Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al

Filing 126

Declaration of Heather A. Moser in Support of Plaintiffs' 88 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Reply filed byVeterans United for Truth, Inc, Veterans for Common Sense. (Sprenkel, Stacey) (Filed on 2/11/2008) Modified on 2/12/2008 (aaa, Court Staff).

Download PDF
Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al Doc. 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GORDON P. ERSPAMER (CA SBN 83364) GErspamer@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450 P.O. Box 8130 Walnut Creek, California 94596-8130 Telephone: 925.295.3300 Facsimile: 925.946.9912 SIDNEY M. WOLINSKY (CA SBN 33716) SWolinsky@dralegal.org JENNIFER WEISER BEZOZA (CA SBN 247548) JBezoza@dralegal.org KATRINA KASEY CORBIT (CA SBN 237931) KCorbit@dralegal.org DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, California 94704-1204 Telephone: 510.665.8644 Facsimile: 510.665.8511 [see next page for additional counsel for Plaintiffs] Attorneys for Plaintiffs VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, and VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et al., Defendants. Case No. C-07-3758-SC CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF HEATHER A. MOSER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REPLY (Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a); Civil L.R. 65-2) Date: March 7, 2008 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 1, 17th Floor Complaint Filed July 23, 2007 MOSER DECL. IN SUPP. OF PLS.' MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. REPLY -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2463841 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: ARTURO J. GONZALEZ (CA SBN 121490) AGonzalez@mofo.com HEATHER A. MOSER (CA SBN 212686) HMoser@mofo.com STACEY M. SPRENKEL (CA SBN 241689) SSprenkel@mofo.com PAUL J. TAIRA (CA SBN 244427) PTaira@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 BILL D. JANICKI (CA SBN 215960) WJanicki@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2600 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.448.3200 Facsimile: 916.448.3222 MOSER DECL. IN SUPP. OF PLS.' MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. REPLY -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2463841 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER A. MOSER I, Heather A. Moser, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am admitted to practice before this Court. I am an associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Reply, filed herewith. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 2. On October 19, 2007, Plaintiffs served their First Amended First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to All Defendants. 3. Witnesses. 4. Discovery. 5. The deadline for responding to Plaintiffs' First Amended Set of Requests for On November 9, 2007, Defendants filed their first Motion for Protective Order to Stay On November 2, 2007, Plaintiffs served their first Notice of Deposition of Defendant Production of Documents passed on November 21, 2007. 6. On November 16, 2007, Plaintiffs served their Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to All Defendants. 7. On November 16, 2007, Plaintiffs served their Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 30(b)(6). 8. On November 21, 2007, Defendants filed their second Motion for Protective Order to Halt Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition and Bar Additional Document Requests. 9. The deadline for responding to Plaintiff's Second Amended Set of Requests for Production of Documents passed on December 19, 2007. 10. On December 11, 2007, I attempted to begin the meet-and-confer process with Defendants by letter regarding the outstanding document requests. 11. During oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on December 14, 2007, the Court granted Defendants' motion to stay pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. SPRENKEL DECL. IN SUPP. OF PLS.' MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. REPLY -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2463841 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. On January 10, 2008, the Court issued an Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and finding Defendants' two Motions to Stay moot. 13. On January 15, 2008, Defendants contacted Plaintiffs regarding discovery and the need to meet and confer regarding the outstanding discovery responses. 14. On January 16, 2008, Plaintiffs sent a response listing thirteen high priority document requests aimed at obtaining the documents most relevant to the pending preliminary injunction motion. 15. On February 5, 2008, Defendants produced less than 2,000 pages in response to only three of the thirteen high priority requests, Requests for Production 35, 73, and 102. Most documents appear to be documents otherwise available in the public domain and defense counsel has not indicated that any of them are eligible for confidentiality protection under the terms of the proposed protective order. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this 11th day of February, 2008, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Heather A. Moser Heather A. Moser I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this efiled document. SPRENKEL DECL. IN SUPP. OF PLS.' MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. REPLY -- CASE NO. C-07-3758-SC sf-2463841 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?