Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 KRISTY KUNISAKI, CA BAR NO. 241005 Attorneys for STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S 12 HOSPITAL,
11 13 14 15 16

Case No: 5:07-CV-05158-JF

Petitioners, vs. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Respondent.

DECLARATION OF EILEEN R. RIDLEY IN SUPPORT OF STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS' AND LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
Date: Time: Dept: August 27, 2008 9:30 a.m. 4

17 18 19 20

SERVICE EMPLOYEES 21 INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Petitioner and Counter22 Respondent,
23 24

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel Magistrate Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg Case No: 5:08-CV-00213-JF

vs.

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and 25 LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
26 27 28
SFCA_1423395.1

Respondents and CounterPetitioners.

Judge:

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 2

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Petitioner,

Case No: 5:08-CV-00215-JF

3

vs.
4 5 6

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL Judge: Respondents. Hon. Jeremy Fogel

7 8 9 10 11

SERVICE EMPLOYEES Case No: 5:08-CV-00216-JF INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Petitioner, vs.

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S 12 HOSPITAL
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Judge: Respondents. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Petitioner, vs. STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL Judge: Respondents. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Petitioner, vs.

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

Case No: 5:08-CV-01726-JF

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

Case No: 5:08-CV-01727-JF

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S 25 HOSPITAL
26 27 28 2
RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF
SFCA_1423395.1

Respondents.

Judge:

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 7

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

1.

I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice in the State of California and

before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP, counsel of record for Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (hereinafter collectively "the Hospitals"). I am one of the attorneys with primary responsibility for representing the HOSPITALS in the above-referenced actions (the "Actions"). All of the matters stated within this Declaration are within my personal knowledge, and I am fully competent to testify as to each of these matters if called upon to do so. 2. The Court conducted a Case Management Conference on April 25, 2008

during which proceeding the Court [a] permitted the Hospitals to conduct discovery regarding the existence of Service Employees International Union, Local 715 ("SEIU, Local 715"), its representative capacity and the use of its resources and [b] set the hearing and filing dates for dispositive motions. The deadline to file dispositive motions was set for July 18, 2008. A true and correct copy of the transcript of that Case Management Conference is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On June 13, 2008, a Notice of Deposition of Bruce W. Smith for his

deposition set for June 26, 2008, was served to counsel of record for Petitioner and Counter-Respondent, SEIU, Local 715. A true and correct copy of this Notice of Deposition is hereto attached as Exhibits B-G. The deposition date was specifically scheduled to take place after SEIU, Local 715 produced documents pursuant to a Request for Production of Documents served by the Hospitals earlier. 4. On June 13, 2008, a Notice of Deposition of Myriam Escamilla for her

deposition set for July 2, 2008, was served to counsel of record for Petitioner and Counter-Respondent. A true and correct copy of this Notice of Deposition is hereto attached as Exhibits H-M. Again, the deposition date was specifically scheduled to take place after SEIU, Local 715 produced documents pursuant to a Request for Production of Documents served by the Hospitals earlier.
3
RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF

SFCA_1423395.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

Nationwide Legal, Inc. attempted to serve the deposition subpoena on Ms.

Escamilla on several occasions, but were unsuccessful due to Ms. Escamilla purposefully evading service. Specifically, while attempting to serve Ms. Escamilla with the deposition subpoena, a process server spoke with Ms. Escamilla by telephone on June 17, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. and made an appointment for Ms. Escamilla to accept service on the morning of June 18, 2008 at her home. On the date of the appointment, June 18, 2008 at 8:45 a.m., Ms. Escamilla informed the process server that she would not accept service. On the following two days, June 19 and 20, 2008, the process server attempted to serve Ms. Escamilla at her workplace. However, two separate receptionists notified the process server that he could leave the subpoena in a drop box but that no name of the person accepting service would be provided. Ms. Escamilla refused to accept service at her workplace. The process server again attempted to serve Ms. Escamilla at her home on June 21 and 22, 2008, but no one would answer the door even though he could hear voices inside Ms. Escamilla's apartment. Attached hereto as Exhibits N-S are true and correct copies of the Declarations of Ismael Velasco and Carlos Castro dated June 25, 2008 regarding attempted service of Ms. Escamilla. Attached hereto as Exhibits T-Y are true and correct copies of the Deposition Subpoena for Ms. Escamilla. 6. On June 13, 2008, a Notice of Deposition of Kristy Sermersheim for her

deposition set for July 1, 2008, was served to counsel of record for Petitioner and Counter-Respondent. A true and correct copy of this Notice of Deposition is hereto attached as Exhibits Z-EE. Once again, the deposition date was specifically scheduled to take place after SEIU, Local 715 and other union entities were to produce documents pursuant to a Request for Production of Documents and/or subpoena served by the Hospitals earlier. On June 16, 2008, Ms. Sermersheim was served with the deposition subpoena. A true and correct copy of this Deposition Subpoena is hereto attached as Exhibits FF-KK. ///
4
RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF

SFCA_1423395.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 5 of 7

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

7.

On June 23, 2008, I received a letter from Bruce Harland. In that letter, Mr.

Harland inquired as to whether Mr. Smith and Ms. Escamilla were subpoenaed as nonparties for deposition. Mr. Harland further wrote that if he was correct that Mr. Smith and Ms. Escamilla were non-parties, then he objected to the subpoenas on the basis that they were an effort to harass both Mr. Smith and Ms. Escamilla. Mr. Harland further notified me that Mr. Smith and Ms. Escamilla were not available for the dates noticed. A true and correct copy of this letter dated June 23, 2008 is hereto attached as Exhibit LL. 8. On the same day, June 23, 2008, I sent a letter to Mr. Harland in response

to his letter. In my letter, I clarified that Mr. Smith was served as a party since he acted as the trustee for SEIU, Local 715. I also notified Mr. Harland that Ms. Escamilla has repeatedly evaded service of a subpoena, and requested Mr. Harland's office whether it was authorized to accept service on Ms. Escamilla's behalf. My letter also clarified the purpose for the depositions of Mr. Smith and Ms. Escamilla. A true and correct copy of this letter dated June 23, 2008 is hereto attached as Exhibit MM. 9. On June 25, 2008, I emailed Mr. Harland regarding the depositions of Mr.

Smith and Ms. Escamilla. In my email, I specifically requested alternative dates for Mr. Smith and Ms. Escamilla, particularly in light of the July 18th deadline to file dispositive motions. A true and correct copy of this email is hereto attached as Exhibit NN. 10. On June 27, 2008, Scott Inciardi of my office received a letter from Andrea

Laiacona. In that letter, Ms. Laiacona notified Mr. Inciardi that Kristy Sermersheim was not available for deposition on July 1, 2008. Ms. Laiacona further requested that Mr. Inciardi contact her to "discuss possible dates and to discuss the necessity of taking Ms. Sermersheim's deposition." In her letter, Ms. Laiacona further stated that she did not believe that Ms. Sermersheim has any relevant information and indicated that she would file a motion to quash the subpoena if the Hospitals proceeded with scheduling Ms. Sermersheim's deposition. A true and correct copy of this letter dated June 26, 2008 is hereto attached as Exhibit OO.
5
RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF

SFCA_1423395.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 6 of 7

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

11.

On June 30, 2008, Mr. Inciardi responded to Ms. Laiacona's letter of June

26. In his response, Mr. Inciardi explained the necessity of the deposition of Ms. Sermersheim and requested that available dates be provided. To date, my office has not received a response to Mr. Inciardi's letter. A true and correct copy of this letter dated June 30, 2008 is hereto attached as Exhibit PP. 12. On June 27, 2008, I received a letter from Andrea Laiacona stating her

position on behalf of Local 521. In her letter, Ms. Laiacona (incorrectly) alleged that I had already expressly acknowledged that Local 715 exists, and that my client's request for discovery "[was] an abuse of process, burdensome, harassing and unnecessary and ... points to the bad faith [my] client [was] engaging in ...maintaining this litigation." A true and correct copy of this letter is hereto attached as Exhibit QQ. 13. On Friday, June 27, 2008, because I had not received a response to my

email of June 25, 2008, I emailed Mr. Harland to follow-up to my prior email. Mr. Harland responded on June 30, 2008, and notified me that he would be available to speak with me on July 1, 2008. A true and correct copy of these emails are hereto attached as Exhibit RR. 14. On July 1, 2008, I had not heard from Mr. Harland despite his

representation that he would be available to meet and confer. I emailed Mr. Harland requesting a response from him regarding the pending discovery issues. On July 1, 2008 after 5:00 p.m., Mr. Harland responded to my email. In his email, Mr. Harland refused to stipulate to continue the July 18, 2008 filing date for dispositive motions. Mr. Harland further refused to offer deposition dates for Ms. Escamilla and offered the deposition dates of July 14, 15, 16, 17, 2008 for the deposition of Mr. Smith. I responded to Mr. Harland's email via email at 9:12 p.m. on that same day. In my email, I refuted Mr. Harland's contentions regarding the necessity of the discovery propounded by my clients. On July 2, 2008, at 7:12 p.m., I received an email from Mr. Harland notifying me that he was available on July 3 to meet and confer. In that email, Mr. Harland also proposed that
6
RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF

SFCA_1423395.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 7 of 7

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

we meet and confer after he has had an opportunity to address our meet and confer letter of July 1, 2008. I responded to Mr. Harland's email on July 3, 2008, proposing dates for a telephone conference on either July 7 or 8. A true and correct copy of these emails are hereto attached as Exhibit SS. 15. On July 9, 2008, I met and conferred with Mr. Harland regarding

outstanding discovery issues, including setting dates for depositions. In that conversation, I told Mr. Harland that it was necessary first to obtain all responsive documents to the pending discovery requests (including the request for production from SEIU, Local 715) in order to complete the depositions. I outlined the Hospitals' position with respect to outstanding discovery issues in an email to Mr. Harland dated July 9, 2008. A true and correct copy of this email is hereto attached as Exhibit TT. 16. Prior to the filing of this motion to compel, I made a reasonable and good

faith attempt to resolve the disputed response raised by this motion with counsel for Plaintiffs as reflected in Exhibits LL-TT attached hereto. The attempts to meet and confer were not successful. 17. I have reviewed the time entries on this matter and am familiar with the

billable rates of the attorneys work on the Actions. The Hospitals estimate that they have expended and/or will expend (including any appearance at the hearing of this motion) a total of approximately $10,000 in bringing this motion. 18. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this eleventh day of July 2008 in San Francisco, California.

/s/ EILEEN R. RIDLEY

7
RIDLEY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS CASE NOS. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, 5:08-CV-00213-JF, 5:08-CV-00215-JF; 5:08-CV-00216-JF; 5:08-CV-01726-JF; 5:08-CV-01727-JF

SFCA_1423395.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-2

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 18

EXHIBIT A

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 2 of 18
Page 1 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, PETITIONER, CV-07-5158-JF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA APRIL 25, 2008 VS. ) ) ) PAGES 1-17 STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS & LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, RESPONDENT.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A P P E A R A N C E S: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FOR THE DEFENDANT: STANFORD HOSPITAL LUCILE PACKARD FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SEIU

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD BY: BRUCE HARLAND . 1001 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY. STE 200 ALAMEDA, CA 94501

FOLEY & LARDNER BY: EILEEN RIDLEY ONE MARITIME PLAZA, 6TH FL SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: SUMMER CLANTON, CSR, CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185 1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 3 of 18
Paqe 2 of 17

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

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 25, 2008

P R O C E E D I N G S (WHEREUPON, COURT CONVENED AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:) THE COURT: ALL OF THE SEIU, WHICH I

BELIEVE ALL HAVE THE SAME NAME. SEIU VERSUS STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS. MR. HARLAND: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

BRUCE HARLAND FOR SEIU LOCAL 715. MS. RIDLEY: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

EILEEN RIDLEY, FOLEY AND LARDNER, ON BEHALF OF STANFORD HOSPITAL AND LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. THE COURT: OKAY. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A

COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON. I DID RELATE ALL THE CASES AND THERE SHOULD BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING. I DIDN'T CONSOLIDATE ANYTHING.

I'M TREATING THEM AS SEPARATE CASES, BUT I CONCLUDED THERE IS ENOUGH OF AN OVERLAP AMONG THE DISPUTES THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ONE JUDGE TO HANDLE THEM. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHETHER WE ARE IN A POSITION TO SET ANY TYPE OF SCHEDULE OR WHETHER WE SHOULD TRY TO GET EVERYONE TOGETHER FOR A SINGLE ADR PROCEDURE OR WHAT THE APPROPRIATE NEXT MOVE IS
2

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 4 of 18
Page 3 of 17

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

AT THIS POINT. MR. HARLAND: BRUCE HARLAND. YOUR HONOR, THIS IS

I DON'T THINK ANY ADR IS GOING TO

BE HELPFUL IN THIS SITUATION. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IN THE RELATED CASE, 051 -- OR, 5158 -- WE AGREED AT THE LAST CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION IN THAT MATTER BY JUNE 20TH. THE COURT: MR. HARLAND: OKAY. AND THAT'S A PETITION TO

VACATE FILED BY STANFORD HOSPITAL. 213, BEFORE YOU TODAY, IS A PETITION, PART OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, WHICH IN THE UNION'S OPINION IS JUST A STRAIGHT LEGAL ISSUE. 20TH. THE COURT: BASICALLY JUST SET A MOTIONS I WOULD PROPOSE HAVING 505 ON JUNE

DATE FOR ANY MOTIONS ANYONE WANTS TO FILE IN ANY OF THE RELATED CASES? MR. HARLAND: YEAH. BEFORE JUNE 20TH. I

DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED IN THESE CASES, BECAUSE THERE'S JUST A PURE LEGAL ISSUE, ANY NEED TO DO DISCOVERY. THE COURT: OKAY. I SEE COUNSEL SHAKING

HER HEAD, SO PERHAPS I SHOULD HERE FROM HER. MS. RIDLEY: A COUPLE OF POINTS WITH 3

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 5 of 18
Paqe 4 of 17

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

REGARD TO THAT. ONE, THE CASES MOST RECENTLY RELATED, WE'VE NOT EVEN APPEARED YET, AND WE THINK THEY ARE SURFACE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THOSE. THE SURFACE ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED MUCH LIKE THE OTHER ISSUES BUT THEY ARE IN A DIFFERENT STATUS. SECOND, THERE'S DIFFERENT ISSUES FROM THE CASE -- THE FIRST FILED CASE FROM THE RELATED CASES THAN THE OTHERS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, BUT ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES IS THE STATUS OF LOCAL 715, THE ISSUES OF RESOURCES, AND THE REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY. THOSE HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO SOME

DISCOVERY WHICH WE BELIEVE HAS TO BE DONE. AND GIVEN THE JUNE 20TH DATE, I DON'T KNOW WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH REGARD TO WHO IS REPRESENTING THAT LOCAL, WHETHER IT EXISTS, AND WHETHER RESOURCES HAVE BEEN SENT. THE COURT: DO THAT? MS. RIDLEY: I ANTICIPATE, WITH REGARD TO HOW QUICKLY WILL IT TAKE TO

DISCOVERY, IS SOME DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, POSSIBLE REQUEST AND A POSSIBLE DEPOSITIONS. THE ISSUE REALLY GOES TO A VERY DISCREET
4

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 6 of 18
Page 5 of 17

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

CONCERN WITH REGARD TO THE RESOURCES AND REPRESENTATION. THE COURT: WITH. LET ME GET COUNSEL TO RESPOND. MR. HARLAND? MR. HARLAND: SURE. I THINK IT WILL RIGHT, WHO ARE YOU DEALING

TAKE -- IT WILL BE SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY BASED ON THE PAST RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NUMBER TWO, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED ANY OF THAT INFORMATION, OR THEY NEED ANY OF THAT INFORMATION TO ARGUE A PETITION TO CONFIRM AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR EVEN A PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN SET THE

MOTION SCHEDULES ON THE ARBITRATION CASES QUICKLY, AND THEN THE OTHER MATTER HAVING TO DO WITH WHO IS BARGAINING WITH WHOM CAN BE WORKED OUT IN A SLOWER TIME FRAME. MR. HARLAND: WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE

BE ALLOWED TO BRING THE MOTION BY JUNE 20TH BY ALL THE CASES EXCEPT FOR THE TWO THAT HAVE JUST BEEN RELATED. I GUESS THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME HEAR FROM

STANFORD AS TO WHY THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. 5

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 7 of 18
Paqe 6 of 17

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

MS. RIDLEY:

THEY ARE TRYING TO COMPEL AN

ARBITRATION BASED ON AN ENTITY AND A SERVICING AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE REJECTED, WITH REGARD TO COUNSEL, WHO HASN'T CLARIFIED WHO THEY ARE REPRESENTING, AN ENTITY THAT MAY NOT IN FACT EXIST. THE COURT: WOULD ANY OF THAT GO TO THE

ENFORCEABILITY OR THE LEGALITY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARDS IN QUESTION? MS. RIDLEY: YES, YOUR HONOR. AND WE

THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES INCLUDING -- FOR INSTANCE, IN THE FIRST CASE THAT EVERYTHING IS RELATED TO, DEALING WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE ARBITRATOR IN THAT CASE WENT BEYOND HIS POWERS TO DETERMINE CERTAIN ISSUES. THE COURT: MR. HARLAND: OKAY. AND THAT'S JUST THE PURE

LEGAL ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S A MATTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATOR WHICH HE EITHER WENT BEYOND THAT ISSUE OR HE DIDN'T GO BEYOND THAT ISSUE. TO HIM THE COURT: LET ME JUST HYPOTHETICALLY IF HE DIDN'T GO BEYOND THE ISSUES SUBMITTED

SUGGEST SOMETHING AND GET A RESPONSE. WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WHAT 6

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 8 of 18
Page 7 of 17

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

MR. HARLAND JUST SAID IS CORRECT. THE COURT LOOKS AT THE ARBITRATION AWARD, AND IS THERE AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE, AND IS THE AWARD NOT COMPLETELY OFF THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, AND SOMETIMES EVEN THOSE ARE OKAY. NOT. BUT IN TERMS OF THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD, THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. IF THE ARBITRATION INVOLVED PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, FOR INSTANCE, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW GREAT A JOB THE ARBITRATOR DID IF THERE'S NOTHING TO ENFORCE. SO THOSE ARE SEPARATE QUESTIONS. AND I GUESS I WANT TO TRY TO GET AN INDICATION -- IS IT THE UNION'S POSITION THAT THE COURT SHOULD ADJUDICATE WHETHER THE AWARD SHOULD BE CONFIRMED OR NOT CONFIRMED JUST BASED ON TRADITIONAL ARBITRATION PRINCIPLES, AND THEN LEAVE FOR ANOTHER DAY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AT LEAST ONE PARTY TO THAT ARBITRATION ACTUALLY HAD STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN IT, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK I HEAR COUNSEL SUGGESTING. MR. HARLAND: I THINK YOU CAN RESOLVE -AND YOU JUST EITHER DECIDE TO CONFIRM IT OR

I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO EVEN GET TO THE SECOND ISSUE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN RESOLVE BOTH OF THOSE
7

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 9 of 18
Page 8 of 17

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

ISSUES IN ONE MOTION WITHOUT ANY DISCOVERY. THE COURT: BUT HOW DO YOU -- I'M SORRY

TO INTERRUPT YOU -- BUT HOW DO YOU RESOLVE AN ISSUE SUCH AS REPRESENTATION WITHOUT GETTING INTO SOME TYPE OF FACTUAL INQUIRY? MR. HARLAND: WELL, FIRST, THE COURT DOES

NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS OF THE UNION, THAT'S THE NLRB'S JURISDICTION, SO THAT'S JUST A PURE LEGAL ISSUE THERE. THE COURT IS ONLY, AS YOU SAID, LOOKING AT THE CONTRACT, LOOKING AT THE ARBITRATION AND DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE ARBITRATOR ISSUED THE ARBITRATION AWARD BY DRAWING THE ESSENCE OF THE AWARD FROM THE CONTRACT OR, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT HE VIOLATED POLICY. YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING ONLY AT LIMITED THINGS. THE REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS OF THE UNION, IS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT AND THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE ANY JURISDICTION. THE COURT: BUT WHY WOULD THE COURT WANT

TO SPEND THE TIME EVALUATING THE ENFORCEABILITY OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD IF ULTIMATELY THE PARTIES WHO ARE SEEKING ENFORCEMENT DON'T HAVE STANDING? IN OTHER WORDS, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, 8

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 10 of 18
Paqe 9 of 17

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

THE COURT CAN LOOK AT THE AWARD WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS, BUT WHY WOULD THE COURT DO THAT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A FIGHT ABOUT THAT LATER? MR. HARLAND: WELL, AGAIN, I THINK YOU

CAN DO ALL OF THAT WITHOUT ANY DISCOVERY. I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WHOLE THING THAT TICKED US OFF WAS A PETITION TO VACATE FILES BY STANFORD. THEY SAY THEY DON'T THINK EXISTS -- OR

THEY HAVE DOUBTS THAT EXISTS. THERE IS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OTHER THAN I DON'T THINK ANY DISCOVERY IS NECESSARY IN TERMS OF THE UNION. BUT THE COURT COULD CONFIRM THE

ARBITRATION AWARD AND THEN ENFORCE IT, AT THAT POINT, DETERMINE IF THE UNION HAD ANY STANDING OR NOT. THE COURT: WHY WOULD -- IF IT'S NOT

ENFORCEABLE -- AND I DON'T MEAN TO GET INTO A HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT. BUT IF IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE

BECAUSE IT WASN'T OBTAINED BY A PARTY WITH STANDING, WHY WOULD THE COURT WANT TO INVEST THE RESOURCES DECIDING WHETHER IT'S ENFORCEABLE OR NOT? MR. HARLAND: IN TERMS OF WHO HAS

STANDING, THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS STANDING IS THE 9

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 11 of 18
Page 10 of 17

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

PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. THE COURT: MR. HARLAND: RIGHT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A LEGAL

ISSUE IN TERMS OF WHO THE PARTIES HAVE AS THEIR ADVOCATE AT THE ARBITRATION. THE COURT: COUNSEL. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER SOMETHING I DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER. BUT SAY THERE'S A CONTRACT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE,

BETWEEN A AND B, AND Z SHOWS UP AT THE ARBITRATION AND SAYS, I'M A. MR. HARLAND: ARE DEALING WITH. THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION WE

WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS THE

CONTRACTS BETWEEN A AND B. B SHOWS UP TO THE ARBITRATION AND THE ATTORNEY FOR B SAYS, I'M APPEARING ON BEHALF OF B. COUNSEL FOR THE HOSPITALS ARE SAYING THAT THEY QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT OUR FIRM ACTUALLY REPRESENTS B DIRECTLY. THAT'S NOT A STANDING ISSUE, THAT'S A QUESTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THE COURT: IN MY HYPOTHETICAL, THOUGH,

YOU HAVE A PARTY WHO WASN'T WHO THEY SAID THEY WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE ARBITRATION, AND THEN YOU GET 10

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 12 of 18
Page 11 of 17

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

AN ADJUDICATION WHICH IS A RESULT OF THE POSITIONS TAKEN BY THAT PARTY AND IT TURNS OUT THE ACTUAL PARTY WASN'T THERE. THAT GOES TO THE QUESTION OF

WHETHER THE ARBITRATION AWARD HAS ANY VALIDITY. THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT TO BE. I'M NOT -- I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THERE'S ANY

TRUTH TO IT, BUT IT'S MORE THAN A QUESTION OF WHO THE LAWYER IS. WHAT I GATHER FROM THE VARIOUS PAPERS I'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS IS THAT THERE'S A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER A LOCAL 715 REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE WHO IT PURPORTS TO REPRESENT. MR. HARLAND: BUT THAT IS AN ISSUE

ENTIRELY BEFORE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE THE COURT: RIGHT. IT IS. AND I'M NOT

PURPORTING TO DECIDE THAT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS BEFORE I ENTERTAIN A PETITION TO VACATE OR ENFORCE AN ARBITRATION AWARD, I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WHOLE THING ISN'T GOING TO GET UNDERCUT BY AN ORDER FROM THE NLRB COMING OUT AT SOME FUTURE POINT IN TIME SAYING, ACTUALLY, THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE HAD NO RIGHT TO BE THERE. THIS IS A RESOURCE QUESTION FOR ME. I
11

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 13 of 18
Page 12 of 17

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

THINK WHAT YOU SAID IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE COURT CAN LOOK AT THE ARBITRATION AWARD AND DECIDE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE, IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, WITHOUT REVOLVING THE STANDING ISSUE AT ALL. I'M JUST TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S A PRUDENT THING TO DO. WHY SHOULD THE COURT GO THROUGH LITIGATING ALL OF THAT IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IT MAY NOT MEAN ANYTHING? MR. HARLAND: YOU COULD SAY THAT IN ANY

PETITION TO COMPEL, OR PETITION TO CONFIRM, OR PETITION TO VACATE AT ANY POINT, AND IT GIVES A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP. THE EMPLOYER CAN SAY, WE DON'T THINK THE UNION REPRESENTS WHO THEY PURPORT TO REPRESENT. BUT THE QUESTION IS: AT THE HEARING, THE PARTIES SHOWED UP; THE UNION ENTERED AN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF LOCAL 715; A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS A TRUSTEE OF 715 APPEARED. THERE'S NO ISSUE OTHER THAN THAT. THE UNION IS JUST SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE AWARD THAT THEY RECEIVED AS A PROPOSED AGREEMENT. THE COURT: LET ME JUST ASK COUNSEL.

IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THE COURT CAN'T LOOK AT THE MERITS OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD? 12

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 14 of 18
Paqe 13 of 17

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 INTEREST.

MS. RIDLEY:

YES, BECAUSE ONE OF THE

THINGS THE ARBITRATOR DID WAS DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF REPRESENTATION AND STANDING. EVEN THOUGH DURING THE PROCEEDING THE ARBITRATOR SAID THAT'S NOT THEIR JURISDICTION, THEY ACTUALLY MADE THAT DECISION. AND THAT IS, ORGANICALLY, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT GOES BEYOND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN CONFIRM THE ARBITRATION AWARD BUT ALSO IT'S ENFORCEABILITY. THE COURT: SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO EXPEDITE

THE DISCOVERY ON THIS STANDING ISSUE? MS. RIDLEY: WE ARE PREPARED TO ISSUE THE

REQUESTS, TO IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, THE DEPOSITIONS THAT WE NEED WITH REGARD TO IT ONCE WE GET THE DOCUMENTS WE THINK ARE RELEVANT TO FAIRLY NARROW THE ISSUE WE ARE RAISING HERE. THE COURT: COUNSEL, IS THERE SOME REASON

WHY THAT CAN'T BE DONE QUICKLY? MR. HARLAND: THE COURT: MR. HARLAND: DONE QUICKLY. ARE YOU ASKING ME? YES, COUNSEL. I AM.

I MEAN, I HOPE IT COULD BE

I DOUBT THAT IT WILL BE, BUT I HOPE

THAT IT COULD BE DONE QUICKLY. THE COURT: WELL, IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S

ALL RIGHT, HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. 13

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 15 of 18
Page 14 of 17

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

AND THIS IS NECESSARILY BASED ON IMPRESSIONS RATHER THAN HAVING POURED THROUGH HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. BUT I THINK DISCOVERY SHOULD PROCEED ON

THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S GOING ON ARISE AT SOME POINT. AND THE COURT IS NOT PURPORTING TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER SOMETHING THAT THE NLRB HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER, BUT ONLY TO AID THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE MOTIONS IT'S GOING TO HEAR. AND I WILL MOVE THE FILING DATE FOR THE PETITION TO VACATE IN THE PETITION TO COMPEL. I WILL MOVE THEM BACK 30 DAYS, SO WE WILL MOVE TO JULY 18TH IN LIEU OF THE JUNE 20TH DATE. AND DISCOVERY IS TO PROCEED, AND IF THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH THAT, THEY ARE REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEEBORG. THEN THE HEARING DATE ON THE CROSS-MOTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ARBITRATION AWARD WOULD BE AUGUST 29TH. AND I THINK THAT MAYBE -- I THINK THAT WORKS. AUGUST 20TH AT 9:00. OKAY. SO IF I HAVE IT

MR. HARLAND:

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, BY JULY 18TH, 2008, DISCOVERY SHOULD BE COMPLETED, ARE YOU SAYING? THE COURT: I'M SAYING THAT'S WHEN THE

MOTIONS SHOULD BE FILED. 14

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 16 of 18
Page 15 of 17

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

MR. HARLAND: THE COURT:

OKAY. DISCOVERY IS GOING TO HAVE TO

GET DONE BEFORE THAT. I'M LEAVING THAT TO THE PARTIES. AND I REALIZE THIS IS AN ACRIMONIOUS

RELATIONSHIP, AND I EXPECT COUNSEL TO COOPERATE AND USE ALL THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESIES THAT THEY CAN TO GET IT DONE SO THAT MOTIONS CAN BE FILED ON JULY 18TH. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A HEARING ON THE CROSS-MOTIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE ARBITRATION AWARD, ON AUGUST 29TH. MS. RIDLEY: MR. HARLAND: THE COURT: AND I WOULD -FOR BOTH OF THEM? FOR BOTH OF THEM, YES.

THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY CROSS-MOTIONS. MS. RIDLEY: AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE

MOTIONS IN THE FIRST FILED CASE, JUST TO BE CLEAR. THE COURT: MS. RIDLEY: YES. AND THERE'S NO GENERAL ORDER

ABOUT THE CLOSURE OF DISCOVERY FOR ALL THE RELATED? THE COURT: NO, NO. AND THERE'S ONLY ONE

ARBITRATION AWARD, RIGHT? MS. RIDLEY: THE COURT: RIGHT. AND ONE PARTY WANTS TO

ENFORCE IT AND THE OTHER ONE WANTS TO VACATE IT. 15

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 17 of 18
Page 16 of 17

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

MR. HARLAND:

ACTUALLY, THERE'S TWO.

THERE'S AN ARBITRATION AWARD IN 5158 WHICH THE HOSPITAL IS SEEKING TO VACATE. THE COURT: OKAY. AND THEN THERE IS ONE

THE UNION IS SEEKING TO ENFORCE. MR. HARLAND: THE COURT: YES. I WANT TO KEEP ALL OF THIS -

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS ONE TROUBLED RELATIONSHIP. THAT'S THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT. I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT WITH A BIG PICTURE RATHER THAN BREAK IT UP INTO CONSTITUENT PARTS BECAUSE IT WILL DRIVE ME NUTS IF I DO THAT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. RIDLEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER WERE CONCLUDED.)

16

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF
Case 5:07-cv-05158-JF

Document 46-2
Document 40

Filed 07/11/2008
Filed 06/27/2008

Page 18 of 18
Page 17 of 17

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )

I,

THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT

REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY: THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE, FULL AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREINBEFORE ENTITLED AND REDUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

SUMMER A. CLANTON OFFICIAL REPORTER, CSR NO. 13185

17

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-3

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT B

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-3

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Petitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL Petitioners, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Respondent.

Case No: 5:07-CV-05158-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Bruce W. Smith, alleged trustee for Service Employees International Union, Local 715, a party to this action, will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by petitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Thursday, June 26, 2008. /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO. 5:07-CV-05158-JF

SFCA_1406860.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-3

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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
SFCA_1 406860.1

So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows: 2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131

408.594.8715
A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service.

Dated: June 10, 2008

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO. 5:07-CV-05158-JF

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-3

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, Case No. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-4

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

ExHIBIT C

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-4

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 415.434.4484 TELEPHONE: FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Respondents and Counter-Petitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children ' s Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Petitioner and CounterRespondent, v. STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Respondents and CounterPetitioners.

Case No: 5:08-CV-00213-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Bruce W. Smith, alleged trustee for Service Employees International Union, Local 715, a party to this action, will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by respondents and counterpetitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Thursday, June 26, 2008. /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00213-JF

SFCA 14f)6R44.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-4

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows:

2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715
A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service.

Dated: June 10, 2008

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

B

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00213-JF
SFCA 14068441

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-4

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, Case No. 5:08-CV-00213-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-5

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT D

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-5

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Petitioner, vs. STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS AND LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Respondents.

Case No: 5:08-CV-00215-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH

Judge:

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Bruce W. Smith, alleged trustee for Service Employees International Union, Local 715, a party to this action, will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Thursday, June 26, 2008. /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00215-JF

SFCA_1406821.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-5

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows: 2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715 A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service.

Dated: June 10, 2008

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

Bv:

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00215-JF
SFCA_1406821.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-5

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

1

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, Case No. 5:08-CV-00215-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

2 3
4

5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.

14
15 16 17

18


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-6

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT E

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-6

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Petitioner, vs. STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS AND LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Respondents.

Case No: 5:08-CV-00216-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH

Judge:

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Bruce W. Smith, alleged trustee for Service Employees International Union, Local 715, a party to this action, will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Thursday, June 26, 2008. /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00216-JF

SFCA_1384604.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-6

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows: 2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715 A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service.

Dated: June 10, 2008

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00216-JF
SFCA_1384604.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-6

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, Case No. 5:08-CV-00216-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.

15
16 17

18


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-7

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

ExHIBIT F

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-7

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Petitioner, vs. STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS AND LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Respondents.

Case No: 5:08-CV-01726-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH

Judge:

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Bruce W. Smith, alleged trustee for Service Employees International Union, Local 715, a party to this action, will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Thursday, June 26, 2008. /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-01726-JF

SFCA_1406829.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-7

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows: 2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715 A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service.

Dated: June 10, 2008

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

B v:

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-01726-JF
SFCA_1406829.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-7

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, Case No. 5:08-CV-01726-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023

13
14 15



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, m the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.

16 17 18


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21

22 23
24

25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-8

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

ExHIBIT G

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-8

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 415.434.4507 FACSIMILE: LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Petitioner, vs. STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS AND LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Respondents.

Case No: 5:08-CV-01727-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH

Judge:

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Bruce W. Smith, alleged trustee for Service Employees International Union, Local 715, a party to this action, will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by respondents Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Thursday, June 26, 2008. /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-01727-JF

SFCA_1406836.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-8

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows: 2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715 A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service.

Dated: June 10, 2008

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

B.

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH CASE NO: 5:08-CV-01727-JF SFCA_1 406836.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-8

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3
4

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF BRUCE W. SMITH, Case No. 5:08-CV-01727-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

5 6 7 8 9
10 11

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023

12 13
14 15 16 17 18



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21

22 23
24

25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-9

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT H

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-9

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 415.434.4484 TELEPHONE: FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814
Attorneys for Petitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL Petitioners, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715 Respondent.

Case No: 5:07-CV-05158-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Myriam Escamilla will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by petitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. /// /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA CASE NO. 5:07-CV-05158-JF

SFCA_1406890.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-9

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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
SFCA_1406890.1

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT the deponent is not a party to this action. So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows:

2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715
Said deponent has been served with a deposition subpoena. A copy of the deposition subpoena is attached hereto and served herewith. A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service. Dated: June 10, 2008 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

Bv:

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA CASE NO. 5:07-CV-05158-JF

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-9

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA, Case No. 5:07-CV-05158-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows: BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023

13
14



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carrier representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.

15
16 17 18


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21

22 23
24

25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-10

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 4

ExHIBIT I

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-10

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 415.434.4507 FACSIMILE: LAURENCE R. ARNOLD, CA BAR NO. 133715 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA BAR NO. 151735 SCOTT P. INCIARDI, CA BAR NO. 228814 Attorneys for Respondents and Counter-Petitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 715, Petitioner and CounterRespondent, v. STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS and LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Respondents and CounterPetitioners.

Case No: 5:08-CV-00213-JF

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA

Judge: Hon Jeremy Fogel TO EACH PARTY AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT: the deposition of Myriam Escamilla will be taken stenographically and recorded on audiotape and videotape by respondents and counterpetitioners Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at the law offices of Foley & Lardner LLP, 975 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 commencing at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. /// /// ///
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00213-JF

SFCA 14f16R541

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-10

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT the deponent is not a party to this action. So far as known to the deposing party, the deponent's alleged business address and telephone number are as follows: 2302 Zanker Road San Jose, CA, 95131 408.594.8715 Said deponent has been served with a deposition subpoena. A copy of the deposition subpoena is attached hereto and served herewith. A list of all parties or attorneys for parties on whom this Notice of Deposition is being served is shown on the accompanying Proof of Service. Dated: June 10, 2008 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LAURENCE R. ARNOLD EILEEN R RIDLEY SCOTT P. INCIARDI

By:

2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA CASE NO: 5:08-CV-00213-JF
SFCA 14OARS4.1

Case 5:08-cv-00213-JF

Document 46-10

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 4 of 4

1

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action; my current business address is One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3409. On June 13, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MYRIAM ESCAMILLA, Case No. 5:08-CV-00213-JF, on the interested parties in this action as follows:

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

William Sokol, Esq. W. Daniel Boone, Esq. Bruce A. Harland, Esq. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 (510) 337-1023



BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER (Via Overnight Courier Service) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by Federal Express: collected packages are picked up by an express carder representative on the same day, with the Airbill listing the account number for billing to sender, at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I placed the envelope(s) in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier for collection and processing for express service delivery on the above date following ordinary business practices.


19

Executed on June 13, 2008, at San Francisco, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.


20


21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 5:08-cv-00213