
4. Any communications with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing regarding
28
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order
.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: 2011 (-JA\_/ A 11 1-c J, 1 j,n
r'"' 6--4/0.7- -v_,-!
5
l HONORABLE RANDA TRAPP
6
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order