Dear Scott Greene (on behalf of AEG) and All:

 

I have just reviewed again your recent emails. It looks like we have much to do before a hearing in the Meet-And-Confer department. It looks like the Court may require postponement of the initial hearing, scheduled for October 5, 2021 till at least 30 days after each party was served the FAC.  

 

Since you are not able to agree to voice recording of such a meeting over the phone or zoom as an accommodation to my disabilities, I may suggest that we meet in person in order to comply with the preliminary Meet and Confer requirements if we cannot successfully meet the duty via correspondence,  How shall we proceed with that?  [That same suggestion is meant for all parties who will be reaching out soon.]

 

I don’t seem to have a copy of your filed Pleading/Response??  We still have to have our perfunctory meet-and-confer event,.

 

First of all, we did agree that we could achieve the Duty to meet and confer, via email. 2021 California Rules of Court – Rule 3.724 Duty to meet and confer which was not met by your August 31, 2021 at 2:33pm email.  

 

The Rule clearly states:

 

“Unless the court order another time period, no later than 30 days before the date set for the initial case management conference, the parties must meet and confer, in person or by telephone, to consider each of the issues identified in rule *3.727, and in addition, to consider the following:

(1)  Resolving any discovery disputes and setting a discovery schedule;

(2)  Identifying and, if possible, informally resolving any anticipated motions;

(3)  Identifying the facts and issues in the case that are uncontested and may be the subject of stipulation;

(4)  Identifying the facts and issues in the case that are in dispute;

(5)  Determining whether the issues in the case can be narrowed by eliminating any claims or defenses by means of a motion or otherwise;

(6)  Determining whether settlement is possible;

[Maybe not, after that response! Figuring out what’s next from here…  I AM OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS!!

Sheeeeezh! Dealing with attorneys in litigation is not supposed to be like walking on eggs shells in a bad relationship, is it?! 

Sure feels like disability discrimination and elder abuse, ALL OVER AGAIN!! DARN IT!  ]

(7)  Identifying the dates on which all parties and their attorneys are available or not available for trial, including the reasons for unavailability;

(8)  Any issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including:

(A)  Issues relating to the preservation of discoverable electronically stored information;

(B)  The form or forms in which information will be produced;

(C)  The time within which the information will be produced;

(D)  The scope of discovery of the information;

(E)  The method for asserting or preserving claims of privilege or attorney work product, including whether such claims may be asserted after production;

(F)  The method for asserting or preserving the confidentiality, privacy, trade secrets, or proprietary status of information relating to a party or person not a party to the civil proceedings;

(G)  How the cost of production of electronically stored information is to be allocated among the parties;

(H)  Any other issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including developing a proposed plan relating to the discovery of the information; and

(9)  Other relevant matters.

Rule 3.724 amended effective August 14, 2009; adopted effective January 1, 2007.

The highlighted sections above and below are clearly matters of serious concern to be addressed before moving forward.

 

Because you are unable/unwilling to accommodate my disabilities with permissions to record telephone or zoom calls, I am still in agreement that we can conduct the “meet and confer” requirements via correspondence, with hard copy served by mailed to me, and courtesy email copies, with the Judge’s permission, from you and all defendants and their representatives.  I think the Judge may want to rule on this, as the lack of order and sequencing also seems to be spinning way out of control.

 

Your assumption that I can be served electronically rather than in person is also just that, an assumption.  

 

I will need now and at all times going forward, from all defendants and defense firms, a complete hardcopy file and stipulation to meet before any time limit begins to run.  

 

Due to my disabilities, and my rural internet connections, I must have hard copy of all services to my PO Box; the street address does not have consistent mail delivery service.  If that can be accomplished INCLUDING electronic courtesy copies, that might serve as an accommodation for the refusal of permission to record telephone or zoom calls. The Judge may need to rule on that unless these are these things that we have the duty resolve before court?

 

I object to the demand for the production of documents and form interrogatories at this time as we have not met our duty to meet and confer, and you haven’t answered the Complaint yet, nor have I been served with your answer, in person with a courtesy email copy.  

 

I did extend several questions to your legal assistant as it relates clearly to item 8 of Rule 3.724 – Duty to meet and confer — and issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information….which will have to be resolved before I can commence any compilation efforts.

 

If you (and all) are unwillling to resolve these matters and get communications back on track, I can only ask the Judge for sanctions, should these acts be considered malicious and in bad faith and trickery.

 

As you know, intentional misrepresentation and Discrimination Against Elder with disclosed Disabilities is a huge part of this Complaint. 

 

I would not imagine that you would have heard back from any other defendants/defense firms yet.  Five have only just been served with the FAC – First Amended Complaint, and the others are starting the 30 day clock for response to the First Amended Complaint from date of personal service, per the Court Rules.

 

 

[My rural internet has been compromised for the past 10 days and required a change of vendor, so I’m now behind in review of your August 31, 2021 email, but I am catching up while still working on internet resolutions.]  

Or something else? We will also address production of documents and interrogatories without the meeting and confer duties?  It’s my understanding that the Meet and Confer meeting(s) must happen before Court.  

 

It’s my understanding that we don’t start with demands for production of documents and interrogatories until after the meet and confer and the FAC has been answered to the Court, so we will table response to those demands until it’s proper time and sequence comes up, which, I suspect, is after the 10/26/21 hearing, which will take place after the 10/5/2021 hearing  with all parties.  I have marked my calender to be in San Bernardino Superior Court also on 10/26/21 at 9 am.

 

Excerpt from your email:

Parties are required to file their civil motion and submit the filing fees within five (5) court days from the date of receipt of the confirmation email.”

 

Is that referencing your Answer/Pleadings, that is supposed to come after Meet and Confer, not before?

 

By copy to all known defense firms and defendants who have not, as yet, provided contact information for defense counsel, I am suggesting that all parties respectfully respect that I am an American with Disabilities, and further discrimination and abuse that cost me my home and health will not be tolerated.